Polls 2012: Skewed Polling and Biased Media Coverage

#26
#26
I think Fox and CNN are a tossup on actual news coverage as far as being bias. Everything MSNBC does other than Morning Joe , when Joe is on air, is way left.

Granted I don't watch any Of them but there was a time when Fox always injected opinion into their news coverage. Has that changed?
 
#27
#27
For polling to be accurate the sample must be a mirror representation of the eventual electorate. Oversampling makes sense if the eventual electorate is in fact unevenly split among D and R voters.

Rather than oversample based on 2008; it would make more sense to oversample based on registration records and changes in registration records in a given state.

The problem with following the trend of the polls is that some of these polls have be using different oversampling schemes at different times - so changes in the poll could reflect a change in sentiment or a change in sample with no change in sentiment.


Which would be a good argument for paying attention more to trends in the polls than snapshots in time.
 
#28
#28
Which would be a good argument for paying attention more to trends in the polls than snapshots in time.

no, what he just said indicates you can't even trust a trend from week to week. over a much longer time period, even the trends aren't helpful in this type of race.
 
#29
#29
Which would be a good argument for paying attention more to trends in the polls than snapshots in time.

With the caveat of my last paragraph - if the oversampling is not consistent from polling event to polling event (within the same poll - e.g. Gallup tracking poll) then any change could be the result of sampling issues OR true changes in
sentiment OR a combination of both. We do see multiple swings in the oversampling rate from poll to poll so that raises a flag.

Likewise, using likely voters has proven more reliable than using registered voters (particularly when we see turn out rates in the mid 50s).
 
#30
#30
Granted I don't watch any Of them but there was a time when Fox always injected opinion into their news coverage. Has that changed?

I do not think they inject opinion when they are covering actual hard core news .
If the news has a political angle, I think they do inject opinion. I think they have made improvements in this area.
 
#31
#31
all the other cable networks are so far to the left, they make Fox look hardcore right-wing. Fox is more moderate than any other network.

I agree to some extent. Maybe not moderate, but they attempt to bring some balance. Stossel and Napolitano are hosts that put Republicans on blast on the reg. I don't see any other channels giving shows to libertarians.
 
#32
#32
no, what he just said indicates you can't even trust a trend from week to week. over a much longer time period, even the trends aren't helpful in this type of race.

With the caveat of my last paragraph - if the oversampling is not consistent from polling event to polling event (within the same poll - e.g. Gallup tracking poll) then any change could be the result of sampling issues OR true changes in
sentiment OR a combination of both. We do see multiple swings in the oversampling rate from poll to poll so that raises a flag.

Likewise, using likely voters has proven more reliable than using registered voters (particularly when we see turn out rates in the mid 50s).


I don't disagree that a given poll could make the same mistaken sampling assumption over and over, but multiple polls using different methodologies, all showing the same trend, should give greater confidence that the consensus result is accurate. Not to say it is impossible that Rasmussen alone is right and the other ten or eleven are wrong. Its just extremely unlikely.
 
#34
#34
With the caveat of my last paragraph - if the oversampling is not consistent from polling event to polling event (within the same poll - e.g. Gallup tracking poll) then any change could be the result of sampling issues OR true changes in
sentiment OR a combination of both. We do see multiple swings in the oversampling rate from poll to poll so that raises a flag.

Likewise, using likely voters has proven more reliable than using registered voters (particularly when we see turn out rates in the mid 50s).

If a poll is not using likely voters, it is useless IMO.

I understand your argument, however, lets look at the current campaign. We have conservative, liberal and unbiased ( if any) polling all reaching the same conclusion, Obama is leading. The numbers vary but he is leading.
How should this be viewed ?
 
#35
#35
As I understand it these polls are over sampling Dems by 8%-13% because they showed up more in 2008 by 13%. There is no way this time around Dems show up to vote by 13% more than R voters.
 
#36
#36
Is that really saying that "virtually every taxpayer earning under $100,000 pays an average rate of no more than 8 percent of their income in taxes." I feel special, and most of my friends must because we all definitely pay more than 8%.

I think that average is getting used wrong in that analysis.

I have no doubt that most tax payers aren't paying a higher effective rate than Romney but 8% seems crazy low.

I'm at about 18 - 20 but I'm single with no kids and a modest house so many of the credits/deductions do not apply to me.
 
