Everyone talks about it. Do a poll posing a theoretical Democrat against a theoretical Republican candidate for president and there is a 15% or more advantage for the Democrat.
But plug in the names and you see as low as a 2% difference in the polls. Why?
I think there are two factors. One is all about racism. Yep. That ugly, nasty, embarassing part of America-- which, apparently, is particularly manifested by over 60 whites.
The other factor is the pollster policy. They are using the same numbers they've been using for a long time to create their polls-- about 40% Democrat, 38% Republican and the rest independent. But things have changed. First, the young people-- the "Millenials" who will change this election and elections for the next fifty years to come, use cell phones. They get left out of the polls and they are a good two to one for Obama. Then, there is the reality that the old proportions are no longer accurate. Now, the numbers should be more like 46-48% Democrat and 28-32% Republican. If they compose a poll group with the old proportions, it will give the results they get. If they modified the polls demographic components to reflect all the cell-phone using millenials and adjusted the dem/rep proportions, the results would be very different.
The handy thing about using inappropriate, unscientific, yet habitual approaches is it makes things look better for McCain. That may help his fundraising, but it also helps Obama, since Barack's team can send out calls for volunteers and funding that point out how close things are.
The offensive thing is the way MSM newscasters and pundits use the stats to malign Obama, with remarks like, "What's wrong with him?"
But now, you know better. This election, unless there is some kind of October Surprise, in the form of a new war, probably with Iran, initiated by a Tonkin Gulf phony event, and maybe even then, will go heavily for Obama. The pollsters have it wrong. They're blowing it and they are stuck with their old ways.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
The 2000 and 2004 elections proved two things to this old man:
- The pollsters get it wrong because the votes are not counted accurately.
- The pundits spin it like they do because the entire event is theater - intended to keep the populace believing that they not only have a choice, but that the choice they have matters.
by
Arthur Jasp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Tuesday, July 8, 2008 at 10:53:50 PM
I ask myself why I subscribe to online newsletters which often give current reports on the latest figures. Obama ahead but not by much on a competing site. I can excuse myself because there is other information, which is true. But still I read poll numbers and identify the polling firms.
Could it be because George Gallup got it wrong in some long-gone era? Are the percentages as important to me as the fact that pollsters vary in product? Even with just one college course in statistics, I know sampling counts. Maybe I should feel assured if the poll site identifies its methodology and "margin of error" stats.
But I can't let myself off the hook so easily. Because I see an opportunity to give my own shot when I see a chance to hit the bulls-eye and press "vote." In past years the aim was to hit sites with right-leaning articles and try to skew the result. That took the help of a faithful scrounger to let us all know to cream the opposition at MSM.
Now that OEN does polling, I like to think I can avoid the CNN/MSNBC type activity and forward our best thinking on politics. Come to think of it, maybe I am still in defensive mode. If I should ever see one which is closer to McCain than to Obama policy, I'm still in defensive mode. Just playing to win against the neocons.
by
Margaret Bassett (25 articles, 1697 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 1020 comments)
on Wednesday, July 9, 2008 at 10:58:34 AM
2 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
