Posts
Just as I predicted 10 days ago, MSNBC is Manipulating Numbers to try and Deflate John McCain Voters, here is the Statistical Proof. and NEWSMAX confirmed today, 10 days later, NewsMax Report on Polling Inflation, the polling institutions were inaccurate in their polling of this years presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain.
I have never implied that John McCain was going to win the popular vote, but I knew there was a chance he could win the electoral college vote. I had predicted 10 days ago that polling states such as New York, Pennsylvania and California, would overinflate Barack Obama's overall lead in the rest of the states, and in the process demoralize Republican voters, Hillary Clinton supporters, and undecided independents.
This trend against John McCain re-accelerated (after the stock market crash) with the 'BIG TEN" polling a couple of weeks back that predicted incredibly large leads for Barack Obama. A law needs to be passed in regards to polls that are taken. I want to KNOW THE AVERAGE AGE of the pollsters who are actually conducting the interviews.
I bet if we could go back and review the age of the pollsters, we would find a skew that is age related. I'm pretty sure the Big Ten polling used college aged pollsters, who no doubt connected with other college aged kids in their polling.
The end result was all of these polls gave Barack Obama almost a 3 percentage point boost, and that no doubt made a pscyhological difference to millions of voters as to whether or not they would vote.
Once again, you heard it here 10 days ago, NewsMax confirmed it today.
8 comments:
stop bitchin
crybaby
THE WORLD CELEBRATED TODAY
think they are gonna jump back and give mccain the presidency because some dumbass nerd with an unhealthy obsession for hillary
tells them too??
hahahahaha your blog doesnt even have viewers....i came here just to taunt you
loser
Well, actually, this blog is currently in the top 10% of all the blogs that Ice Rocket follows.
Now if you mean this blog has no viewers, I wouldn't be so hard on yourself.
Your hypothesis about the age of the pollsters is totally ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated.
Besides, if you look at the polls, you'll see that Obama performed right around what was expected in the national polls, i.e. approximately 6 points up. Further, he outperformed many of the state by state polling, winning PA, VA, OH, IN, NV and others by notably larger margins than the advance polling indicated.
Keep on tiliting at windmills, homie. Maybe one of these days you'll land a punch.
If you bothered to click on the link, you would see that the average poll overinflated Barack Obama's lead by just under 3 points.
Now imagine it was the reverse.
Imagine that six point lead, instead of being reported as a 9 point lead, had been reported as a 3 point lead.
You don't think that would have excited the Republican base. You should learn to throw out the first sentence you werite, it always sounds so trashy.
I just can't believe that you continue to stick to this very flawed, ridiculously biased "analysis".
Your blog entry offers absolutely zero proof. The only way it would have even a grain of validity is in the most theoretical of senses, assuming we had no state polling and thus might make a leap of an assumption based upon known heavily pro-Obama voting in those three states. But we DID have state-by-state polling, so we KNEW that he had plenty of other states where he was legitimately ahead, enough to completely debunk your theory.
Secondly, had Obama's popular vote margin been similar to that of Gore's in 2000 than yes, your hypothesis might have worked. Instead, it was a popular vote drubbing that correlated nicely with the electoral college vote - not by the same margin, admittedly, but certain a clear and concise victory on both fronts.
As for the 3%, once again, you've offered no proof. All you can loosely argue is that some polls were outside the margin of error, others were within it - and some were on the money. That's how it goes for every election cycle for every candidate. Depending upon sample sizes, demographics, assumptions and other factors, the pollster can slant the results one way or the other, intentionally or otherwise. There were polls that had McCain within two points of Obama the day before the election, too. Why didn't they "energize" the Republicans in the inverse fashion you argue others provided the opposite effect?
From Wikipedia: "Newsmax Media is a news organization founded by journalist Christopher W. Ruddy and based in West Palm Beach, Florida. It runs the Newsmax.com website and publishes Newsmax Magazine. Ruddy, who serves as editor-in-chief, describes Newsmax.com as "the leading independent online news site with a conservative perspective." Might the fact that it's a conservative site skew the perspective, just as yours is by (as the previous poster correctly indicated) an "unhealthy obsession for Hillary"?
The Republicans nominated a flawed candidate and were the target for millions of voters seeking to throw out the current power-mongers. There was nothing insidious about the reporting of the race, nor how it came to the final outcome.
By the way, why the hatred toward MSNBS? CNN and the major networks all reported similarly.
Lets focus on the main point that News Max made in their article. Barack Obama average almost a 3 percentage point bump in virtually ALL of the major polls.
They then listed the polls! What is your source that refutes this?
There's a phrase famously attributed to Mark Twain: "There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
You're using a bit of a straw man argument to make your point. Which, frankly, you did in your original, hopeful thread about a McCain electoral college victory despite a popular vote loss, due to skewing via California, New York and Illinois. This theory was obviously proven false in the final tallies - quod erat demonstratum. As I said, cherry-picking those three states did not overcome a similar phenomenon in favor of McCain in other populous red states (Texas for starters), plus with state-by-state polling, we knew the possibility was essentially nil.
With respect to the alleged poll bias you cite, my "lies, damn lies and statistics" comment really comes into play. The conservative writer (hardly unbiased) cites the fact that "several" of the polls were outside the margins of error, and thus those polling entities had things "blow up in their faces", particularly singling out those that predicted a double digit margin. Thus, one of the Gallup polls and the Reuters/Zogby poll were pretty far off. To that end, he's not wrong, though it's hardly unusual to see a few outliers when dealing with 14 overall polling services.
As you are wont to do, you mix and match that point, creating a straw man argument, as you state, "The end result was all of these polls gave Barack Obama almost a 3 percentage point boost, and that no doubt made a pscyhological difference to millions of voters as to whether or not they would vote."
ALL of these polls? The actual popular vote spread was 6.5%. There's "no doubt" that the FIVE out of 14 polls that arguably showed a lead greater than the margin of error "made a pscyhological (sic) difference to millions of voters as to whether or not they would vote"?
What about the nine that were within 1.5 points of the final margin or below it ... did they create the same disincentive to vote, or did the ones lower than the final tally even energize the Republicans? For that matter, could the alleged Republican malaise have more to do with an unpopular President Bush and despair over the fracturing and disarray within the party than arguably five out of 14 significantly overstated polls?
I like your blog, Alessandro, and I respect that you listen to opposing viewpoints. However, you repeatedly make leaps of logic and/or straw man arguments to prove your points.
The average of ALL the POLLS was to Barack Obama's advantage. If the same mistake had been made to McCain's benefit, it might have benefited John McCain in getting out the vote.
Nothing strawman about that.
It actually would have taken LESS than a million votes to turn the election to McCain. However, knowing where those million votes needed to go, and getting them there, would be next to impossible.
But less than a million votes to turn the election, that was my point all along, that Barack Obama could win the popular vote by several million but lose the electoral college vote by losing several close races in key states.
I think without MSNBC, John McCain would have won. Yes, there is fox on the other side, but MSNBC's disregard for news versus views was an even bigger factor in this year's race.
Post a Comment