In case you haven’t seen it, the gang at Real Clear Politics is doing an excellent job of keeping track of the various polls as they come in. But what do the polls mean? Quien sabe? At least this record the RCP folks are keeping will give us a better idea of which, if any, pollsters to trust in the next election.
The release this morning of a tie on Zogby is good news for the Kerry forces whose man seemed to be trending down. Or is it? Search me. I don’t even know if the CV that the election will be close is true. And what is close? I can tell you one thing – that will depend on whose ox is gored. The mainstream media will probably declare this a close one if Bush wins by anything less than a five point spread in the popular vote. But it doesn’t matter what they think. It matters what Al Qaeda and their cohorts think.
Roger
As a person with some background in evaluating evidence with pretensions of being “scientific,” I found this Steven Den Beste piece suggestive, if not ironclad.
I think the polls are manipulated in both directions.
I’m starting to believe that everything is manipulated. Am I a radical skeptic in statu nascendi? I hope not, because it’s a philosophical position that’s hard to defend.
I hope Bush wins. But even more I hope he wins decisively, because four more years of Democratic legal hair-splitting might just, in the middle of a war against Islamic fanatics, do us all in.
Jamie Irons
The polls are even less reliable than their usual 4% +/- error rate would suggest. Consider:
–the LATimes’ polls on the day before the Calif governor’s race had Schwarzenegger and Bustamante in a dead heat. Arnold won by 17 points. Bustamante who? – my point exactly. -ed.
–various polls in the Florida governor’s race had Jeb Bush up by 3, 5, 6 points. He won by 13 points.
–all polls a year ago indicated that Kerry was “unstoppable” in the Dem presidential nomination race, and this became the MSM party line, until Dean “came from nowhere” (ie, the polls were worthless), which gave rise to the Dean-the-unstoppable MSM party line, until Dean collapsed….
The simple fact is that this year, millions of people will vote their gut, which is not to be confused with what those same people are willing to tell their neighbors, colleagues, families, or god forbid, pollsters, in the weeks and months leading up to the election.
The gut issue is of course which candidate one trusts more to prosecute and win the war. The “gut” voters will tilt toward Bush by at least 2-to-1, and I seriously doubt that any of the polls have reflected this phenomenon.
My $0.02 worth: this election will be a replay of 1948. Once again, the people will defy the east coast elites and opt for a midwestern bumbler/fumblemouth instead of the “little man on the wedding cake”.
As thibaud says, the LA Times mauling of their own poll and the “news” section in a full bore effort to either defeat the recall or elect Bustamonte cost them both their credibility and thousands of subscribers (take a peek at the front page of the newspaper and notice they no longer have their circulation number under the masthead).
I’ve been following the polls very suspiciously, no matter which way they’ve swung, because this season the partisanship of the “MSM” has been so blatant. Reading Den Beste’s commentary confirmed my suspicions that something was afoot.
I’m in CA, a blue state Camp Kerry takes for granted. However, I’m still voting and urging all other Bush/Cheney supporters to get to the polls because in this election the popular vote will count, if nothing more than psychological. If CA can be nudged into the purple zone, it will do much to undercut the cries of “We was robbed!”
Anecdotal observation: A small group of LGFer’s had a meetup in the People’s Republic of Santa Monica Sunday afternoon. The was a Bush/Cheney table set up on 3rd Street Promenade doing a happy and brisk business, with smiling people around it chatting in a positive friendly manner. The Kerry/Edwards table was decidedly not getting any business and was manned by a couple of rather gloomy gusses.
Donald Luskin is putting the final touches on his NRO article exploring the gaming of the election markets.
I’ve been watching Tradesports and Iowa Electronic Markets for several months now. After reading Luskin and others, I understand how the design of the IEM makes it much less susceptible to Soros-style manipulation than is TradeSports.
As I write this I see that even with the huge sells against Bush on Tradesports over the last five days, the gap between the contracts refuses to drop to stay anywhere near par and much closer to ten points. The moves on IEM have been less dramatic; it’s hard to see the aberrant shifts using the graphics on the site, but if you wade through the price records some days kind of jump out at you.
Read the Luskin post.
I remember when the M.O.E of national polls was routinely one or two percent. Now with all the computers, communications, and statisticians in the world…the major poll outfits routinely put a four point M.O.E. on their polls as a standard. I don’t think that’s a statement of objectivity on their part. It’s a tactic of plausible deniability. The California recall is a classic example of bias in polling. I have stopped going to the electoral vote blogs. Not because I don’t believe they are doing the best they can (my favorite is Daly Thoughts) but rather I think they are being forced to prognosticate using fraudulent data.
