Polls 2012: Skewed Polling and Biased Media Coverage

#51
#51
Gramps said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

It should be viewed that he is leading.

The question is by how much which begs the follow on question of the stability of that lead.
 
#52
#52
volinbham said:
It should be viewed that he is leading.

The question is by how much which begs the follow on question of the stability of that lead.
Click to expand...

This I agree with.

I saw a CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac poll today showing Obama up by 10 in Ohio, 12 in PA and 9 in FL. I cannot see him being that far ahead. If these numbers are close to being correct it will be a landslide for Obama


Real Clear Politics now has Obama 265- Romney 191 on their electoral map. They now have PA, OH , MI, WI and MN all as Obama states. Showing only 7 states as tossups. I realize this could change quickly. Romney needs to have a good debate next week or he may be in major trouble if he isn't already.
 
#57
#57
The most recent NYT polls show Democrats having more of an advantage than they did in 2008. Anyone actually believe that?
 
#61
#61
golfballs said:
Look at the sampling and see for yourself
Click to expand...

Why do you think these various pollsters would knowingly skew their polls? It doesn't make sense to me that A) they don't know how to conduct a poll, or B) they want to conduct a flawed poll.
 
#62
#62
Danl said:
Why do you think these various pollsters would knowingly skew their polls? It doesn't make sense to me that A) they don't know how to conduct a poll, or B) they want to conduct a flawed poll.
Click to expand...

The same reason newspapers skew their articles.
 
#65
#65
#66
#66
Danl said:
Thanks for the link and that guys opinion.

But why do YOU think FOX News would, either out of lack of competence or any other reason, publish flawed polls that would seem to support Obama? I mean haven't they (FOX) recently run stories about these polls?

Seriously, I don't know how to conduct a poll like this. But don't the most, if not all, of the major pollsters know how?
Click to expand...

Of course they know how. That doesn't mean they do it correctly.
 
#68
#68
Danl said:
OK, I get that you think all media outlets, save FOX, are leftist loons. And maybe they are.

But what about FOX and their polls?
Click to expand...

Polling is not conducted by their news rooms. All of these outfits outsource their polling
 
#69
#69
golfballs said:
Polling is not conducted by their news rooms. All of these outfits outsource their polling
Click to expand...

No that's not true. FOX might, but I doubt Rasmussen or Gallup or Quinipiac or others do. CBS, NBC, and other news outlets do.


But regardless, why would FOX publish results supporting Obama that they believe are skewed for Obama.
 
#70
#70
Danl said:
No that's not true. FOX might, but I doubt Rasmussen or Gallup or Quinipiac or others do. CBS, NBC, and other news outlets do.


But regardless, why would FOX publish results supporting Obama that they believe are skewed for Obama.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean, the media outlets.

I don't really care why they do it. All I know is that their samples are most likely flawed.
 
#71
#71
Because they think turnout for Ds will be greater than 2008 when that year was an anomaly and 2010 it was split even between Rs+Ds

Rasmussen thinks it will be Ds+2 so that's why it's tied up nationally

It's silly to think more Ds will turn outin 2012 vs 2008 when A) Obama hasn't been "all that" B) Rs have done a better job registering people
 
#72
#72
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Because they think turnout for Ds will be greater than 2008 when that year was an anomaly and 2010 it was split even between Rs+Ds

Rasmussen thinks it will be Ds+2 so that's why it's tied up nationally

It's silly to think more Ds will turn outin 2012 vs 2008 when A) Obama hasn't been "all that" B) Rs have done a better job registering people
Click to expand...

There's no way turnout for Dems is like 2008.
 
#73
#73
golfballs said:
That's what I mean, the media outlets.

OK. Sorry. After rereading your post that is apparent

I don't really care why they do it. All I know is that their samples are most likely flawed.
Click to expand...

I guess I can believe that the most biased news outlets and polls can be fudging their numbers. But I can't wrap my head around absolutely each and every single pollster deliberately screwing up or biasing their polls all for one candidate.

But that's just me.
 
#74
#74
Danl said:
I guess I can believe that the most biased news outlets and polls can be fudging their numbers. But I can't wrap my head around absolutely each and every single pollster deliberately screwing up or biasing their polls all for one candidate.

But that's just me.
Click to expand...

Maybe some of them are clear by deliberately basing their samples on 2008 turnout because they can't accurately predict what 2012 turnout will be. But regardless, I think common sense says this will not be the case.
 
#75
#75
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Because they think turnout for Ds will be greater than 2008 when that year was an anomaly and 2010 it was split even between Rs+Ds

I'm trying to find a link to the various polls claiming that. Do you have one?

Rasmussen thinks it will be Ds+2 so that's why it's tied up nationally

Nationally don't mean crap. Florida and Ohio and maybe a couple of other states do.

It's silly to think more Ds will turn outin 2012 vs 2008 when A) Obama hasn't been "all that" B) Rs have done a better job registering people
Click to expand...

You do know that, right or wrong, lots of people disagree with A).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top