Are certain pollsters trying to drive the narrative instead of being honest?

I am not sure whether all polls should be taken at face value. I've been quite suspicious ever since I saw the ridiculous PPP national poll - 
Romney 23, Santorum 38, Gingrich 17, Paul 13  - from 2/11. It was not even close to the 2 other major national polls. Fox News from 2/10 has 
Romney 33, Santorum 23, Gingrich 22, Paul 15 , while Gallup Tracking has been in the field every day and on 2/12 is showing 
Romney 34, Santorum 27, Gingrich 16, Paul 8 .

PPP has been a fairly accurate pollster on the state level, but they are affiliated with the Dems. It's in their interest to promote non-credible republican candidates. To show such a humongous jump immediately after Santorum 3-state sweep, when other pollsters are only showing a strong movement, but Romney still with a modest lead, is very suspicious. It also helped Santorum point to it and say - there - I am in the lead - I am the only alternative to Romney - give me money. It couldn't have been a better present to Santorum campaign.

Same with today's Michigan poll from PPP - Romney 24, Santorum 39, Gingrich 11, Paul 12  when the previous 2/7 poll from Mitchell research shows Romney 31, Santorum 15, Gingrich 16, Paul 15 . Now this one is much more possible, but again being the first one out there with a poll showing a huge turnaround helps drive the narrative.

I've noticed similar stuff with Rasmussen being more favorable to Santorum, while other pollsters were not reflecting it. Rasmussen is being awfully chummy with people like Hannity, who have been trying to indirectly prop up the anti-Romney's. 

PPP's national poll is a glaring abnormality that should be called out. A difference of 20%+ from other reputable pollsters should be explained.

Comments :

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

But Wait!

There's another poll out from ARG (pretty reputable) that has the following: 


Michigan
Likely Republican
Primary Voters
Feb 11-12
2012
Gingrich 21%
Paul 12%
Romney 27%
Santorum 33%
Other 1%
Undecided 6%



Then there's Pew (another respectable organization) taking the 50,000-ft (or 50-state) view:
<blockquote>
Rick Santorum’s support among Tea Party Republicans and white evangelicals is surging, and he now has pulled into a virtual tie with Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. In polling conducted Feb. 8-12, 30% of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters favor Santorum while 28% favor Romney. 
</blockquote>


So depending on what's happening but there definitiely appears to be a trending away from Romney (again). I kinda feel for the guy--has there ever been so much indifference to a front-runner? 

http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186

…………

Margin of Error

The margin of error is plus/minus 4%, on this one and essentially on the other one that Ender felt was an outlier (well, 3.8%, but what's a few basis points between friends).

Thus, one could spin this particular poll as a tie between Romney and Santorum.  

When Paul was leading or tied when MOE was taken into account, the media *never* spun it that way.  And, looking at the poll questions and the order they're being asked, yeah, I'd say there's a bit of spin being done by each polling organization.

It's still a battle for the soul of the GOP, though: fiscal conservatives versus social big-government-is-great-for-what-I-want conservatives. 

I wish someone would educate the anti-science and anti-abortion wing; it's way past time for them to join the 21st century.  Evolution is a fact.  Laws prohibiting abortion is government reaching into women's bodies.  There is no "golden era" of personal rectitude that will save us from ourselves; Christianity has been trying to bring one about for centuries and hasn't succeeded yet.  Electing Rick Santorum won't bring it about either.

But the fiscal conservatives put up with the social conservatives' ignorance, and thus is their reward.

It will be Romney, though, Ender.   He's this cycle's Kerry.
  

………… parent

agreed on social conservatives

The denial of evolution is too much, but we have to tolerate it since GOP has ceded a lot of the Center to accommodate the religious conservatives.


I ignore the abortion stuff since Roe will never be repealed. 

Christianity will continue the decline among the educated people of the world, though it might dominate some of the 3rd world countries in perpetuity along with Islam.

I sure hope it's Romney, win or lose, at least it will be with a candidate I can proudly vote for.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

Wing?

The republicans didn't have a single presidential candidate that had a sensible position on abortion.  Gay marriage? they're all hard liners against except Paul who is "personally against".  On climate change, I think Huntsman was the only one with a position in the realm of reasonableness, and look how far that got him.  I think Huntsman may have been the only one to express a belief in evolution.


If it's a wing, it's the only wing-- the whole part of the party that matters is one big wing, like the stealth bomber.  Nobody but neanderthals is getting to any position of power within the party.


 



 

………… parent

you just made me hungry

for some chicken wings... Gotta go cook, my wife gets home in less than 2 hours!

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

Nice

Newlyweds still ;-) 

I remember those days.  Just passed our 17th here. 

………… parent

2 years for me

to the day. Yay, us!

http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186

………… parent

The day before Valentine's ...

Chosen to make it easy to remember?  ;-)

Happy 2nd anniversary!

………… parent

congratulations Charles

It will be 2 years for us this May.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

Sure there's a wing

Sure there's a wing.  The men on offer are not the sum of the Republican party.  I'd say it's safe to say that for a good chunk of Republican voters, abortion, evolution and climate change are not at all near the top of their "must fix first!" list.   There's a lot of GOP voters who are being left very unsatisfied by their candidates.

But I agree with your last sentence completely.  The current GOP political structure cannot be salvaged.  The neanderthals must be left behind.

