Poll Manipulation Is Old News
Yesterday I wrote a piece about political polling and how it was being used to manipulate rather than measure. In it, I asked whether it was my failing memory that made it seem to be a new phenomenon. The answer, according to Jeffrey Lord in The American Spectator, is a resounding "yes!" Lord's analysis of a series of New York Times stories involving several so-called battleground states in the 1980 Carter/Reagan election is devastating. The twisted logic and the nearly laughable use of selective polling data in a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of that race is shocking, even for the Times. One example from the article:
The Reagan-Carter race in Texas, the paper claimed, had "suddenly tightened and now shapes up as a close, bruising battle to the finish." The paper said "a New York Times/CBS News Poll, the second of seven in crucial big states, showing the Reagan-Carter race now a virtual dead heat despite a string of earlier polls on both sides that had shown the state leaning toward Mr. Reagan."
The narrative? It was like the famous scene in the Wizard of Oz where Dorothy and her friends stare in astonishment as dog Toto pulls back the curtain in the wizard's lair to reveal merely a man bellowing through a microphone. Causing the startled "wizard" caught in the act to frantically start yelling, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" In the case of the Times in its look at Texas in October of 1980 the paper dismissed "a string of earlier polls on both sides" that repeatedly showed Texas going for Reagan. Instead, the Times presented this data:
A survey of 1,050 registered voters, weighted to form a probable electorate, gave Mr. Carter 40 percent support, Mr. Reagan 39 percent, John. B. Anderson, the independent candidate, 3 percent, and 18 percent were undecided. The survey, conducted by telephone from Oct. 1 to Oct. 6, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
In other words, the race in Texas is close, assures the Times, with Carter actually in the lead.
What happened? Reagan beat Carter by over 13 points. It wasn't even close to close.
It might not be an apples-to-apples comparison to what's going on today, but it is a reminder of how far media outlets were willing to go to keep Ronald Reagan out of the White House. Fortunately for America, the Gipper did manage to squeak in despite the polling. Given the daily drumbeat about what the polls show in this upcoming election, Lord's piece is well worth a read.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Nov '10
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
Thanks for posting this. It is most reassuring.
Civitas, a conservative organization, just published a poll showing Obama up 4 points in North Carolina. I live in North Carolina, and I flat out don't believe it, but I don't understand how a conservative group gets a result that's that skewed in favor of the Democrats. There's just something wrong with the polls this year.
Oct '10
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
I guess the thinking is that by weighting the polls in favor of your candidate you manufacture enthusiasm for you cause and dampen/discourage voting on the other side, but I dunno.
While I can see excitement--Obama '08--motivating an emotional Democrat, I think that if Conservatives really believe in their candidate depressing polls aren't as likely to keep them from voting. McCain, even with Palin, couldn't excite me, particularly his sorry performance after the economic crisis hit. I'd fight to get to the polls this time around. Obama's record makes Romney positively sparkle in contrast.
Edit: I think my point is that even with the most dismal numbers, we dogged conservatives will trudge to the polls this time. Obama's negatives are motivation enough.
Edited on September 25, 2012 at 4:42pmSep '10
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
It is interesting that in '80 it was plausible to pick Carter of Reagan in Texas whereas now nobody believes Obama will win there. They have to resort to other methods of obfuscation and deceit.
Nov '10
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
This is further evidence of my Standing Operating Procedure: NEVER trust anything that appears in Pravda-on-the-Hudson and damned little that comes from the Washington Post or any of the other big city newspapers. The "news" pages of the Wall Street Journal also are a part of the Tank Corps and are to be substantially discounted.
I now have recourse mainly to the Web for my news and try to vet what I read here closely.
Jan '11
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
Push-polling only works if people are willing to change their vote to match the polls - usually by aligning with the currently-winning side. Of course, anyone who votes according to how they think others are voting ... profoundly misunderstands the purpose of voting.
Voting according to the polls is a stupidity cowbell.
Edited on September 25, 2012 at 5:03pmApr '11
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
I went along with the "the polls are skewed" business for quite a while, but realistically, not every poll is wrong. Obama now leads in literally every national poll now, including Rasmussen and Gallup. He leads in every swing state, as Romney loses altitude and the paths to 270 close off. Consumer confidence is surging and people are feeling hopeful about the economy.
Much of the talk here is getting to "Baghdad Bob" levels of denial. The American people are not buying what we are selling. Barack Obama will be reelected six weeks from today.
Sep '10
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
This time I think they are lying in order to keep Obama supporters engaged, rather than depress GOP voters as is commonly claimed by many on our side.
Polls are little more than an excuse to write a story. After that, since they are already using polls to write a story, why not spin and embellish a little? Then this bleeds back into the methodology and sampling and we get bad polls. It doesn't matter to the newspapers if their polls were wrong, this is always discovered months later, and is now "old news". It doesn't matter that certain polls were wrong, because the objective is the story, and when was the last time a newspaper published an article on how they were wrong?