The polling propaganda that I do worry about is exit polling results presented by MSM during the course of election day. I remember what that meant in Florida’s panhandle. The networks scapegoated their pool polling cartel (I don’t remember the name of the outfit) and pledged to withhold exit polls until the polls closed in the states they were reporting on. The looks on Tom Brokaw’s and Katie Couric’s faces at the climax of election night 2002 was pricelss; they spent all night spinning for the Democrats and then got fish slapped by he true outcome. I wish I’d owned pharmaceutical stock back then; a lot of mood levellers went downrage that night.
I haven’t been able to find out if the networks have pledged to restrict exit polling until the state polls are closed…does anyone know?
My money is that they chucked that principled stand right after 2002.
Steven Den Beste has an interesting mathematical take on the realclearpolitics.com polling average:
http://denbeste.nu/special/polltrends.shtml
Could be a case of gaming by some of the polling agencies, specifically, oversampling of Repubs (in August) and of Dems (in Sept) to make it seem like Kerry’s having a late-campaign “surge” that will push him across the line first.
Oops – Jamie beat me to it (posted the Den Beste link above). Never mind.
Tmj,
The networks have set up a new entity to do the exit polling. I think you meant reporting on the results of exit polling until after the polls close. I expect that the networks will observe the remarkably high standards of ethics that they have shown to date as (personified by Halperin and Rather) in doing their damnedest to influence people to either stay home or vote for Kerry. Practically speaking, the election will be over when the polls close in the Central Time Zone. Even if they don’t report the results you’ll be able to tell from the lemon sucking looks on the readers faces just how disastrous the evening is turning out to be for the Dems.
If they do report early it will help the Rep Senate races in CO, WA, AK and CA. An early report of NJ going red might get rid of Boxer in CA (I can still dream).
I’m starting to grow really suspicious of polls because these are soo all over the place. It’s getting so that you can figure out the bias by those reporting the polls, i.e. Washington Post. And then there’s the online polls. You really have to know what the audience is who regularly visit sites such as CNN, FOX, etc.
There’s a blog that I’ve been following and this guy is doing really good analysis based on voter registration, advertising emphasis, where the candidates are visiting, etc. In fact, he’s set out to prove that polls don’t mean jack. The blog is Horserace Blog.
Good News. Looks like the Florida Supremes are trying to follow the existing state law. Will wonders never cease.
Now let’s see if judges in Ohio and Missouri can catch the wave and let the polls close on time.
Rick Ballard-
I thought I was pretty clear up there…and you are right.
I just remember the funeral parlor mood that slammed down the second the polls closed and the exit polls started rolling out. It was the most exciting election I’ve ever watched – including Florida.
The MSM is in a Beau Geste dilemma sans any of that honor or bravery stuff cluttering up situation. They’ve lined up behind Kerry. If he’s not the winner after the election, large numbers of the Best and Brightest of the establishment media (and some polling outfits, too, if there is any justice) will be retraining in fields where “you want fries with that?” is a linchpin of the corporate paradigm.
I can always hope, right?
Arrrgh. Rick, my last paragraph in the first post is what you were talking about. Yep, the reporting of exit poll results is what I mean.
Horserace Blog
And the fraud goes on . . . guy in Ohio was arrested for possession of crack cocaine – seems he was paid in cocaine for 100 fraudulent voter registration forms. See this Drudge Report.
I believe that there are a lot of people out there who fall into the same category as the likes of Dennis Miller, Ron Silver, Christopher Hitchens, Ed Koch and Zell Miller. These are lifelong liberals who would have voted for the Dems IF they had chosen a respectable candidate like Joe Lieberman.
Instead the Dems are so blinded by their belief that the Republicans are the most evil people in the world, they are incapable of seriously dealing with any real threats to our security. Hence, their swooning over Howard Dean before choosing Kerry, who represents everything that is wrong with the Democratic party for the last 30 years.
Common sense liberals who voted for Gore in 2000, but will be voting for Bush in 2004 will make the difference in this election. And the MSM dare not focus on these people, as they would rather pretend that they don’t exist.
I don’t think you can look at any one poll and have any confidence in it meaning anything; you’re far better off looking at the average of a series of several polls as RCP does.
What has amused me the last few days is the way the media all take the same line; that Kerry is not pulling away despite his (obvious to the media) victories in the debates. There have been a number of articles on this very topic, I think to hold out hope that the polls are not reliable, that somehow they haven’t factored in Kerry’s brilliant debating style.
