Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Some Pollsters Reduce Skews, Election Tightens?

Now there's a shocker, friends! This week, ABC/Washington Post published a poll. It showed President Obama leading Mitt Romney by +2%, within the 4% margin for error. Compare that to polls with demonstrably skewed samples from last week. Let's remind ourselves what we learned last week:

Biblical Conservatism:  The Drive-By Media Keeps Doubling Down on Skewed Polls

Now we have an ABC/Washington Post poll with an at least reasonable poll sample of Democrat +3%. Granted, I still believe quite firmly that the actual election turnout will be closer to 2010's Republican +2% turnout, but +3% Democrat is at least PLAUSIBLE. It's in line with Rasmussen's +2% Democrat turnout.

Yet if you close your eyes and point at a liberal blog, you will find a post talking about how people like yours truly are all wet for talking about the skews in Drive-By Media polls. They love to ridicule us, pointing out the straw man of party registration (which we've discussed so many times here how it does not matter).

Today, after we in the New Media have absolutely slammed these polls for being skewed, now we're seeing a more realistic sample from ABC/Washington Post.  So let's ask the question: Why is it that, all of a sudden, if it was all over for Romney, are the polls tightening? They cooked up a polling sample in Florida and Ohio LAST WEEK to push Obama over the line in Fantasy World. What changed? What made them get realistic?

Well friends, the reality is this: The Drive-By Media, specificially ABC/Washington Post, is now admitting their own skew by using a more realistic sample (albeit still skewed Democrats +3 instead of looking at the 2010 turnout which was flat even.)

Friends, despite liberal trolls on the Internet telling conservatives how they're dreaming or whatever with their poll cooking accusations, reality is setting in, even to the Drive-By Pollsters. They've realized they are not believed and if they continue to lie to us about the polling samples and have egg on their face, their credibility will be shot.

Note to my daily readers: Tomorrow's blog will post about 1 pm instead of the usual 11 am. This will allow me to give a thorough reaction to the debate tonight. Thanks for reading!


  1. I'm curious.. why are the polls skewed? Could it not be that there are more democrats than republicans?

  2. Because the data shows that, in terms of actual LEANING not party registration, because, according to Rasmussen's most recent poll of party identification which was posted September 1st, 37% of Americans consider themselves Republican, 34% Democrat, and 29% considered themselves Independent. That's a poll of hundreds of thousands of voters, by the way.

    (This is far more important, especially in the 21 states with Open Primaries). In those states, if someone was a Democrat back in 1976, it doesn't mean they still affiliate with the Democrat Party's platform now (the South was solid Democrat until Reagan).

    States like Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri and Louisiana, all four deep red states, have Democrat registration advantages. Arkansas and Missouri have open primaries. In other words, why change registration?

  3. Rasmussen is just one poll. One single republican leaning poll that's paid for by Fox News. Just because Rasmussen says something doesn't mean anything. In fact, most likely the opposite is true. I rest my case.

  4. Wow. So many false statements in your response. One, Rasmussen is not paid for by Fox News. You've disqualified your ENTIRE answer just from there. But hey, I'll proceed anyway.

    In 2008, there was a +8 Democrat turnout. Please explain to me why that should reasonably be expected this year? You cannot give a valid argument to that. Obama is not popular. He's not the Messiah.

    Two, I clearly demonstrated to you in terms of PARTY REGISTRATION why these polls are using outright silly samples.

    Three, in the 2008 Election, Rasmussen was named the single most accurate poll after the Election.

    Your case which you've "rested" is based on a false assumption that the Drive-By Media is actually reporting. They aren't. They're weighing their polls (their admission, read some poll internals) to places that are just ridiculous. Take Ohio. They say Obama is up by 10%, but they use a sample of +9-10% Democrats. Ohio has a +1% Republican advantage in registration.

    The fact that you're content to live in Fantasy Land is lovely for you, until Election Day. Then you'll be shocked. I won't be.

  5. Foxmussen isn't paid for by Fox News? Really now? You must be unaware of what Pulse Opinion Research is.

    Obama's not popular, but his approval rating is indeed higher than that of Mitt Robme. Even according to your republican leaning poll, Obama has a higher approval rating than Robme.

    Rasmussen was not name "the single most accurate poll", ever. That's false. In 2010, more recent than 2008 (it's a shame I have to explain that), Rasmussen was at the very bottom of polls. The. Very. Bottom.

    "Ohio has a +1% Republican advantage in registration."

    Registration is not the same as party leanings. Nationwide, there are more registered democrats than republicans, but you don't see that in the party leanings.

    As I stated, you have one single poll that backs up your story, and given the polling's revenue source and inaccurate history, it's safe to say: I rest my case.

  6. One, your Rasmussen is not paid for by Fox. Your pathetic attempt to repeat the story makes me wonder if you ARE Obama. Pulse Opinion Research is not the same thing as Rasmussen. And neither are owned by Fox. I know, you'd have to look past to learn that.

    Now I have to explain reality to you about 2010. First of all, since 2010 was more recent, explain why your beloved Drive-By polls aren't considering 2010's FLAT EVEN turnout in terms of party in 2010 and are instead using a model that repeats 2008's Democrat sweep?

    Secondly, 2010's polls were based on GENERIC BALLOTS. Because a national poll cannot accurately judge in one poll how individual races work out. Sad that I have to explain THAT to you. Turns out when you get past the liberal meme about Rasmussen intended to defend preposterous +8% Democrat samples, they're actually close to reality.

    "Registration is not the same as party leanings. Nationwide, there are more registered democrats than republicans, but you don't see that in the party leanings. "

    You're right. Voter registration doesn't equal party leanings. In fact, the Democrat advantage in registration is eroded and in multiple cases surpassed when one goes to personal identification.

    So let's look at the ONLY poll that does monthly polls of hundreds of thousands of likely voters to see party affiliation:

    Oh look, it's Rasmussen. Hmmm...more self-identified Republicans. That's interesting.

    How about the fact why Peter Brown of Quinnipiac (one of the poll skewers) flat out admits that it's unlikely we'll see a Democrat turnout advantage?

    You keep resting your case, and yet you keep using questionable arguments and media memes to back it.

  7. And...MUDSLINGING. You're officially deleted. Thanks for playing.

  8. Since I had to go and delete a comment because of mudslinging, I'd like to remind people of the rules for commenting on this page.

  9. In case anyone is wondering, comments were not removed for debating with me or disagreeing with me or any other such foolishness. The above Rules for Comments clearly denotes that comments with direct personal insults will be deleted.


All posts will be reviewed subject to the Rules for Commenting. Any post that does not abide by these rules will not be posted, entirely at the discretion of the blog editor.

Commenters who repeatedly violate these rules will be permanently banned from commenting, and thus none of their comments, regardless of content, will be posted.