Friday, January 11, 2008
Polls that mislead
Just wondering. The New Hampshire polls that suggested Obama would win by double digits over Clinton were way off. Clinton won by a couple of points. Obama is the leftiest candidate and Clinton a bit more the moderate. My complaint has always been that polls done by newspapers, paricularly with an agenda (e.g. NY Times, Boston Globe, Wash Post) are skewed to represent a more lefty view of the electorate. This is done by polling in areas (urban) where lefties live and by not sorting out the actual voters. Many polls screen for actual voters. Thus polls like those released before this primary vote were intended to support the Obama wave out of Iowa and bolster the hysteria that Clinton was on her way out. Agenda journalism foiled again. Keep it up voters; don't let "polls" decide elections, have real votes decide elections. By the way, I took an on line test/survey of 35 questions that revealed I should be voting for Giuliani.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I try not to pay attention to polls either. My take on the polls showing Obama would win is simply that it's "hip" to like Obama, and not-so-hip to like Clinton.
Most polls are taken over the phone or in person, with little confidentiality, making the less-confident voter choosing the "cooler" of the candidates.
I would agree that what people often "announce" as their candidate, often doing so to be hip or more politically correct, changes when the curtains close in the voting booth. Thankfully, this phenomenon adds some mystery to the electoral process, what with all the polls declaring so and so ahead by n% points. I love it when they're wrong.
Post a Comment