………… parent

Romney can't hold

Kerry's briefcase.  Romney's common touch makes Kerry look Clintonian.  He makes "voted for it before I voted against it" sound like the mildest, easy-to-explain reversal a politican can make.  Romney's not terrible at debating ($10k bets notwithstanding), but Kerry excelled at them.


Kerry, despite the whole "losing to the worst president in history" thing, actually ran the best-focused campaign in modern times , Certainly among Democrats.  He was the only one to outperform his national average in the tipping-point state (Ohio).


Romney can't out-stump Obama.  He can't outraise him, at least not without his SuperPAC.  Debate skill is most likely a wash.   He has a base enthusiasm problem.  Economic fundamentals are bad but getting better at an accelerated pace.  The Wrights and Ayers came out last cycle for Obama, whereas Romney will have to play footsie with crazies all through the summer.

………… parent

yeah I noticed

And with ARG it is much closer than the PPP in Michigan. So nationally we have Pew's 2 point Santorum lead, and Gallup with 2 point Romney lead. The Pew ended started collecting before PPP, and ended much later, and still got pretty much a tie. How does that compare to PPP's 15 point Santorum lead?


The trend is against Romney for now, but I know that wild headlines of Santorum leading by 15 nationally, changed quite a few republican minds. I know that Obama and the dems would love to run against Santorum.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

I don't think an implication of dishonesty is warranted.

The poll may be an outlier-- it happens.  By definition, the poll will be off from reality by more than the margin of error about 5% of the time.


Besides, who's to say that Romney is even the stronger candidate in the general election at this point?  I personally think Santorum is the stronger candidate in the general, even though he's certainly one of those social neanderthals that you've been talking about.  There was a time when I wanted anyone but Romney to win, but now I want him to win.  I think he is damaged goods.  At least Santorum pays a normal tax rate, doesn't have a history of eliminating tons of jobs for personal benefit, and has had to work to get his support rather than buy it. 


Romney's momentum is down and most people do not like him.  Maybe he is a great guy in real life but it does not shine through on the campaign trail.  What can he do to change minds?  I can't figure out anything he can really do to change perceptions at this point.


Anyway, back to the poll: in this primary, the swings have been wild as the red-bars sort through all the gaffes and negative revelations, so maybe the number did change that much in a short period of time :-) 

…………

you are being very generous

with passing on their intentions. It's very easy for the pollsters to manipulate the numbers, and not by fudging them either, but by picking and choosing the sample. Sure it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but come on, it was a national sample.


Anyways, not much you can do. This "outlier" has probably swung an extra 5-7 points in Santorum's favor on its own, due to, of course, the slim pickings of the GOP field.

You better hope, as we all do, the economy keeps on the right track, or Obama would have trouble even against the weak Romney.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

I just don't think they would risk their entire reputation...

by promoting Santorum over a weakened Romney.  It just does not make any sense to me-- any difference in electability at this point is debatable at best.  And that's not just me saying that-- recent polls show Santorum doing about the same agaisnt Obama as Romney.

………… parent

Santorum is still doing worse

in the recent recent polls, but regardless, most people, especially not very political independents, simply don't know enough about Santorum. And when they do, many, especially women, won't like what they will learn.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

I'm about 60% sure now Romney will win...

I just don't think the Republicans will like it. And to think--last week I would've put it close to 70-80%. 


I don't think they'd be "motivated" to vote against Obama in very large numbers. They'd just stay home. Especially if the jobs continue to churn out every month.

I mean, ever since Romney declared, he's had to watch the rank and file supporting him marginally only to "date" other candidates: Huckabee (who ended up not running), then Donald Trump (!), then Michelle Bachmann , then, Rick Perry , followed by Herman Cain , then Newt LeRoy , then Romney finally looked like he'd took his rightful position. 

Then came Santorum. Perhaps he will fizzle, but for movement conservatives, there's really not much to not like now. All he needs is to collect a couple billionaires to form a pro-Santorum SuperPac, and he's good! It's just quite stunning to see this guy consistently be there, just to see voters move to everyone except him. 

By the way, take a look at those links. It's really fun to see what "conventional wisdom" was just a few months ago--that Perry poll article talked about how Perry had "staying power" and wasn't just a flavor of the month. 

http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186

………… parent

I loved your links

It was fun to reread Perry being in the lead, before everyone realized that he is a horrible candidate. Like many others on the Right, I was intrigued by Perry and definitely considering him to be my candidate. After Perry's collapse I returned back to my man Romney and just stuck there. Sure, I liked Cain and Newt, but I soured on Newt around the time of South Carolina.

Santorum is a big government conservative who hasn't met spending he didn't vote for, so long as it was Republican who were proposing it. Additionally he is a theocrat and has little experience. So I think it is a matter of time until conservatives dump him.

Poor Newt is already dumped. New NYT poll shows him dead last - Santorum 30, Romney 27, Gingrich 10, Paul 12 .

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

Re: Gingrich

Honestly, I think the only reason he is still in the race is (a) He wants to harm Romney and (b) He has the ego to think he can hurt Romney enough to have an outside chance of winning. 


He should probably just go back to his think tanks and work on making the moon the 51st state--you know--after his second term and all. 

http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186

………… parent

also the polls still show him ahead

in Georgia... And as Georgia goes, so goes the nation...

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

There's even another one....

Sarah Palin beat Romney in a Reuters poll last June.


 

………… parent