Tmj,
I’m afraid it won’t be “Do you want fries with that?” but rather “Welcome, students.” I have no clear vision of how the revelations concerning mendacity by the press and the profound corruption at the UN will play out. Certainly, the high point of this season has been the destruction of illusions concerning both institutions but I’m not sure that the killing blow has been struck.
And if it has been struck, what will the institutions replacing those paragons of vice look like? What types of checks and balances will be necessary to assure us that the replacements are any better than that which they replace? Interesting times.
Smash the MSM! Let a thousand blogs contend.
Pat Curley:
I think you’re on to something here.
Let’s back up a minute and recognize that even honest polls will never trend relentlessly for or against one candidate or the other. I’m pretty sure somebody here at Roger’s Place posted some of the % breakdowns for elections over the past 40 years or so and showed that even overwhelming landslide’s like RR’s second term don’t get 60% of the popular vote.
There are always limiting factors. If either side starts to pull away some portion of that “camp” begins to lose its sense of urgency and danger. At precisely that same time the camp which is losing ground feels increasing urgency and desperation and works harder to move things in the direction they prefer. If, for example, polls began to show Bush steaming ahead and opening a 55-45 lead, I have no doubt that some of the Bush/WoT Democrats so well represented here at ROger’s place might start entertaining the thought that perhaps it would be “safe” to not risk having their hand fall off if they actually voted for a Republican for the first time in their life. I suspect things like that start putting the brakes to any poll trends that would show up in an honest poll.
But I don’t believe for a moment that we’re dealing with “honest” polls. Even if the MSM were not politically bigotted it would not be in their business interests to do anything other than keep their poll results “close”. Even if they weren’t completely in the tank for Kedwards they’d rein in any poll data showing a big Bush trend. They might let a Kedwards trend go farther because of their bigotry but I doubt they’d let even that go too far. They want eyeballs on the screens and newsprint. A runaway election would not be conducive to that.
Since they are bigotted toward Kedwards they would prefer that the polls move as far as possible within whatever their acceptable window is. And they cannot let any trend favorable to Bush get away from them. I suspect they keep manipulating their samples to try and keep the results within the window and keep spinning the “news” to try and move the polls in the preferred (Kedwards) direction.
JMO, but I think this poll volatility we see is the result of things getting away from them. They are having some difficulty finding the natural limits, the trends are toward Bush more strongly than they can accept, therefore they tweak their samples and sometimes over-correct.
I’m still comfortable with the Samuel and Rick Ballard prediction of Bush somewhere between 53-57% but I’m beginning to believe that vote fraud by the Dems will keep it closer to the lower end of that. I seriously doubt (or at least desperately hope) that even the Dems can’t do vote fraud for more than 2 or 3 points and am also hopeful that the places where they do that best are hopelessly blue anyway (i.e, its harder for them to move the electoral count than it is the popular count).
I’m just tossing this in for the heck of it, but I believe that, odd and knuckleheaded as I am, there are a lot of people an awful lot like me (the poor saps!). ABC called my phone just the other evening for a campaign “opinion poll”. I hung up immediately. I will not aid and abet the scumbag MSM in any way and I will not waste my time trying to make my opinion heard through their bigotries. ABC is a part of the MSM, I’ve written off the MSM as incorrigible bigots, and I will not communicate with them. If I am correct that I am representative of at least some small “bloc” of people who refuse to participate in polls, then the pollsters are failing to pick up 1 or 2 points worth of Bush support.
Pat Curley:
I think you’re on to something here.
Let’s back up a minute and recognize that even honest polls will never trend relentlessly for or against one candidate or the other. I’m pretty sure somebody here at Roger’s Place posted some of the % breakdowns for elections over the past 40 years or so and showed that even overwhelming landslide’s like RR’s second term don’t get 60% of the popular vote.
There are always limiting factors. If either side starts to pull away some portion of that “camp” begins to lose its sense of urgency and danger. At precisely that same time the camp which is losing ground feels increasing urgency and desperation and works harder to move things in the direction they prefer. If, for example, polls began to show Bush steaming ahead and opening a 55-45 lead, I have no doubt that some of the Bush/WoT Democrats so well represented here at ROger’s place might start entertaining the thought that perhaps it would be “safe” to not risk having their hand fall off if they actually voted for a Republican for the first time in their life. I suspect things like that start putting the brakes to any poll trends that would show up in an honest poll.
