Well things have certainly changed in the race for the GOP nomination. Just a few weeks ago the discussion was around Romney’s plan to wrap up the nomination in Florida. Our boy Mitt was counting his chickens, his eggs, and his invites to the convention. The pollsters, brilliant all, had him 10 points or more up in South Carolina.
Then they voted.
This should be a lesson not only for those of you who are following the GOP primaries, but also all those who are following the preliminary polls around Obama. Almost all say Obama will beat Romney, or Newt, or whomever the GOP runs. Keep in mind those same pollsters had Carter beating Reagan.
Let’s face it, folks, the media polls for one reason only. No, it’s not to gain insight into the views of the public at a given point in time. That would be the theoretical reason for polling, not the media reason for polling. The media polls so that they can either state their opinion disguised as public opinion or to drive public opinion toward their opinion.
It’s not hard to prove this fact. First, look at the continued failures of all of these polls. Gore beat Bush in Florida, remember? John Kerry had Bush beat in 2004. Obama was trailing Hillary for the first part of the Democrat primaries in 2008. Race, after race, after race, the early polls have all been dead wrong when it came to the actual election. Now, as the media attempts to select the GOP nominee most likely to lose to Obama, the polls conducted show the exact opposite of what the public is thinking. South Carolina was perfect proof. The polls had Romney leading by 10 points going into the primary election. That night, Newt won by 13 points overall. So, for those who went to Berkley, that’s a 23 point difference between the pollster’s guess and the actual results. That’s a fairly significant difference, even for people in the media. To put it in context, a 23 point difference in the recent poll regarding Obama and Newt would have Newt winning the general election 72% to 28%. That’s nearly two thirds of the electorate voting for Newt.
Want more proof? True scientific polling is truly random. To poll registered US voters, you would need to randomly select a random sample of people from across the US. Truly scientific polling also gathers some basic demographic information then a few key questions on the subject under investigation. The media polls take neither of these steps to ensure limited bias. Evidence provided in past polls indicates the “random” sample of voters can be stacked as much as 2-1 in favor of Democrats. Other demographic categories often provide additional bias in the process, and further expand the margin of error. It’s through these types of invalid processes in collecting the data that a survey, or poll, can be off by 23 points. That type of error is not due to sample size, or even bad questions. That type of error requires a concerted effort.
Poorly worded questions can also impact the results of a poll. Answer these two questions;
- If the election were held today, would you vote for Obama or Gingrich?
- If the election were held today, would you vote for the enlightened savior of our generation Obama, or the adulterous, rich, lying, temperamental white guy, Gingrich?
Ok, so they’re not quite that bad. What pollsters will do is ask a few unnecessary questions prior to the voting question to prep the subject. Questions around the subjects opinion of recent comments by Newt’s ex-wife, or Newt’s involvement with Fannie Mae, or other questions that put doubt in the mind of the subject before the “who would you vote for” question is asked. That type of polling tends to skew perspective, and creates invalid results that are 23 points off the final results.
So why does the media enjoy being wrong all the time in their polling? Well, as noted, it’s either to state their opinion as news, something that stands in stark contrast to the “unbiased media” image they try to present, or to drive the opinion of readers. Keep in mind, these are the same folks that tried to convince us last week that Obama “really, really, REALLY...no REALLY” didn’t want to run against Romney. The same media that has attacked every GOP candidate that has taken the lead over Romney. The same ones who attack the Tea Party protests as violent, racist, and hate speech while they praise the Occupy Wall Street movement as it riots, rapes, and violates federal law. The same media that has washed over Solyndra, and Range Fuels, and “Fast and Furious”, and the “National Defense Authorization Act”, and a multitude of other scandals that have sprung from the Obama regime.
The same media that was 23 points off in South Carolina in hopes that they could drive Conservative voters away from the polls and secure a win for the most liberal candidate in the GOP field. Kudos to the voters in South Carolina for seeing through the ruse. Let’s hope the remainder of the nation sees through the pitiful polling as effectively as our southern friends.
Contact Ramarious Brushfire Home
Copyright 2011. The published content is the sole property of the author. Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.