by Jack
Those who study how polling is done have concluded some years ago that most polls tend to be over represented by democrats. Is this because fewer work, therefore they are more accessible or is it
because more republicans tend to be employed and unavailable? I don’t know, but it’s an interesting question. I only know democrats are generally better represented in the polls than republicans and ironically they are less likely to follow through and vote.
The typical response from professional pollsters is that any difference in the party balance of those surveyed is a reflection of how voters identify themselves today: 35 percent Democrats, 28 percent Republicans, and 33 percent Independents.
33 percent see themselves as independents? That’s huge and this begs the question where have the 33 percent come from and are they accurately represented in the polls? Almost nobody starts out that way, so which side of politics are these people coming from? Chances are, they’re from the right side and if you tested their core beliefs you will find a strong majority fall into the republican camp. Independents are not any more into socialism than they are taking polls and skews the numbers too.
An article in the Examiner reported, “Many will remember the 1980 election between Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter. The major polls, right up until one week before the election, showed the race close and “within the margin of error” in some polls. Yet we all know the actual poll on election day resulted in a landslide win for Ronald Reagan.
Surveys have shown most who run the major mainstream media outlets favor the Democrats and are themselves supporters or donors to the Democrat candidates. So it should be no surprise to informed readers to know they would seek to help their favored candidates by manipulating polling data to make it look like their candidate is doing better in the polls than they actually are doing.”
Frank Newport of the Gallup poll said recently, “Party identification changes as political tides change,. . . General shifts in the political environment can affect party identification just as they can affect presidential job approval and results of the ‘Who are you going to vote for?’ question.”
Then there is the over emphasis on non-scientific opinion polls the general media likes to use. This is a consistent conservative complaint because reporters and editors become too obsessive about opinion polls to produce headlines and TV coverage to demoralize Republicans and persuade undecided ‘swing’ voters – who have a tendency to vote for the candidate they perceive as the likely winner – to support Obama. This was noted in the article by Robert McCain at the American Spectator.
In my own deductive reasoning, it’s seem probable that if the current polls are showing the presidential race as a dead heat, then Romney is leading by a good 5 points or more.
Jack: “Those who study how polling is done have concluded some years ago that most polls tend to be over represented by democrats. Is this because fewer work, therefore they are more accessible or is it because more republicans tend to be employed and unavailable?”
Is this true, Jack? I have never seen any evidence that Democrats are more likely to be unemployed than Republicans. Do you have any statistics to justify this?
It seems to me that the opposite might be more likely to be true, since red states tend to be poorer, have higher rates of unemployment, and more recipients of food stamps and other government services. But I’m not sure that means Republicans as a group are more likely to be without a job.
Also, any evidence you have to support assertions that the polls are being manipulated would be interesting to see.
I don’t know Chris, it was just my sarcasm at work, but it would be interesting to find out.
The only political poll that counts is the election day vote. All others are superfluous.
Taking Jack’s legitimate and reasonable questions and attempting to belittle him by formulating a weak counter argument over pollsters’ inaccuracies and failures by demanding statistics is an exercise in mental masturbation best left to progressives who have an affinity for such.
I guess Chris was feeling very small today. Compile your own statistics and get back to us, little man. Make a day of it. Heck, make it your life’s work and go down into the annals of progressive tedium.
Sheesh Jack, you can’t even muse and ponder without having some progressive jerk with a chip on his shoulder jump on you.
Read the entire article for full understanding; an excerpt:
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2012/02/do-welfare-recipients-mostly-vote.html
Those who are talking about skewed polls have said that pollsters are sampling from party affiliation numbers and voter turnout based on 2008 rather than 2010. Of course this might vary from poll to poll and in different polling agencies. Most pollsters tighten their sampling as we get closer to the election because they want to have credible results. Here’s a sampling of opinion:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-graph-shows-why-obama-is-ahead-in-the-polls/
More here:
http://technorati.com/politics/article/once-again-the-skewed-polls-are/
Daily Kos smirks:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/25/1136162/-All-polls-are-skewed-Romney-is-secretly-ahead
Rush had a conversation with a caller on this subject for those who can follow math wonks:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/22/caller_s_analysis_of_skewed_poll_samples
Never argue with a Progressive Liberal. They will drag you down to their level and beat you up with ignorance!
Pie: “Taking Jack’s legitimate and reasonable questions and attempting to belittle him by formulating a weak counter argument over pollsters’ inaccuracies and failures by demanding statistics is an exercise in mental masturbation best left to progressives who have an affinity for such.”
