I don’t like polls. If my guy is ahead, I dread that poll is hopelessly wrong and the poll will drive down turn out for my candidate, and energize turn out for the other guy. If my guy is down, I dread the poll is deadly accurate and the poll will energize turn out for the other guy, and demoralize turn out for my guy.
Another reason I don’t like polls is that every poll is paid for by somebody and everybody has an agenda. So, if a media sponsored poll shows good news for Kerry, I’m skeptical. If a Heritage Foundation poll shows good news for Bush, I’m skeptical. I’m skeptical that the wording and sequencing of poll questions were arranged in manner that favors the candidate that favors the poll buyer’s agenda. The sample can also be manipulated to favor the buyer’s bias. Also, how honest are the people who answer the polls? I know a guy who lived in a three bedroom house. When he got his census form, you know the long obtrusive one; he indicated he lived in house with 57 rooms including 13 bathrooms because in his words, “It’s none of the government’s damned business how many rooms are in my house.” Last, polls don’t take into account voter fraud.
To my untrained eye there are a number of curious things about “the polls”.
- Bush has doubled his support among black voters.
- Bush has substantially increased his support among women voters.
- Bush has doubled his support among Jewish voters.
- Several States that Gore won are currently in Bush’s column (WI, IA, HI)
- Several states that Gore comfortably won are currently toss ups (MN, PA, NJ)
- Several states that Gore handily won are currently a lot closer (CA, IL, CT)
- Democrats say that Bush’s nation wide 2-4 point lead is because of higher than usual support among southerners.
Given the circumstances of Bush’s across the board improvement over 2000, borne out by “the polls”, one would think Bush would have a comfortable lead somewhere. But he doesn’t. Why?
Could it be that poll sponsors want it that way? Most of the polls are sponsored by news agencies. This is a rather odd phenomenon of news agencies making their own story. They commission a poll so that they can lead with a report on their poll. So, if the left leaning media are buying most of the polls, and the poll reflects the agenda of the buyer, the polls will tend to favor Kerry. Thus Bush is making huge inroads in blue states and blue voter bocks but remains tied with Kerry – same as 2000. But how can Bush simultaneously be stronger in the south than 2000; make stronger showing in blue states and among blue voter blocks than 2000 and yet it be tied same as 2000?
Could it be that the media are trying to push John Kerry by making the race appear closer than it is? I don’t know. Vice President Cheney said on Monday he thought Bush would win 52% - 47% (But who’s paying for HIS polling?). I’ve decided that even left leaning media outlets and pollsters value their reputations more than helping Kerry. So, I’ve decided to ignore the polls until Thursday or Friday. By then I believe that any inclination to push Kerry will be subordinated to getting the story right. Pollsters and media organizations will want bragging rights in the next election cycle so they’ll want to get it right.
I guess, by the end of the day on 2 Nov, all any of us can do is go vote and wait for the returns the final poll and only one that counts.
No comments:
Post a Comment