November 03, 2006
Poll Dancing
Living in south-central Indiana, I have the chance to observe two very tight Congressional races: Ninth district Indiana between Mike Sodrel (R) and Baron Hill (D) and Anne Northup (R) and John Yarmuth (D) in the Third Kentucky district, which is basically Louisville. Every day we hear over and over again about this or that poll, which is then over-analyzed to the point of absurdity.
Polling as we know it today is almost meaningless. Most polls are conducted over land-based phone lines, which is the first problem as more and more people use only a cell phone as their primary means of communication. Second, the sample size on some of these polls is ridiculously small. When the sample size becomes that small, you get crazy crap like this. 1010 people in four countries? That's ...biased journalism.
Exit polling is also non-indicative of how an election is proceeding. Many people will not speak to a pollster about their vote, and a study done at the University of Michigan (IIRC) shows that conservatives are less likely to discuss their voting practices than liberals; it's a privacy thing. Even if the situation were reversed, it still points to lopsided polling.
ABC has announced that they will do no exit polling this year, which is a good start. In 2004, it looked like John Kerry was going to win by 2PM, which undoubtedly kept some people home. On election day, accuracy is essential---unless, of course, one is driven by agenda.
Posted by Matthew at November 3, 2006 07:51 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.opaquelucidity.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/914
Umm, how is using a small sample size biased journalism? I think what you mean is that you don't believe it so therefore it's a creation of the liberal media.
1010 in 4 countries does seem low, but I'm not surprised by the results at all. There's no question that the Europeans I've talked to are more worried about Bush than anyone else. Bush has a huge army and wealth behind him and as already invaded a country for reasons that can only be described as personal. Of course he's a bigger threat to world peace.
Posted by: nmexpat![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.opaquelucidity.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 3, 2006 01:45 PM
The Europeans should worry about getting their rioting teenagers in check before they worry about Bush. The US has had to invade Europe, twice, to save them from themselves. Tell the Europeans they know where to find us when they need us again.
Posted by: SLY at November 3, 2006 02:56 PM
I didn't say I disagree with the results; believe me, there are enough uninformed idiots in Europe (as there are here) to make any results believeable. That doesn't mean the data isn't skewed.
So Bush is a bigger threat to world peace? Then why don't you leave and go back to wherever it is you're from?
Typical socialist crap; high on rhetoric, short on facts and adult supervision.
Posted by: Matt_D at November 3, 2006 03:09 PM
nmexpat, well how representative is the group of "Europeans you've talked to"? Sadly those who scream loudest are the ones you will primarily take notice of over there in the US.
I am also tired of pollsters foretelling absurdly wrong numbers, even on election day, with the actual result completely contradicting them hours later. Has happened in 2000 in the states, and just happened last month in my home country (european btw). They just don't know what they are talking about.
Posted by: Arno at November 3, 2006 04:22 PMAnd let me add that the question "Which world leader poses a danger to world peace?" comparing Bin Laden, Bush and Kim Jong-Il is completely misguiding.
The USA ARE at war, so we don't have world peace. Bin Laden isn't. Kim Jong-Il isn't. So what's the point?
This is just pure provocation, and unfortunately it seems to have worked.
Posted by: Arno at November 3, 2006 04:44 PMSly: First: the US never has riots? What is your point? Second, the US didn't invade, it intervened in an ongoing conflict, and had the gratitude and respect of all of Europe as a result. My, how times have changed. Third, the US military forces are stretched as it is. We can't even maintain stability in Afgavistan, much less in Iraq, much less find the guy that is actually responsible for 9/11. Do you really think we're in a position to help anyone?
Matt: So the results are correct but the data is skewed? Umm...what?
I did leave the US, and took my earning power and tax money away from the Bush administration. Now that's what I call voting.
High on rhetoric, short on facts, and adult supervision? That's cute, but let me know when you have some meaningful critique, and not some sound-bite.
There's a little event called WW2 that left Europe very, very wary of power-grabbing, militaristic, nationalistic megalomaniacs. That's why they don't trust Bush.
Posted by: nmexpat at November 3, 2006 07:25 PM
Hi Arno,
I never claimed I'd conducted an extensive or objective survey. But, as an American in Europe, international politics comes up in conversation all the time. It's not a matter of screaming the loudest -- I ignore people that bring up politics right away. All I'm saying is that I haven't met anyone in Europe that defends Bush or sees the Iraq invasion as justified.
As for the survey question, that's the whole point: to put Bush next to two whacked out leaders and demonstrate how disturbed the average brit is by recent US actions.
I disagree about being at war. Or, as I said in an earlier post, we are at war, but it's only a war to secure American financial interests abroad. If we were really at war, we'd hunker down and do it right. If we were really at war, we'd keep our sights on the enemy and not squander resources on unrelated matters. If we were really at war, we'd be using ration cards, not getting tax cuts.
America knows how to fight. So why are things going in the wrong direction on all four fronts (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea)? It's either due to incompetence or it's because those aren't the real wars. I think is the latter.
Notice that, despite all that's gone wrong, that Halliburton et al. have had skyrocketing profits. Profit for private enterprise is the real war here, and that's the ONLY war we're winning.
at November 5, 2006 12:48 PM