There is something seriously wrong with you.
I did not “belittle” anyone, nor did I even make a counter argument. I asked (did not “demand”) Jack if he had evidence for the conclusions he seemed to be drawing. There is, as any sane person can see, nothing wrong with doing that, and for you to call it “mental masturbation” is utterly ridiculous. When people make claims, it only makes sense to ask for evidence.
You are violently angry that I post on this site at all, Pie. It doesn’t matter what I say or how I say it; you will always respond with crass insults so out of proportion that I can almost feel the spittle hitting my face. I will not accept this kind of verbal abuse from you, or from anyone else for that matter. It is unwarranted and says far more about your character than mine.
Now, back to an actual human discussion.
Tina, thank you for providing those links. I thought the Suoer-Economy blog post was interesting. I didn’t know polls had been done showing that welfare recipients are more likely to vote Democrat. But I’m not surprised, since Democrats are more likely to vote to protect their benefits. As you know, I am a recipient of government assistance (and a full-time college student who works an average of 30 hours a week), and I feel that the Democratic party supports my interests more than the Republican party. Of course, I know you disagree, and I’m not looking to get into that argument again, though I know you’ll probably make your best sales pitch anyway. 😉
Chris: “Democrats are more likely to vote to protect their benefits”
Interesting that you say they vote to protect benefits rather than best interests and that is always my major point. I can’t blame anyone for signing on to whatever benefit our government offers them whether it be a tax advantage, a subsidy, cash (as for clunkers)…whatever! However, I never have gotten a really good argument that the open-ended law that allows able bodied persons to live off of welfare, food stamps, and other government help for life is good for them or for the overall state of American society. The generational aspect also becomes very troubling. Attempts to have this discussion and possibly discover a better way to help people without crippling them are met by people min your party with derisive attacks on the heartless nature of conservatives.
Lacking a well reasoned answer I have to conclude that your party is dedicated to the Marxist model to the point of harming the poor, our economy, and society simply because it gives a political advantage.
No need to reply.
“However, I never have gotten a really good argument that the open-ended law that allows able bodied persons to live off of welfare, food stamps, and other government help for life is good for them or for the overall state of American society.”
I don’t really know what you mean here. Very few people stay on welfare “for life;” the majority are off of it within a few years. The vast majority of people on government assistance also work. You have to be very low-income in order to qualify for food stamps; some years my family does qualify, and others we are told we “make too much.” There may be some people who are gaming the system, getting benefits they don’t need when they could be working. But those people are in the minority. I favor reforms that would weed out the scammers, but not at the expense of those who truly need it.
I have told you before that I would not be able to go to college without government assistance. The financial aid I get for college is good for me and for society as a whole. It is an investment that allows me to get a good education and a good career, so I won’t be a drain on society in the future.
Investing in the futures of those who are struggling is common sense.
I found one statistic that tells the story from another perspective:
http://www.worldcalifornia.com/2012/06/cracking_down_on_welfare
If this keeps up the cost will make us all go broke. You’re right, we need these people working. The question is why aren’t they? Why are they unprepared to work and care for themselves? What can we do about it besides throw more money at them?
“I have never have gotten a really good argument that the open-ended law that allows able bodied persons to live off of welfare, food stamps, and other government help for life ….”
That’s because your premise here is false. It is a prejudice, and exists nowhere, except in your head. It is not possible to refute something that does not exist in the first place. So we just let it pass.
Tina: “If this keeps up the cost will make us all go broke. You’re right, we need these people working. The question is why aren’t they?”
Again, I don’t know what you mean, because you are being very unclear. Who are “they?” Most people on welfare DO work. The minority who do not either can’t find jobs due to the unemployment crisis, or do not see much incentive in working for minimum wage, which is lower than it’s been at any time since the 1960s.
A solution to this could be to incentivize work more. This can be done by raising the minimum wage back to the level of the late 60s. This is where the minimum wage would be if it had kept up with inflation.
Another solution is to penalize companies who outsource and reward companies who bring jobs back to America. Think how many jobs we’d have here if we put an end to outsourcing! This could truly be a land of opportunity again.
“California, the largest welfare state with 1.5 million recipients, spent about $46 billion in 2009.”
This is where a solid system of public education becomes supremely important in maintaining a civil society, because, if you know that the population of the state is about 40 million, and can do the math (or use a calculator), then you know that having a smidgen under four percent of the population on welfare … is not bad at all.
And you will not be swayed by such bellicose declarations of doom.