Why polls don't necessarily mean shit

Why polls don't necessarily mean shit (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> Why polls don't necessarily mean shit (6/10/2014 7:47:19 PM)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/06/cantor-internal-poll-claims-34-point-lead-over-primary-opponent-brat/ A poll conducted late last month for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) shows him with a wide lead over challenger David Brat heading toward next Tuesday's Republican primary election. The poll, shared with Post Politics, shows Cantor with a 62 percent to 28 percent lead over Brat, an economics professor running to Cantor's right. Eleven percent say they are undecided. The internal survey of 400 likely Republican primary voters was conducted May 27 and 28 by John McLaughlin of McLaughlin & Associates. It carries a margin of error of +/-4.9 percentage points. The survey comes the same day a Daily Caller poll conducted by Vox Populi Polling (R) on Monday showed Cantor leading 52-41 percent, with 9 percent undecided.

Musicmystery -> RE: Why polls don't necessarily mean shit (6/10/2014 8:07:07 PM)
I don't know McLaughlin. I'm wondering whether (1) as an internal pollster, he reported what his client wanted to hear, or (2) the sample was just too small, or (3) things really changed that quickly (doesn't seem likely).

DomKen -> RE: Why polls don't necessarily mean shit (6/10/2014 8:16:24 PM)
People are claiming the story about the immigrant kids which broke this weekend was a major driver of turnout for Brat.

Zonie63 -> RE: Why polls don't necessarily mean shit (6/11/2014 6:08:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/06/cantor-internal-poll-claims-34-point-lead-over-primary-opponent-brat/ A poll conducted late last month for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) shows him with a wide lead over challenger David Brat heading toward next Tuesday's Republican primary election. The poll, shared with Post Politics, shows Cantor with a 62 percent to 28 percent lead over Brat, an economics professor running to Cantor's right. Eleven percent say they are undecided. The internal survey of 400 likely Republican primary voters was conducted May 27 and 28 by John McLaughlin of McLaughlin & Associates. It carries a margin of error of +/-4.9 percentage points. The survey comes the same day a Daily Caller poll conducted by Vox Populi Polling (R) on Monday showed Cantor leading 52-41 percent, with 9 percent undecided. I never put much faith in polls, although sometimes I wonder if they're used to influence people, particularly those who are undecided or sitting on the fence. Those who might be inclined to "go along with the crowd" could they base their voting decision on whatever they perceive the majority as supporting? Or, those who might support a candidate but has bad poll numbers, they might decide "He has no chance; might as well stay home on Election Day." And considering that primary elections get a lower turnout than general elections, those who may have thought it was already a done deal may have decided not to vote. So, even those who might have voted for Cantor may have seen the poll, thought he was a shoo-in, and stayed home instead.

Musicmystery -> RE: Why polls don't necessarily mean shit (6/11/2014 6:10:34 AM)
Yes, I suspect a lot of polling is intended to lead the crowd, not gauge where it is.

cloudboy -> RE: Why polls don't necessarily mean shit (6/11/2014 2:21:16 PM)
Nate Silver used polling to call the Presidential election with deadly accuracy. He used data from several different polls. The primaries seem to be a different animal -- especially for Republicans who can't control their own Frankensteins -- whipped into a frenzy over partisan, hyperbolic rhetoric only to return and crash into the primary process.

DarkSteven -> RE: Why polls don't necessarily mean shit (6/11/2014 2:29:04 PM)
Cantor was spending millions in his campaign. Even if the public polls were way off, his private polls were more accurate.

mnottertail -> RE: Why polls don't necessarily mean shit (6/11/2014 2:39:18 PM)
And his internal private polls had him winning by a big margin too. For the 'mainstream' republican, it looked like Cantor was a shoe in, with a low turnout and big hysteria issues breaking lately, the nutsackers walked away with it, because nobody was home. Barry Goldwater couldn't win in that environment, he would be a RINO.

MrRodgers -> RE: Why polls don't necessarily mean shit (6/11/2014 7:51:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Cantor was spending millions in his campaign. Even if the public polls were way off, his private polls were more accurate. I understand Koch money was behind Cantor and it was 10-1 in spending over Brat

DaddySatyr -> RE: Why polls don't necessarily mean shit (6/11/2014 8:01:46 PM)
In regards to polls, leading people places: they absolutely exist and are fairly easy to spot. They're called: "push polls". Since I'm not registered with either of the "big two" parties but I am registered, I have gotten my fair share of polling calls. As soon as I hear a question that is incongruous or is designed to push me toward an answer, I excuse myself and hang up. I figure I'm doing the candidate/pollster a favor by not buying into what the poll is trying to sell. I also think that 400 is an awfully small number for a sample size. Obviously, the rule of them is the larger your sample size, the more accurate your poll will be. There's been some talk about democratic voters "screwing" Cantor. I don't know if I buy into that. Does "open primary" mean that a registered Democrat can vote in a Republican primary? I don't think so. I could be wrong. I don't think I've ever lived in an open primary state. This past month or so, Pennsyltucky had their primaries and I met one of the candidates for this district. He made me wish I was a registered Democrat so I could help him out by voting for him. Sadly, he didn't win the primary so I won't be able to support him in November. For the record: Gary Mack seems like a good man. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why polls don't necessarily mean shit (6/12/2014 9:19:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr In regards to polls, leading people places: they absolutely exist and are fairly easy to spot. They're called: "push polls". Since I'm not registered with either of the "big two" parties but I am registered, I have gotten my fair share of polling calls. As soon as I hear a question that is incongruous or is designed to push me toward an answer, I excuse myself and hang up. I figure I'm doing the candidate/pollster a favor by not buying into what the poll is trying to sell. I also think that 400 is an awfully small number for a sample size. Obviously, the rule of them is the larger your sample size, the more accurate your poll will be. There's been some talk about democratic voters "screwing" Cantor. I don't know if I buy into that. Does "open primary" mean that a registered Democrat can vote in a Republican primary? I don't think so. I could be wrong. I don't think I've ever lived in an open primary state. This past month or so, Pennsyltucky had their primaries and I met one of the candidates for this district. He made me wish I was a registered Democrat so I could help him out by voting for him. Sadly, he didn't win the primary so I won't be able to support him in November. For the record: Gary Mack seems like a good man. Yes, in open primaries, anyone can vote, regardless of political alignment. So, Democrats could flood the polls to vote against a stronger GOP candidate. Now, whether that happened or not, could very easily be a totally different story.

mnottertail -> RE: Why polls don't necessarily mean shit (6/12/2014 9:23:14 AM)
With the turnout numbers, it certainly would be an impossibility.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Why polls don't necessarily mean shit (6/13/2014 2:49:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Yes, in open primaries, anyone can vote, regardless of political alignment. So, Democrats could flood the polls to vote against a stronger GOP candidate. Now, whether that happened or not, could very easily be a totally different story. I'll have to give this some careful consideration but, in that case; I'm almost positive I'm opposed to the idea for just that reason. I can see people who don't have their own primaries in which to vote being able to do so. As in my example where I found a Democrat that I really wanted to support but was unable to. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875