#38
#38
Bump. Lawgator must have missed this, I just want to make sure he has accurate information when he decides his vote.


I think the difference is factoring in the middle class households, not the impoverished ones. It may also be that the figure I cite is including payroll taxes, which will obviously eat up a much higher percentage of a working person's take home pay versus someone in Romney's situation.


Not that he pays much in payroll taxes relative to his income since it is investment income.

Indeed, doing some quick math, a well off family making close to $200,000 a year will max out their FICA contributions around September 1.

If his income were taxed normally, Romney would max out his FICA on January 3, lol.
 
#42
#42
I guess this fits here. Even HuffPo realizes how slanted the coverage has been.

He has managed to do all of this without having to seriously and substantively defend his first-term failed promises or shortcomings, and without having to say much, if anything. about what, if anything, he might do substantially differently if he is fortunate enough to win again.

Unless I missed it, the president has yet to give a detailed answer to why he has failed to meet or even come close to his promises about reducing the unemployment rate. Saying that the task was harder than he initially thought isn't (or shouldn't be) a convincing explanation.

He hasn't given a detailed answer as to why he and his top advisers, led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, failed to focus sufficiently on reviving the housing market, rather than just bailing out banks.

He hasn't explained why his own administration is now saying that at least 6 million Americans, most of them in the middle class, will indeed face a tax increase (penalty) in 2014 if they do not buy health insurance -- a new estimate substantially higher than earlier ones.

He hasn't explained whether he shares any blame for the failure of budget talks on a grand compromise. And if the art of presidential leadership is to cajole your foes into doing deals they don't want to do, what are we to make of his famous charming effectiveness?

He hasn't given a detailed defense of the vast expansion of the security state under his watch -- a policy that, in effect, has doubled down on the global war on terror-based approaches that his predecessor, President George W. Bush, initiated.

He hasn't given a detailed explanation for why he didn't close Guantanamo, as he had promised he would.

He hasn't said how, even with a Simpson-Bowles-style budget deal, the country is going to seriously grapple with long-term unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions.

I could go on.

Howard Fineman: Barack Obama Floating Like A Butterfly: Countdown Day 43
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#43
#43
There is no question but that Obama has not met a lot of his announced goals and policies. He is rightly criticized for that.

Its just that, for whatever reason, the GOP this year went full metal retard and nominated a weak candidate.
 
#44
#44
There is no question but that Obama has not met a lot of his announced goals and policies. He is rightly criticized for that.

Its just that, for whatever reason, the GOP this year went full metal retard and nominated a weak candidate.

Did he do anything he promised besides HC?
 
#45
#45
There is no question but that Obama has not met a lot of his announced goals and policies. He is rightly criticized for that.

Its just that, for whatever reason, the GOP this year went full metal retard and nominated a weak candidate.

I don't think many people disagree with you on this point.
 
#47
#47
I don't think many people disagree with you on this point.


There are two types of people who do. Those who hate Obama so much they can rationalize anything if it means taking a stand against him, and people so ingrained in party politics that they'd tout the GOP candidate, regardless of who it might be. Come to think of it, the two groups overlap quite a bit.
 
#48
#48
There's a difference between campaign promises and meeting problems head on as they occur. bin Laden, though, comes to mind in answering your question.

Yayyy, 1 success in 3+ years. What about the rest of his disasters?
 
#49
#49
There's a difference between campaign promises and meeting problems head on as they occur. bin Laden, though, comes to mind in answering your question.

There's no reason you can't do what you promised in addition to that. We did leave Iraq, but I don't know how much credit I can give him for that.
 
#50
#50
I don't disagree that a given poll could make the same mistaken sampling assumption over and over, but multiple polls using different methodologies, all showing the same trend, should give greater confidence that the consensus result is accurate. Not to say it is impossible that Rasmussen alone is right and the other ten or eleven are wrong. Its just extremely unlikely.

Not what I was claiming. I'm saying that a swing in something like Gallup could be attributable to sample differences.

Add to that, a planned oversampling that is based upon an assumption that the electorate in 2012 will look like it did in 2008 and you can easily see the poll being off by several points.

I have no doubt that in general Obama is doing several points better than Romney.

I do doubt the accuracy of the lead.
 

VN Store



Back
Top