Safe Mode: On
One Obvious Reason the Polls Are Biased

Posted by DJ Drummond
Published: October 15, 2008

I have said and will say again, that the opinion polls this year are simply wrong. They have fiddled with weighting and wording and various pieces of the demographics to create a false impression. You can either believe them or not, but as I have shown in the numbers for weeks now, believing the polls would be naïve at the very least.

But if the polls have been so biased, one may reasonably ask why that is so. I myself have commended groups like Gallup for a very professional job over many years, and even though I strongly disagree with the conclusions published by groups like CBS News, I applaud their open way of reporting at least some of the significant internal data. In fact, it is CBS News which reveals how this bias is operating, and how even well-intentioned pollsters can make major blunders in their assumptions.

I disagree with CBS News because of how it weights its respondent pool. And lately, what I have seen is a trend, verging on the ridiculous, of far too many Democrats in the pool to make any sense at all. This has been happening in both national polls and in state polls. For national polls, I mentioned some weeks back how Gallup managed to show Obama declining or staying steady in every political affiliation group over a week while McCain was steady or gained in every such group, yet Gallup's headline claimed Obama was gaining support overall, a mathematical impossibility without manipulating the proportionate weights.

For the states, Survey USA's polls also show a strong pro-Democrat bias, as shown in the following states (2004 and 2006 DRI splits come from actual elections, SUSA's 2008 split is arbitrary):

Ohio - 2004 DRI split was 35%/40%/25%, 2006 was 40%/37%/23%
SUSA in 2008 is using 46%/33%/20%

North Carolina - 2004 DRI split was 39%/40%/21%, 2006 was 39%/40%/21%
SUSA in 2008 is using 42%/37%/18%

Virginia - 2004 DRI split was 35%/39%/26%, 2006 was 36%/39%/26%
SUSA in 2008 is using 39%/30%/25%

Pennsylvania - 2004 DRI split was 41%/39%/20%, 2006 was 43%/38%/19%
SUSA in 2008 is using 54%/35%/10%

Florida - 2004 DRI split was 37%/41%/23%, 2006 was 36%/39%/25%
SUSA in 2008 is using 40%/42%/16%

Survey USA is using weights which have no historical validity whatsoever in their state polling. "Garbage" is not too strong a word to describe their published results.

So what's the deal? Something is happening to skew the polling groups' perception of how they think voters will turn out, and in publishing invalid conclusions as they have, they are - intentionally or not - misleading the public about the election conditions. Since the reputation of the polling group is essential in attracting future business clients, it hardly seems reasonable to consider these blunders to be deliberate. Although I have written that polls fall into the unethical habit of selling a roller coaster story which they know is not accurate, polls do try to stay close enough to be plausible. One must conclude that they have come to believe their own hype, forgetting Heisenberg's warning that observing a behavioral event not only influences the event, but also affects the observer as well.

So, in looking around for a cause, I found something all major polls have in common. Look at their headquarters locations:

Poll Headquarters
ABC News 77 W 66th St, #13, New York City, New York
CBS News 524 W 57th St, New York City, New York
FOX News 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York City, New York
Gallup 901 F St NW, Washington DC
Hotline 88 Pine St, 32nd floor, New York City, New York
IBD 12655 Beatrice St. Los Angeles, California
LA Times 202 W 1st St, Los Angeles California
Marist 3399 North Rd, Poughkeepsie, New Jersey
Mason-Dixon 1250 Connnecticut Ave #200, Washington DC
Newsweek 251 W 57th St, New York City, New York
NY Times 1 City Hall, New York City, New York
Pew 1615 L St NW, #700, Washington DC
Quinnipiac 275 Mount Carmel Ave., Hamden Connecticut
Rasmussen 625 Cookman, #2, Asbury Park, New Jersey
Reuters 3 Times Square, New York City, New York
Survey USA 15 Bloomfield Ave., Verona New Jersey
TIPP 690 Kinderkamack Rd, Oradell, New Jersey
WaPo 1150 15th St NW, Washington DC
Zogby 901 Broad St, Utica, New York

All of them deep in "blue" territory, many packed together up on the northeast corner of Obama territory. The only non-east-coast member of this group is the LA Times, located in the most liberal section of California, also solid blue in perspective. This is not a coincidence, all of the major polling organizations are based in locations where liberals are strongest and conservatives weakest, where 'democrat' and 'republican' take on meanings wildly different from the rest of the country. As a result, it is obvious that the prevailing culture in this limited part of the country has an undue influence on the focus applied by these polling groups. Democrats, especially liberal democrats, are over-represented in the poll reports because the culture of New York and Northeast America over-represents liberals. Republicans, especially conservative republicans, are suppressed in the poll reports because the culture at the polling groups' headquarters suppresses republican opinion.

