CBS News-New York Times, in a poll released on Tuesday, shows Barack Obama headed for a landslide victory against John McCain, 53-39%. Other polls have shown an Obama lead by anywhere from 9-11 percentage points.
While this is certainly cause for alarm, can these polls be trusted, when other polls show a much closer race?
According to a poll observer in National Review, a closer look at what's beneath the surface presents a very different picture than what is reported by the organizations that conduct the polls.
Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Race Wide Open 9 Days Before Iowa Caucuses
With only 9 days to go until the Iowa Caucuses, polls are showing a wide open race in both Parties.
Although Mike Huckabee has opened a fairly large lead in the GOP race over 2nd place contender Mitt Romney and 3rd place contender Fred Thompson, any of the three are within striking distance and could pull out a last-minute surge to put them over the top.
On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton maintains a very small lead over 2nd place contender Barack Obama. In fact, the two are locked into a statistical tie. John Edwards is running a close third. Here again, any of the top three could easily win.
Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, the setting of the first primary, Mitt Romney holds on to a very slight lead against a surging John McCain, who is only two points behind--once again a statistical dead-heat.
Hillary Clinton maintains a slight lead in New Hampshire, although some polls show Barack Obama in the lead. Once again John Edwards is running a close third.
We will not attempt any predictions at this point due to the highly fluid nature of the race, except for two. It is beginning to appear that Barack Obama will beat Hillary in Iowa. Momentum is on his side.
In like manner, it looks as if John McCain will pull off the miracle of his political career and win New Hampshire, due to the very same factor as Obama in Iowa--momentum.
HOT TIP: Don't be surprised to see John McCain defy all the predictions of his demise and win not one but several primaries. We are not saying he will win the nomination, but as it becomes more apparent that conservatives are still on the fence, they may well break for McCain at the last minute due to his war hero status, his experience, and his perceived ability to work with political opponents to reach compromise.
We have our problems with McCain, as we have stated repeatedly. But he is fairly strong on issues such as gun rights, foreign policy, the war on terror, abortion, and healthcare.
Nonetheless, we still see Fred Thompson as the strongest alternative to Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani. Although he is in 3rd place in Iowa, he is still within easy striking distance of the win.
Although Mike Huckabee has opened a fairly large lead in the GOP race over 2nd place contender Mitt Romney and 3rd place contender Fred Thompson, any of the three are within striking distance and could pull out a last-minute surge to put them over the top.
On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton maintains a very small lead over 2nd place contender Barack Obama. In fact, the two are locked into a statistical tie. John Edwards is running a close third. Here again, any of the top three could easily win.
Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, the setting of the first primary, Mitt Romney holds on to a very slight lead against a surging John McCain, who is only two points behind--once again a statistical dead-heat.
Hillary Clinton maintains a slight lead in New Hampshire, although some polls show Barack Obama in the lead. Once again John Edwards is running a close third.
We will not attempt any predictions at this point due to the highly fluid nature of the race, except for two. It is beginning to appear that Barack Obama will beat Hillary in Iowa. Momentum is on his side.
In like manner, it looks as if John McCain will pull off the miracle of his political career and win New Hampshire, due to the very same factor as Obama in Iowa--momentum.
HOT TIP: Don't be surprised to see John McCain defy all the predictions of his demise and win not one but several primaries. We are not saying he will win the nomination, but as it becomes more apparent that conservatives are still on the fence, they may well break for McCain at the last minute due to his war hero status, his experience, and his perceived ability to work with political opponents to reach compromise.
We have our problems with McCain, as we have stated repeatedly. But he is fairly strong on issues such as gun rights, foreign policy, the war on terror, abortion, and healthcare.
Nonetheless, we still see Fred Thompson as the strongest alternative to Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani. Although he is in 3rd place in Iowa, he is still within easy striking distance of the win.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Pollster: Hillary Win 'Inevitable'
Washington, DC (TLS). A pollster for the Hillary Clinton campaign has declared that her nomination by the Democratic Party and her ultimate election as President are 'inevitable.'
Ben Smith of Politico.com bases his conclusion upon polling numbers during the month of June, which show the candidate picking up support across the country at the expense of Barack Obama. Smith also cites various polls which point to Hillary leading Rudy Giuliani by anywhere from 1 to 7 percentage points.