Polls are expensive, the more accurate the poll, the more it costs. Again accuracy is not the mission, so why should a failing newspaper spend more money on providing accuracy when a cheap poll will accomplish the same goal?
Aug '12
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
It seems like we should be less worried about skewed polls than about potential voter fraud.
Jul '12
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
That's the hard question: what's the actual effect on the electorate? Note that the Reagan margin in Texas wasn't a "squeak." I'd be more inclined also to worry about the dead pulling the handle multiple times on election day. Guessing that opinion poll manipulation is a cheap but ineffective method. But just guessing.
Jul '12
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
There's an interesting bit further down in the Lord piece about the '84 election and its effect on the Reagan campaign. Now that's good gamesmanship. And thanks for the link.
Jul '11
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
Nice article. Are we going to get some hockey this year? I can't handle losing that.
Nov '11
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
Yes, the polls are skewed and the traditional media are snorkeling in the tank for Obama . As we get closer to the election, the pollsters will proportionately nudge their results closer to reality, so that by election day the polls will fairly well reflect reality.
But in the meantime, polls are more a tool for manipulating public opinion than for measuring it.
These manipulative polls certainly can have an effect, a very powerful effect, because, as Tocqueville observed, the democratic soul finds it difficult to oppose the opinion of the majority:
Edited on September 25, 2012 at 8:04pmRe: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
Finally, a truly relevant comment! My heart says yes; my head says no.
Feb '11
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/328386/why-isnt-romney-ten-points-peter-kirsanow
Jul '12
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
Sorry for the repeated half-baked comments, but:
Wouldn't the case to look at be a close election that a gamer called lopsided? Not clear which direction of the miscall should be, but that's the gamer's problem. My head hurts.
Nov '11
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
Severely Ltd.: I guess the thinking is that by weighting the polls in favor of your candidate you manufacture enthusiasm for you cause and dampen/discourage voting on the other side, but I dunno.
While I can see excitement--Obama '08--motivating an emotional Democrat, I think that if Conservatives really believe in their candidate depressing polls aren't as likely to keep them from voting. . . . I'd fight to get to the polls this time around. . . .
Edit: I think my point is that even with the most dismal numbers, we dogged conservatives will trudge to the polls this time. Obama's negatives are motivation enough.
The problem is not that solid conservatives will be too depressed to get out of bed on election day. The problem is that the relatively small handful of persuadable undecideds--the 800,000 persuadable undecideds, in four or five states that will swing this election--will be discouraged from voting for Romney because they won't want to vote for a loser.
That's a real problem because the remaining undecideds, if they vote, will vote their emotions.
Edited on September 25, 2012 at 9:25pmAug '10
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
Until the polls stop oversampling Democrats they will continue to be inaccurate. No one is sure exactly what the turnout will be in November but it will definitely NOT be as favorable for Dems as 2008.
Apr '11
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
wmartin: I went along with the "the polls are skewed" business for quite a while, but realistically, not every poll is wrong. Obama now leads in literallyeverynational poll now, including Rasmussen and Gallup. He leads in every swing state, as Romney loses altitude and the paths to 270 close off. Consumer confidence is surging and people are feeling hopeful about the economy.
Much of the talk here is getting to "Baghdad Bob" levels of denial. The American people are not buying what we are selling. Barack Obama willbe reelected six weeks from today. · 6 hours ago
Once again, you saved me a trip to the polls. Thanks!!! Let me know who's going to win in 2016 too so I don't have to bother voting.
Oct '10
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
Astonishing
Severely Ltd.: I guess the thinking is that by weighting the polls in favor of your candidate you manufacture enthusiasm for you cause and dampen/discourage voting on the other side, but I dunno.
While I can see excitement--Obama '08--motivating an emotional Democrat, I think that if Conservatives really believe in their candidate depressing polls aren't as likely to keep them from voting. . . . I'd fight to get to the polls this time around. . . .
Edit: I think my point is that even with the most dismal numbers, we dogged conservatives will trudge to the polls this time. Obama's negatives are motivation enough.
The problem is not that solid conservatives will be too depressed to get out of bed on election day. The problem is that the relatively small handful of persuadable undecideds--the 800,000 persuadable undecideds, in four or five states that will swing this election--will be discouraged from voting for Romney because they won't want to vote for a loser.
That's a real problem because the remaining undecideds, if they vote, will vote their emotions. · 4 hours ago
Edited 4 hours ago
Are the undecideds really so pitiful?
Aug '10
Re: Poll Manipulation Is Old News
We just took a poll at our house.
100% of the registered voters here are sick to death of polls.