According to the Gallup Daily Tracking poll in October 2000, Al Gore had an 8 point advantage over George Bush. We know how that race ended. So are the polls accurate? If you can exercise your memories back to just 6 months ago during the primaries, the polls were notoriously wrong again and again for both the Democrats and Republicans. In fact, it was a major topic of discussion amongst the candidates and within the media.
So, what’s changed between six months ago and today with regard to polling accuracy? For that matter what has changed with regard to polling accuracy between 2000 and now? In an article in the October 17, 2000 edition of the Gotham Gazette by Steve Ross these questions were answered.
To show the importance and impact of such manipulation consider the instance of the 2000 race in Florida. The media announced Florida for Gore early, yes while the Republican panhandle area of Florida, being in the central time zone, was still voting. Thousands of would be Bush voters didn’t vote because of the early pronouncement. Florida would not have been the mess it was and Bush would have won by several thousand votes in Florida had the Gore favoring media not tried to manipulate the vote.
Here we are in 2008 with the left and their partners in the media and polling agencies trying to manipulate the outcome by convincing the voters that the race is over and everyone should capitulate to Obama. Don’t be like the voters in the Florida panhandle in 2000. Ignore the polls and vote in November as if your future and freedoms were on the line, they are.
So, what’s changed between six months ago and today with regard to polling accuracy? For that matter what has changed with regard to polling accuracy between 2000 and now? In an article in the October 17, 2000 edition of the Gotham Gazette by Steve Ross these questions were answered.
WHY POLLS ARE INCREASINGLY INACCURATE
Even if just one polling method were used consistently, the truth is, typical polls are much less accurate than readers (and, I suspect, editors) have been led to believe. There are many reasons for this.
First, voters are getting harder and harder to sample. Pollsters nowadays make five to ten calls to get one valid response. In the 1988 presidential race, pollsters made two or three calls to get a valid response, and complained about that.
Second, people move more frequently, changing their voting address on average once every five years or so. This makes it more difficult for pollsters to confirm likely voters by asking for whom they voted in previous elections.
Third, new patterns of quasi-marriage and racial intermarriage that have emerged over the past decade have made it more difficult to “profile” a voting district. Pollsters must make an estimate of all voters’ age, family status, gender and race to draw a representative sample. If 50 white Christian males from a certain district are polled, do they stand for 5,000 likely voters in the district’s population or 8,000? If 5,000, then their answers might be magnified in the poll 60 percent more than if they stand for 8,000. Is a family counted as black if only the husband is black? Pollsters usually do. Is a family counted as Hispanic if only the husband is Hispanic? Some pollsters do, at least for some election polls, and some don’t. Does this square with YOUR views on family life?
Use of polls is more for manipulative purposes than for providing accurate information. Had conservatives given up in 2000 due to the reporting by Gallup of Gore being ahead in October by 8 points Gore would have won.Even if just one polling method were used consistently, the truth is, typical polls are much less accurate than readers (and, I suspect, editors) have been led to believe. There are many reasons for this.
First, voters are getting harder and harder to sample. Pollsters nowadays make five to ten calls to get one valid response. In the 1988 presidential race, pollsters made two or three calls to get a valid response, and complained about that.
Second, people move more frequently, changing their voting address on average once every five years or so. This makes it more difficult for pollsters to confirm likely voters by asking for whom they voted in previous elections.
Third, new patterns of quasi-marriage and racial intermarriage that have emerged over the past decade have made it more difficult to “profile” a voting district. Pollsters must make an estimate of all voters’ age, family status, gender and race to draw a representative sample. If 50 white Christian males from a certain district are polled, do they stand for 5,000 likely voters in the district’s population or 8,000? If 5,000, then their answers might be magnified in the poll 60 percent more than if they stand for 8,000. Is a family counted as black if only the husband is black? Pollsters usually do. Is a family counted as Hispanic if only the husband is Hispanic? Some pollsters do, at least for some election polls, and some don’t. Does this square with YOUR views on family life?
To show the importance and impact of such manipulation consider the instance of the 2000 race in Florida. The media announced Florida for Gore early, yes while the Republican panhandle area of Florida, being in the central time zone, was still voting. Thousands of would be Bush voters didn’t vote because of the early pronouncement. Florida would not have been the mess it was and Bush would have won by several thousand votes in Florida had the Gore favoring media not tried to manipulate the vote.
Here we are in 2008 with the left and their partners in the media and polling agencies trying to manipulate the outcome by convincing the voters that the race is over and everyone should capitulate to Obama. Don’t be like the voters in the Florida panhandle in 2000. Ignore the polls and vote in November as if your future and freedoms were on the line, they are.