But I don’t believe for a moment that we’re dealing with “honest” polls. Even if the MSM were not politically bigotted it would not be in their business interests to do anything other than keep their poll results “close”. Even if they weren’t completely in the tank for Kedwards they’d rein in any poll data showing a big Bush trend. They might let a Kedwards trend go farther because of their bigotry but I doubt they’d let even that go too far. They want eyeballs on the screens and newsprint. A runaway election would not be conducive to that.
Since they are bigotted toward Kedwards they would prefer that the polls move as far as possible within whatever their acceptable window is. And they cannot let any trend favorable to Bush get away from them. I suspect they keep manipulating their samples to try and keep the results within the window and keep spinning the “news” to try and move the polls in the preferred (Kedwards) direction.
JMO, but I think this poll volatility we see is the result of things getting away from them. They are having some difficulty finding the natural limits, the trends are toward Bush more strongly than they can accept, therefore they tweak their samples and sometimes over-correct.
I’m still comfortable with the Samuel and Rick Ballard prediction of Bush somewhere between 53-57% but I’m beginning to believe that vote fraud by the Dems will keep it closer to the lower end of that. I seriously doubt (or at least desperately hope) that even the Dems can’t do vote fraud for more than 2 or 3 points and am also hopeful that the places where they do that best are hopelessly blue anyway (i.e, its harder for them to move the electoral count than it is the popular count).
I’m just tossing this in for the heck of it, but I believe that, odd and knuckleheaded as I am, there are a lot of people an awful lot like me (the poor saps!). ABC called my phone just the other evening for a campaign “opinion poll”. I hung up immediately. I will not aid and abet the scumbag MSM in any way and I will not waste my time trying to make my opinion heard through their bigotries. ABC is a part of the MSM, I’ve written off the MSM as incorrigible bigots, and I will not communicate with them. If I am correct that I am representative of at least some small “bloc” of people who refuse to participate in polls, then the pollsters are failing to pick up 1 or 2 points worth of Bush support.
I apologize for the double post but I got a “submission error” that carried some message that said I should wait a while (seemed like a cooling off requirement to discourage abusive posts?) an try again. I waited the obligatory 14 nanoseconds and clicked again only to find a double post. Roger?
Roger:
Zogby is a perfect example of why you can not trust the polls. First Kerry is tied and then he is up and then he is down and then he is tied. And this is all in about 10 to 12 days. People do not change that much that fast. And besides the last poll was 45-45-1 [for Nader]. That means 9% have not made up their minds. What the hell are they waiting for? A sign from God? A check in the mail? A decline in gas prices?
No, I don’t think we get the whole picture here. But if you just look at it in big terms Kerry has not shown any ability to get ahead and stay ahead of Bush since early August. That is a trend, and I trust trends more than numbers.
Time will tell. I wish for all our sakes that Bush would win and do it with a big enough margin that the craziness ends.
Most of my friends are democrats, and I’ve had some insightful discussions with them about this election. Most of them believe that if Bush wins, it will only be through fraud. Presumably, the larger the margin, the greater the fraud.
What I am saying is, don’t expect the craziness to end, no matter what the margin is. People who hate Bush now, will still hate him after he wins the election. They believe he stole the election in 2000, and will never accept that he could win straight up.
It’s worth remembering what “±4%” really means: it means that the real value will be within that 8 percent band 19 times out of 20. So you really can’t make anything much out of the Zogby changes … although they do seem to have a patern of leaning Democrat until close to the election, then suddenly converging on the election results, that makes me suspicious.
In any case, though, one poll varying by less than its margin of error, once, can’t be interpreted as having any real meaning at all.
I’m starting to believe that everything is manipulated. Am I a radical skeptic in statu nascendi? I hope not, because it’s a philosophical position that’s hard to defend.
I don’t think you have to go that far, Jamie. I do think denBeste’s point about the September notch is a good one — it’s a little hard to buy that as “real” and not some kind of artifact. But — like with Tradesports, it seems law of large numbers forces things to coverge eventually.
Knucklehead,
You have a democratic duty to answer pollsters,and lie,tell them anything that damages the opposition.Pollster shunting is fun.
legion:
I got over that whole stolen election thing and only irrational people are still clinging to that red herring. Tell your friends from one Democrat to another: knowing when you have lost is a sign of good mental health. The whole stolen election nonsense has become urban legend with little or real evidence to back it up. Its only lasting impact will be to drive people from the Democratic party as it becomes over time the sore loser moonbat cry baby party.
If Bush can win in a decisive way, the Bush haters will not like him but they will have to move on to bitching about how stupid the rest of us are rather than Bushitler stole the election.
The only pole I trust is the one I carry in the marches…