I learned long ago, that when a manager displays certain personality traits, they are soon reflected by the employees at that company. A relaxed manager who is confident tends to improve the mood of his staff, while a tense micro-manager creates the same attitude in his employees. Knowing this, it's not at all hard to imagine the conversations between headquarters and the staff at these polling groups. They like Obama and expect him to win, so - what a surprise! - the polls they control reflect that same attitude.

Polls are useful for investigating trends and movement within a specific demographic, provided the polling group is ethical enough to publish its internals. But trusting them for an honest topline report amounts to trusting Obama's campaign to honestly report how the election is really going.


Click to view image: '239037-exitpolls.jpg'

Added: Oct-15-2008 
By: Hypnojive
In:
News
Tags: poll numbers, distortions, biased polls
Marked as: approved
Views: 9198 | Comments: 10 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 2 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Just two words to show how ineffective poll results can be--Bradley Effect!

    If that is not convincing enough, just recall the last two Presidential elections that had the Democrat Candidate winning and ahead in the polls. Both Gore and Kerry lost, even though the polls were reflecting otherwise.

    It depends on the kind of poll and the integrity of the pollster or poll company performing the poll. Exit Polls are not reliable as evidenced by one TV station predicting Kerry to be the victor. M More..

    Posted Oct-16-2008 By 

    (1)

  • polls are biased cause they are random depending on who is selected that particular day to be called. Also most polls don't call cellphones, which eliminates a large majority of young voters.

    Posted Oct-15-2008 By 

    (0)

    • Obviously you don't know how scientific polls are conducted. Its very complex its not simply calling someone up and asking them questions. It may seem simple to the person taking the poll, but there is alot going on behind it. its used to give a general Idea of where a particular population stand on an issue. That's why they have a margin of error, but even those can vary.

      Posted Oct-15-2008 By 

      (-1)

    • I have some idea of how they are conducted, however no matter how complex an operation you have, there are far too many factors that can sway an individuals opinion to put into a viable formula. Once again, the majority of polls don't call cell phones, which excludes the majority of young voters.

      The problem with polls is that people take them to be truths, instead of a educated guesstamate derived from a sample source.

      Posted Oct-15-2008 By 

      (0)

    • "The problem with polls is that people take them to be truths, instead of a educated guesstamate derived from a sample source." 100 percent agree..

      Okay so you do know what you are talking about.

      Posted Oct-15-2008 By 

      (-1)

  • n0bama

    Posted Oct-15-2008 By 

    (0)

  • "Okay so you do know what you are talking about."

    I wouldn't go that far lol, but I know enough not to trust em enough to put money on it

    Posted Oct-15-2008 By 

    (0)

    • Agreed. I forget which famous guy said it but he said I can take your favorable poll and do the same poll and make it non favorable.
      Polls and statistics can be manipulated at the drop of a dime.

      Posted Oct-15-2008 By 

      (0)

  • fwiw....

    I've decided I'm only going to look at one poll through the rest of the election. That's Rasmussen. Now I don't know New Jersey and whether Asbury Park is a liberal hotbed or just a pricey neighborhood, but I do get the general impression that since Rasmussen links donations to the McCain campaign, and also lists links to conservative columnist Deb Saunders that if they do have a bias, it's a conservative bias. There ain't no liberal nothing on their site.

    so...I'm watching them an More..

    Posted Oct-15-2008 By 

    (0)

  • Ha Ha! What a jackass. Just get used to saying it now: President Obama. Enough of republican bullshit. They've brought this country to its knees.

    Posted Oct-15-2008 By 

    (-1)