As a pollster whose services are paid for by the Clinton campaign, Smith has certainly done an admirable job in spinning the story to make his client look good.
A closer look, however, reveals major problems with his assessment.
The polls that Smith cites are all limited to a two-person matchup between Hillary and Rudy Giuliani, with the exception of one poll that has a three-way matchup including NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Naturally, that particular poll has Bloomberg drawing votes away from Giuliani, which of course would work to Hillary's advantage.
Never once does Smith cite a poll that pits Hillary against Fred Thompson, for example, or any other conservative/libertarian candidate.
Although there are major differences between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, both represent the same area of the country and share certain northeastern values that do not resonate with the heartland or the South. Thus, a large portion of the electorate tends to view both candidates--along with Bloomberg--as liberal northeastern elitists who do not share the worldview, the values, and the faith of the rest of the country.
To present only those polls that pit Hillary against Giuliani alone is no reliable or credible method to justify the view that her election to the Presidency is 'inevitable.'
In addition, Smith deftly fails to mention Hillary's negatives. No other candidate in either Party carries the huge negatives that are ascribed to Hillary by the electorate. The latest poll indicates that fully 48% of the electorate has a negative opinion of her, and a whopping 50% state that they will NOT vote for her, no matter who is her opponent.
It is certain the Clinton campaign is well-aware of these figures, and that includes Mr. Smith. But at the moment the spin seems more important than the facts.
Come to think of it, in politics the spin is ALWAYS more important than the facts.
If you are of a mind to read Smith's spin, here it is:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/Hillary_the_inevitable.html
Ben Smith of Politico.com bases his conclusion upon polling numbers during the month of June, which show the candidate picking up support across the country at the expense of Barack Obama. Smith also cites various polls which point to Hillary leading Rudy Giuliani by anywhere from 1 to 7 percentage points.
As a pollster whose services are paid for by the Clinton campaign, Smith has certainly done an admirable job in spinning the story to make his client look good.
A closer look, however, reveals major problems with his assessment.
The polls that Smith cites are all limited to a two-person matchup between Hillary and Rudy Giuliani, with the exception of one poll that has a three-way matchup including NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Naturally, that particular poll has Bloomberg drawing votes away from Giuliani, which of course would work to Hillary's advantage.
Never once does Smith cite a poll that pits Hillary against Fred Thompson, for example, or any other conservative/libertarian candidate.
Although there are major differences between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, both represent the same area of the country and share certain northeastern values that do not resonate with the heartland or the South. Thus, a large portion of the electorate tends to view both candidates--along with Bloomberg--as liberal northeastern elitists who do not share the worldview, the values, and the faith of the rest of the country.
To present only those polls that pit Hillary against Giuliani alone is no reliable or credible method to justify the view that her election to the Presidency is 'inevitable.'
In addition, Smith deftly fails to mention Hillary's negatives. No other candidate in either Party carries the huge negatives that are ascribed to Hillary by the electorate. The latest poll indicates that fully 48% of the electorate has a negative opinion of her, and a whopping 50% state that they will NOT vote for her, no matter who is her opponent.
It is certain the Clinton campaign is well-aware of these figures, and that includes Mr. Smith. But at the moment the spin seems more important than the facts.
Come to think of it, in politics the spin is ALWAYS more important than the facts.
If you are of a mind to read Smith's spin, here it is:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/Hillary_the_inevitable.html
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
More Spin From Katie Couric and CBS News
Washington, DC (TLS). CBS News has a long history of Leftist spin on its news stories, dating all the way back to Walter Cronkite's days as anchor. The bias only got worse with Dan Rather.
Now, Katie Couric and company have taken the news division at CBS to a new low in Leftist slant. Monday night's broadcast is a perfect case in point.
Couric introduced a story concerning the upcoming attempt of Congressional Democrats to pass a non-binding resolution against President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq in order to stabilize the country. After a brief description of the Democrats' plan, she stated, 'The American people seem to want the Democrats to do much more than just a non-binding resolution.
'Our latest poll,' Couric continued, 'shows that 53% of Americans want the Democrats either to cut off funding for the war altogether, or refuse funding for the troop surge.'
