http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/21/101946
Poll Vaults: Flubber Flights of Fancy
Dan Frisa
Monday, Aug. 21, 2000
The Absent-Minded Professor has apparently re-emerged from his Disney lab long enough to affix Flubber – the mysterious gravity-defying substance – to Al Gore’s clay feet; that’s the only credible explanation for the fantastic flight of fancy propelled by a purported supersonic "bounce" reported by several pollsters following the Democratic convention.
Like the mythical Flubber, which always lost its magical properties after a short while, it won’t take long for reality to set in and for these works of research fiction to come crashing back down to earth.
Not one of the several polls showing huge upswings for Gore report sampling registered voters. That’s right, only adults over 18 years of age were surveyed, not registered voters. Why poll people who can't vote?
Even more perplexing is that none of these polls measured registered likely voters. Remember that not every registered voter actually casts a vote; many people never get out to the polls and vote even though they are enrolled to do so.
These are critical flaws in most of the polling conducted today and therefore put their predictive ability into serious question. Never have more than 50 percent of age-eligible voters ever cast ballots in a presidential election. Why, then, include the opinions of half the population that cannot or will not vote?
Consider, also, that consistently over the years polling typically understates conservative voting impact on final electoral results – and the polls preceding elections – because conservatives vote more than others, giving them a proportionally greater share on election day as they actually get out and vote.
Therefore, polls which do not attempt to measure the preferences of registered likely voters give an inaccurate and distorted picture of the only sentiments which count: those of people who vote.
Furthermore, some logic is in order. The media has told us that most Americans don’t watch the conventions, so aside from the flawed samples discussed above, how could the convention have such an astounding affect on public sentiment if such a small portion of the public is tuned in? Even accounting for the spill-over effect on news coverage, what degree of impact is possible when initial interest is so low of the event being reported?
Another important factor that should raise a healthy suspicion: The mainstream liberal media pay for these polls. How likely is it that they will continue footing the bill for results which don’t fit neatly into their left-leaning bias? Do you trust Dan Rather and CBS? Tom Brokaw and NBC? Peter Jennings and ABC? How about Al Hunt at the Wall Street Journal? Judy Woodruff (Mrs. Al Hunt) and CNN? The New York Times? The Washington Post? And all the rest?
These are the people who pay for the polls. If they slant the news to influence public opinion, is it such a stretch that they might also want to slant the polls to influence public opinion? Or change pollsters if the results don’t comport with their political leanings? Is it possible the pollsters know this and might consider the likelihood of continuing to get paid for work their cash cows in the media frown upon every time they walk in with a bound set of cross-tabs?
With twelve weeks remaining to election day there is a great deal of time and plenty of latitude before the chickens come home to roost. A window of opportunity exists within which to attempt to affect the opinion of the electorate. The external clarifying event – Election Day – is now far off, giving ample time to play the partisan politics of polling.
This is precisely what is occurring with the current, much-ballyhooed spate of miraculous pro-Gore, Flubber-inspired upswings in poll results. These suspect numbers are clearly intended to influence public opinion by disheartening the conservative base, energizing the liberal base, and swaying the undecideds toward Gore.
Remember, too, that the Electoral College pays no mind to nationwide popular vote tallies; it is based soley on statewide, winner-take-all results. Current analyses place the Bush total at some 350 electoral votes, with only 270 needed to elect a president.
So be very wary, be highly critical, but do not be fooled. Help is on the way, and it won’t be long now: it’s called reality.
Poll Vaults: Flubber Flights of Fancy
Dan Frisa
Monday, Aug. 21, 2000
The Absent-Minded Professor has apparently re-emerged from his Disney lab long enough to affix Flubber – the mysterious gravity-defying substance – to Al Gore’s clay feet; that’s the only credible explanation for the fantastic flight of fancy propelled by a purported supersonic "bounce" reported by several pollsters following the Democratic convention.
Like the mythical Flubber, which always lost its magical properties after a short while, it won’t take long for reality to set in and for these works of research fiction to come crashing back down to earth.
Not one of the several polls showing huge upswings for Gore report sampling registered voters. That’s right, only adults over 18 years of age were surveyed, not registered voters. Why poll people who can't vote?
Even more perplexing is that none of these polls measured registered likely voters. Remember that not every registered voter actually casts a vote; many people never get out to the polls and vote even though they are enrolled to do so.
These are critical flaws in most of the polling conducted today and therefore put their predictive ability into serious question. Never have more than 50 percent of age-eligible voters ever cast ballots in a presidential election. Why, then, include the opinions of half the population that cannot or will not vote?
Consider, also, that consistently over the years polling typically understates conservative voting impact on final electoral results – and the polls preceding elections – because conservatives vote more than others, giving them a proportionally greater share on election day as they actually get out and vote.
Therefore, polls which do not attempt to measure the preferences of registered likely voters give an inaccurate and distorted picture of the only sentiments which count: those of people who vote.
Furthermore, some logic is in order. The media has told us that most Americans don’t watch the conventions, so aside from the flawed samples discussed above, how could the convention have such an astounding affect on public sentiment if such a small portion of the public is tuned in? Even accounting for the spill-over effect on news coverage, what degree of impact is possible when initial interest is so low of the event being reported?
Another important factor that should raise a healthy suspicion: The mainstream liberal media pay for these polls. How likely is it that they will continue footing the bill for results which don’t fit neatly into their left-leaning bias? Do you trust Dan Rather and CBS? Tom Brokaw and NBC? Peter Jennings and ABC? How about Al Hunt at the Wall Street Journal? Judy Woodruff (Mrs. Al Hunt) and CNN? The New York Times? The Washington Post? And all the rest?
These are the people who pay for the polls. If they slant the news to influence public opinion, is it such a stretch that they might also want to slant the polls to influence public opinion? Or change pollsters if the results don’t comport with their political leanings? Is it possible the pollsters know this and might consider the likelihood of continuing to get paid for work their cash cows in the media frown upon every time they walk in with a bound set of cross-tabs?
With twelve weeks remaining to election day there is a great deal of time and plenty of latitude before the chickens come home to roost. A window of opportunity exists within which to attempt to affect the opinion of the electorate. The external clarifying event – Election Day – is now far off, giving ample time to play the partisan politics of polling.
This is precisely what is occurring with the current, much-ballyhooed spate of miraculous pro-Gore, Flubber-inspired upswings in poll results. These suspect numbers are clearly intended to influence public opinion by disheartening the conservative base, energizing the liberal base, and swaying the undecideds toward Gore.
Remember, too, that the Electoral College pays no mind to nationwide popular vote tallies; it is based soley on statewide, winner-take-all results. Current analyses place the Bush total at some 350 electoral votes, with only 270 needed to elect a president.
So be very wary, be highly critical, but do not be fooled. Help is on the way, and it won’t be long now: it’s called reality.
