Thursday, October 16, 2008

Poll Trix

90 Proof
HillBuzz does an excellent job of  charting how the media polls are weighted for success - Obama's success. Here's a summary, but go look.

Here are two charts:  the first one shows the biased poll that shortchanges Republican party ID, and the second poll shows a more realistic party ID breakdown — note the difference: an 11-point Obama lead shrinks down to just 4-points when correct party ID breakdown is used.

I have a minor quibble with the HillBuzz historical weighting giving Democrats a 4% advantage. Examination of the 2004 election showed a 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans who voted.

Ann Coulter here examines  the historic record ...

With an African-American running for president this year, there has been a lot of chatter about the "Bradley effect," allowing the media to wail about institutional racism in America.

Named after Tom Bradley, who lost his election for California governor in 1982 despite a substantial lead in the polls, the Bradley effect says that black candidates will poll much stronger than the actual election results.

First of all, if true, this is the opposite of racism: It is fear of being accused of racism. For most Americans, there is nothing more terrifying than the prospect of being called a racist. It's scarier than flood or famine, terrorist attacks or flesh-eating bacteria. To some, it's even scarier than "food insecurity."
Reviewing the polls printed in the New York Times and the Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.


Anonymous said...

So, Roger:

Are your predictions that THE ONE will still lose on election day? My gut feeling is telling me that he will...and my intuition is generally dead on. Probably for the same reasons you have stated...but also because I think that most American citizens use common sense. I have never seen such a stupid election cycle in my life! I truly thought that 2004 was the dumbest, but this one takes the prize. And how that empty suit can sit before a camera last night and rip lies without cracking a smile is beyond me. I hope the p.o.s loses be a wide margin!

TimO said...

4% is still within a statistical margin of error.

But wouldn't it be a hoot if Mr. Acorn LOSES by several hundred thousand votes and then protests that the election was STOLEN???? (You know that's what'll happen....)

But of course the pot calling the kettle black is RACIST!!!

gadfly said...

Rodger ...

The poll charts came from NRO, Hillbuzz did not source them properly.

DonM said...

Over at Michelle Malkin's website. One of her commentors used the term "ACornholer". Seems about right to me.

Juice said...

84% Say They'd Never Lie to a Pollster

You know, what's bigger than truth or lies, is the framing of the questions pollsters ask. Most questions are, by design, biased for a particular result. IMO, that is the resulting lie.

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.