However, the graphic she placed on the screen painted an entirely different picture when one considers the whole story and not just the spin. According to the poll graphic, 45% of those polled want Congress to refuse to fund the troop surge. 8% want Congress to withdraw funding from the War altogether.
Obviously, when the 45% is added to the 8%, you get a 53% 'majority' who either desire a withdrawal of funds from our troops on the ground in Iraq, or a blocking of funding for the upcoming troop surge.
This carefully calculated slight-of-hand gives the appearance of widespread public support for de-funding the War in Iraq. However, let's turn this around and use the same tactic Couric and CBS News uses, except this time, let's apply it to the OTHER side.
For example, if 45% of those polled want Congress to refuse to fund the troop surge, then that means that 55% of those polled either want the surge fully funded or are not sure about it one way or the other. In like manner, if only 8% of those polled want Congress to de-fund the War altogether, then that means a whopping 92% of those polled wish for the funding of the War to continue.
Once again, using the Couric/CBS slight-of-hand formula, when 55% is added to 92%, that means that fully 147% of Americans support funding the troop surge AND funding the War in general.
147 percent.
Remember, I am using the very same formula and tactic that CBS used to arrive at their so-called 53% majority who either favor de-funding the entire War or blocking funding for the troop surge. And the number I get is that 147 percent of Americans support funding for the War AND the troop surge.
This scenario reminds me of what an accountant for a major healthcare organization told me several years ago. He said, 'Numbers can be manipulated to show whatever result administration and the trustees are looking for. It is amazing as to how figures can be manipulated to show differing results based solely upon how they are put together.'
Apparently this is the modus operandi at CBS News.
Frankly, if this is the manner in which the major polling organizations are arriving at their conclusion that the vast majority of Americans are resigned to failure and defeat in Iraq, then I question the accuracy of those polls. Polls can be made to say just about anything you want them to say, especially when you have spin-doctors at work such as we have at CBS News.
Now, Katie Couric and company have taken the news division at CBS to a new low in Leftist slant. Monday night's broadcast is a perfect case in point.
Couric introduced a story concerning the upcoming attempt of Congressional Democrats to pass a non-binding resolution against President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq in order to stabilize the country. After a brief description of the Democrats' plan, she stated, 'The American people seem to want the Democrats to do much more than just a non-binding resolution.
'Our latest poll,' Couric continued, 'shows that 53% of Americans want the Democrats either to cut off funding for the war altogether, or refuse funding for the troop surge.'
However, the graphic she placed on the screen painted an entirely different picture when one considers the whole story and not just the spin. According to the poll graphic, 45% of those polled want Congress to refuse to fund the troop surge. 8% want Congress to withdraw funding from the War altogether.
Obviously, when the 45% is added to the 8%, you get a 53% 'majority' who either desire a withdrawal of funds from our troops on the ground in Iraq, or a blocking of funding for the upcoming troop surge.
This carefully calculated slight-of-hand gives the appearance of widespread public support for de-funding the War in Iraq. However, let's turn this around and use the same tactic Couric and CBS News uses, except this time, let's apply it to the OTHER side.
For example, if 45% of those polled want Congress to refuse to fund the troop surge, then that means that 55% of those polled either want the surge fully funded or are not sure about it one way or the other. In like manner, if only 8% of those polled want Congress to de-fund the War altogether, then that means a whopping 92% of those polled wish for the funding of the War to continue.
Once again, using the Couric/CBS slight-of-hand formula, when 55% is added to 92%, that means that fully 147% of Americans support funding the troop surge AND funding the War in general.
147 percent.
Remember, I am using the very same formula and tactic that CBS used to arrive at their so-called 53% majority who either favor de-funding the entire War or blocking funding for the troop surge. And the number I get is that 147 percent of Americans support funding for the War AND the troop surge.
This scenario reminds me of what an accountant for a major healthcare organization told me several years ago. He said, 'Numbers can be manipulated to show whatever result administration and the trustees are looking for. It is amazing as to how figures can be manipulated to show differing results based solely upon how they are put together.'
Apparently this is the modus operandi at CBS News.
Frankly, if this is the manner in which the major polling organizations are arriving at their conclusion that the vast majority of Americans are resigned to failure and defeat in Iraq, then I question the accuracy of those polls. Polls can be made to say just about anything you want them to say, especially when you have spin-doctors at work such as we have at CBS News.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)