First, the kind of rigging I am talking about is a very common practice-- a practice clearly in play when it comes to Elizabeth Warren's potential political efficacy in the 2016 elections. The bad news is, this is pretty much the way the polling world works. The good news is that the problem could be resolved if liberal Democratic organizations like DFA and Moveon.org put their money where their mouths are.
Here's a bit of background.
First, who sponsors polls?
-media organizations-- CNN, NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, OpEdNews.com
-politicians running for office
That's right. OpEdNews sponsored a few polls, done by the Zogby polling organization, back in 2006. It was a highly enlightening experience. Here's a link to the series: OpEdNews Sponsored Polls
The polls OEN sponsored were used to ask a lot of questions, about respondents perspectives on impeachment, Bush 's NSA spying and hearings, electronic voting, war in Iraq, withdrawal from Iraq, nationalized health care, privatization of voter registration and election technology... and the 2006 PA Senatorial election.
Back then, the powers that be-- Ed Rendell, the PA governor at the time, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, for starters-- were supporting Bob Casey Jr., scion of former PA governor Robert Casey Sr., in the Democratic primary for the US senate race. But there was also another candidate running, Chuck Pennacchio, a staunch progressive who had the potential to become the next Paul Wellstone. You wouldn't know it from the pollsters though. They were doing what pollsters do, almost 100 percent of the time-- supporting the chosen candidate of the powers that be.
Here's how it works. The mainstream media pick a candidate-- it could be a front-runner, and then they only do polling using that candidate in opposition to the other side. They ignore the other candidates. In 2006, Rick Santorum was the sitting senator, so the pollsters ran numbers on how Bob Casey Jr. performed against Santorum. They also ran numbers on how all the Democratic primary candidates did against each other. But here's the problem.
They never asked how the other Democratic candidates would do running against Santorum. That's where my polls came into play.
We did, and we found that Chuck Pennacchio would do as well or better than Casey, especially when people knew each candidates positions on issues.
The same thing is happening with Elizabeth Warren and Hillary. The pollsters, hired by the mainstream media or by political parties or well funded candidates, only ask how Hillary will perform against the various potential Republican candidates. They don't match Warren against the leading Republicans. They only match her against Hillary, Biden, Sanders, etc.
Here's what it looks like at poll reporting site, RealClearPolitics:
Go back, for months, on the realclearpolitics site and you see the same thing.
The mainstream news sites are serving Clinton and the right wing Democratic power players and organizations supporting her. That's the way it's always done.
I would be happy to be proved wrong-- to see one poll that matches Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders against leading Republican primary candidates. I would not be impressed to see polls matching Joe Biden against Republican candidates. That would be a token.
This can be fixed. Moveon.org or DFA, or both of them, working together, could fund a poll that actually looks at how Warren and Sanders would fare going against the leading Republicans. While they're at it, they can find out what the big issues are for voters, especially independent-- whose support it will take for a 2016 presidential win.
Some might argue that since Elizabeth Warren has said she is not running, money should not be invested in polls that consider her as a candidate. I would argue that the best candidates are drafted, even with resistance, and they enter the race because it is their patriotic duty, not because they desire power or fame. Such could be the case for Elizabeth Warren.
2
2
1
