Why You Should Ignore Every One of Those Biased Polls

In case you can’t tell from my dripping sarcasm, I’m genuinely beginning to enjoy the absurd severity of bias in the state-run media polls.  But based on your comments and emails, not everyone shares my dark humor watching media outlet after media outlet shill for a failing President of their dreams.  But to quell your fears that this anonymous blogger from the bowels of liberal central (Manhattan) who has to walk through Occupy Wall Street protestors whenever they actually congregate (especially on weekends) isn’t just a Team Obama mole misleading you about these awful polls so you will remain complacent that Romney is on the right path, I decided to jump in the “way back machine” and take a few moments out of my life to google Battleground State polls from September 2000 (not as easy to find as you’d think).  And looky-looky what I saw:

Here’s the epic lead-in paragraph for awful polling giving Democrats false sense of inevitability  (you can practically substitute in Romney for Bush and Obama for Gore):

Since Labor Day, the media have released about 20 polls [sadly the link no longer works] on the presidential race. Three show a dead heat, one shows George W. Bush leading by a single percentage point, and the rest show Al Gore leading by one to 10 points. In the latest polls, Gore leads by an average of five points. It’s fashionable at this stage to caution that “anything can happen,” that Bush is “retooling,” and that the numbers can turn in Bush’s favor just as easily as they turned against him. But they can’t. The numbers are moving toward Gore because fundamental dynamics tilt the election in his favor. The only question has been how far those dynamics would carry him. Now that he has passed Bush, the race is over.

But let’s look at the Battleground State polling, that’s what this blog cares about.   In these state results remember Bush lost a few % in the final days over the DUI arrest that was unsealed making these polls even worse versus the final outcome. If you click on the links, note much of the journalism. They called the single-digit leads “deadlocked” and “virtual ties” because they are within the margin of error. Now the Obama re-election team masquerading as journalists refer to the same leads as much more reflective of the eventual outcome which we all know will be an Obama victory.

Battleground States:

  • Florida (Sep 7): Al Gore +3, CNN/USA Today/Gallup Tracking Poll (Bush won)
  • Florida (Sep 14): Al Gore +4, Sun Sentinel poll (Bush won)
  • Pennsylvania (Sep 17): Al Gore +18 EPIC/MRA poll (Gore won 4)
  • Minnesota (Sep 29): Al Gore +7 Minnesota Public Radio poll (Gore won by 2)
  • Michigan (Sep 17): Al Gore +8 EPIC/MRA poll (Gore won by 5)
  • Sadly I can’t find any polls from Sep 2000 in Tennessee except this one from October saying Gore was in the lead but Bush is now in front.  Same point, but not as effective since this was Gore’s home state so of course Gore was going to win it…

National Polls:

** Remember in the national vote, Gore actually got 0.5% more votes

Thankfully all of these polls were not just wrong, but very wrong.  The media does this every time but memories are short and before blogging, they really were the only source for information.  Today, we have all sorts of resources and outlets to debunk their tried and true methods to persuade low information voters or dissuade soft support for Republicans who are easily discouraged.  The bottom line is, sift through the noise, keep your friends on track and off the ledge and make certain every Battleground State friend you know votes Romney.  If for no other reason just so we can all have a  good laugh at the media and Obamabots’ expense.


  1. Harold Smith
    Posted September 20, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Good job Keith. You have cheerede up once again.

  2. Ron l
    Posted September 20, 2012 at 11:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Keith, Thanks for the in depth analysis of the msm polling, but if you were to pick one poll to get a true feeling of how the race is going which one would you suggest?

    • Posted September 21, 2012 at 8:42 am | Permalink | Reply

      Hard to pick just one because polling is such an inexact science. Anyone in the business is going to have a few ugly polls that make them look bad. This is why the Real Clear Politics averaging was such a breakthrough. It’s averaging of polls invariably came consistently closest to the actual outcome by marginalizing outlier polls. Unfortunately its system is based on reliable polling and today’s polls are no where near reliable. Scott Rasmussen has the best track record. He nailed both the 2004 and 2008 elections and was very good in the bizarre 2000 race. He works the hardest at getting voter sentiment correct which helps drives his accuracy so if I had to choose only one it would be him, but I’d also subtract maybe 1 point from his GOP margins since sometimes his weightings can favor the GOP nominally.

  3. IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States
    Posted September 23, 2012 at 10:05 am | Permalink | Reply

    You may find this of interest:
    courtesy Neoneocon’s blog, which is how I got here.

One Trackback

  1. […] the voting sentiment, they  often do so purposefully, and this is nothing new.  The other day I contrasted today’s polling with Bush in September 2000 since that election everyone remembers as basically ending in a tie. But the Romney campaign has […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: