Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Trump Often Beats Hillary but Biased Polls Don't Show It
If you have trouble believing recent general election polls showing Hillary Clinton ahead of Donald Trump by 10+% -- there may be a good reason. American Thinker had trouble, too, after a recent Rasmussen poll showed either a tie or a slight advantage for Trump. The Rasmussen poll is unique among recent polls that widely favor Clinton. So, American Thinker took a look at whether pro-Hillary poll results are biased. Their methodology suggests that they may be biased toward Hillary. ~~~~~ American Thinker gives an explanation of the general ratio of Democratic to Republican voters for the presidential ticket by examining prior presidential election results. In 2012, the Democrat-to-Republican ratio (D:R ratio) was 1.08. It was 1.16 in 2008, 0.95 in 2004, and 1.01 in 2000. American Thinker says : "In other words, the ratio is approximately equal to one. At most, in recent times, perhaps a ratio of up to 1.1 is reasonable to assume, but that would be pushing the boundaries and introducing bias by way of erroneously assuming some permanent leftward shift in the electorate." Then, American Thinker analyzed recent polling data : (1). An April 25 Suffolk University/USA TODAY poll shows Clinton ahead of Trump by 11%. When asked, "Do you think of yourself as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent?," 35.7% said Democrat, 30.5% said Republican, and 29.3% said independent. That is a D:R ratio of 1.17, which is certainly too high. The ratio of those who voted in the Democratic primaries to those who voted in the Republican primaries was a whopping 1.24. This poll was biased toward the Democrats and against Trump. (2). A GWU/Battleground poll several weeks ago had Clinton ahead of Trump by just 3%. When respondents were asked their political preferences, just 21% indicated "strong Republican" versus 27% "strong Democrat," and an overall 42%-to-40% advantage for those leaning Democrat over Republican. Once again, the poll is skewed toward hardcore Democrats, who are least likely to vote Trump. The ratio of strong Democrats to strong Republicans (1.3) is far too high to be representative. An unbiased sampling of voter preferences would have resulted in a tie between Trump and Clinton, or perhaps a slight Trump lead. (3). In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released in mid-April, Clinton beat Trump by 11%. When survey participants were asked whom they voted for in 2012, 43% said Barack Obama, and just 31% said Mitt Romney. That is a polling ratio of Obama:Romney voters at 1.39 compared to the general election ratio of just 1.08. And, along with the other data in the methodology, it shows a several-point advantage to those leaning Democratic over Republican. (4). A late March McClatchy-Marist poll had Clinton over Trump by 9%, and, once again, the tables are tilted against Trump, with a 5% bias toward those leaning Democratic in the poll composition. ~~~~~ To give perspective to its analysis, American Thinker took historical Pew Research Center data on voter "leanings." If Pew "leanings" data represented how individuals actually voted, then applying recent Hillary-Trump poll ratios that favored Hillary would have produced these prior results : the 2000 election would have been won handily by Al Gore (rather than the actual tie), George W. Bush would have lost the 2004 election to John Kerry in a huge landslide (instead of the solid Bush win), and the 2008 and 2012 elections would have been truly staggering victories for Barack Obama, well beyond the real results. ~~~~~ Dear readers, left-leaning media keep producing poll data claiming to show a dominantly and continuously left-leaning public, yet right-of-center candidates win many elections. Why? The answer is biased polling data, which is tilted toward Democratic voters and severely underestimates the actual voter mood and GOP presidential performance in November. According to American Thinker, the likely state of the Trump-Clinton race is an historically small Clinton lead -- a few percentage points, but not the 10+% claimed -- very likely a tie, or even a small Trump lead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Polling (when done honestly with NO preconceived conclusion(s)) is a wonderful tool for campaign organizations to use in determining their next move.
ReplyDeleteBut as worthy nightly news feature it can become a monumental lie that steals the wishes of the public desired outcome. In other words it’s a lie that sways the vast number of uninformed voters into siding with the poll numbers merely because the uninformed voter is busy watching some useless movie or the last episode of programs like ‘The Good Wife” vs. a personal research into candidates & issues on their own.
Don’t we all know and accept the fact that 99.9% of all news delivered in any form is predetermined bias for both the candidate, the candidates party affiliation, and the news own welfare via viewership which equates to higher advertising revenue and profitability.
Polling can be very scientific (as Casey Pops demonstrates here) but there is a thing called “good science” and a thing called “bad science”. Polling with the wrong intentions, in the wrong hands is VERY BAD science.
I read a poll the other day showing that Hillary beats Trump by 10.3% today. But that Trump can reverse that 10.3% by taking in the neocons of the RNC. That would make the race a dead heat, meaning that this pollster thought that more republican voters would stay home on November 8th, than will Democrats. Why because Hillary is a picture of honesty and everything pure and above boards? Please save me the blindness escapade.
ReplyDeleteBut there existed at the end of this poll asking the question which “party” is best suited to run the government. The overwhelming answer was NEITHER 66% to 33% (for either party. It is an indication that 2 out of every 3 potential voters find neither party worthy of their vote.
It is in that 66% that Trump will find his way to victory.
Richard Nixon had a name for this thought to exists 66% … “The Silent Majority”
But remember that a majority of that 66% can be garnished by anyone, Trump, Hillary, or even a 3rd party candidate. There lies inside that 66% enough votes to be elected.
Polls are structured and I believe that this poll was intended to reveal that 66%. The pollster was the Wall Street Journal by the way.
For one minute let’s assume that polls are honest and worthy of their influence:
ReplyDeleteHow can the responders to pollsters be so blatantly stupid?
My dog (of which I don’t have one) could be more logical, and consistent in their answers.
And another point is who do these pollster contact to poll? I have been a regularly voter for the past 50 plus years, and not once have I been polled – not once. But maybe I don’t fit the acceptable profile pollsters look for. I am white, educated, self-supporting, politically active, and strongly addicted to conservative philosophies. So I guess I don’t have to wait by the phone do I?