Different Polls, Different Answers: The Elevator Theory.
Take a look at one poll and you see Hillary leading Barack by 10 in Texas. Another has her up by 4, another has him up by 4. The pollsters are stumped and embarrassed, specifically one Gallup poll being so different from another Gallup poll in the same time frame, in fact, 9 points different. How could the same company take two different polls in the same time period, and get two different results. The answer, other than slight variances for the way the question is answered, is what I’m calling the Elevator Theory.
When 99% of most polling takes place, people have already made up their minds about the polling questions and it is easy to measure. It’s like measuring what floor an elevator is on. Ask enough people, and you get the average answer that is usually somewhat accurate.
However, in the race between Hillary and Barack, we have two moving elevators (one is rocketing up rapidly and the other falling at a somewhat slower but increasing speed), which makes it difficult to get anyone who feels the same way about where the elevators are at that moment.
When you have one candidate that was previously a relative unknown that is inspiring the country, and the most (or second most) famous woman in the country losing credibility, likability, and electability, with every flap of the jaw…you may just have something that is not measurable until election night. Maybe that’s why they set an election date to vote (twice in Texas).
Of course, neither of these theories take into account my previous mention that sometimes the electorate is void of the information needed to make the “right” decision, but will eventually come around with time. Not to mention, the fact that the youth vote is underrepresented by 5-10 points in presidential election polls this year due to the inability to call people who only use cell phones. The only poll I’ve seen that has taken this into account was the public policy polling that predicted an Obama win in Wisconsin by 13%, when their polling only had him up 3%. This is increasingly important when the age group that should usually be underrepresented due to their lack of a presence at the polls, is showing up in force…including 1,000 students marching seven miles to the nearest polling location.
Next stop for Obama? Penthouse Suite please.
7 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Archives
- August 2008 (3)
- July 2008 (1)
- June 2008 (8)
- May 2008 (15)
- April 2008 (19)
- March 2008 (15)
- February 2008 (18)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
[...] was made when Barack was down by 15-20 points in the polls. He’s now evened up the polls (that are having a hard time with their own inaccuracies) and as I mentioned, if Hispanics started floating to him…we could expect a blowout. [...]
“When you have one candidate that was previously a relative unknown that is inspiring the country, and the most (or second most) famous woman in the country losing credibility, likability, and electability, with every flap of the jaw…”
Well, it sure isn’t difficult to see whose side you’re on–the same as the media’s, which is to say Barack’s. With the same kind of endorsement-hidden-behind-fake-objective-journalism, The media and writers like yourself have contributed to Hillary’s decreasing popularity and Barack’s undeserved rise in popularity combined with an equally shocking unexamined political record.
It’s OK, that’s why Rebpublicans like him so much–because they’re REALLY afraid of the change that would happen were Hillary to take office. Wait until they turn their media monster against Barack and we have McCain as our next president.
Eat that prediction!
Max,
Thanks for the comment. Just writing it how I see it; I don’t know of many other ways to do it unless you want me to say something I don’t believe just to be “fair and balanced.” If that’s what you’d like to read, jump over to one of the major media outlets. I’m sure they’d be happy to write a vague article so as to not offend anyone.
IG
Fair enough. We all have to call it as we see it. I, personally, see a comprehensive, whacked-out disproportionately anti-Clinton bias in the media (since her pioneering, 10-years ahead of its time, yet thwarted, effort to give all Americans health care), paired with an equally whacked-out worship of Obama as Jesus reincarnate. And, while I apologize for the somewhat belligerent tone of my prediction, I stand by it.
You show me a Democrat whom Republicans surreptitiously endorse (read: Obama)–even to the point of cross-party registering to knock Clinton out of the primaries–and I’ll show you an ulterior motive. Let’s see what happens. In the end, you and I probably want the same things for this country. Good luck to both of us!
“I don’t believe just to be “fair and balanced.” If that’s what you’d like to read, jump over to one of the major media outlets”
One more thing–You should know your view is an exact duplicate of the major media outlets. Where’s the difference between you and Fox?
“I don’t believe just to be “fair and balanced.” If that’s what you’d like to read, jump over to one of the major media outlets”
One more thing–You should know your view is an exact duplicate of the major media outlets. Where’s the difference between you and Fox?
As to your worshiping Obama comment. I do think people are going nuts over a politician who wants transparency in government. Someone who isn’t taking money from lobbyists and PACs. Americans know why the Exxons, AT&T’s, and Pfizer’s rule the landscape in Washington, because politicians can’t say no once they’ve taken their bribe. I actually think Hillary is the most qualified person for the job…she’s also taken the most money from lobbyists which means people see her as being part of the same corrupt system. Obama’s support is equally full of excitement from these people as the disgust people have for the current system.
As far as my view being the same as the media outlets, Hillary has absolutely ZERO chance of being able to win the election at this point because of her being so far behind in the delegate count. However, the media is still touting her as having a chance if she wins both…and when it becomes apparent she won’t, they drop it to just needing to win Rhode Island and maybe Ohio to still have a chance. That’s what you call trying to keep someone around to keep your ratings up, not reporting the facts. She’s done, and has been since Wisconsin and Hawaii.
http://infogiant.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/win-at-all-costs-why-hillary-is-bad-for-america-and-definitely-more-of-the-same/