Author Topic: “I think…I think it is probably unlikely.”  (Read 417 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 242,591
“I think…I think it is probably unlikely.”
« on: September 26, 2012, 04:46:34 PM »

“I think…I think it is probably unlikely.”
by Datechguy | September 26th, 2012

Many years ago there were only the major papers and the three big networks, so when a poll like the current CBS/NYT Quinnipiac poll that Morning Joe is reporting as the doom of the Romney Campaign would never be questioned. Instead you would only see these results:

but those days are gone and the new media is alive so while the Morning Joe table continues to do their victory dance I took a look at these polls from Florida, Ohio & Pennsylvania and on the very last line of the very last page Found the following:

So with a sample that is D+9 in Florida, Barack Obama has a +9 lead on Mitt Romney! In Ohio with a D+9 Sample Obama has a +10 Lead and in Pennsylvania with a D+11 sample he has +12 lead.

Now I have absolutely no trouble believing these states are close nor to I disagree that Mitt Romney should be more aggressive but come ON guys?

By an odd coincidence the last time this poll came out Hugh Hewett questioned Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Polls and asked him about this (emphasis mine):

    Hugh Hewett: But I don’t know how that goes to the issue, Peter, so help me. I’m not being argumentative, I really want to know. Why would guys run a poll with nine percent more Democrats than Republicans when that percentage advantage, I mean, if you’re trying to tell people how the state is going to go, I don’t think this is particularly helpful, because you’ve oversampled Democrats, right?

    Peter Brown: But we didn’t set out to oversample Democrats. We did our normal, random digit dial way of calling people. And there were, these are likely voters. They had to pass a screen. Because it’s a presidential year, it’s not a particularly heavy screen.

    HH: And so if, in fact, you had gotten a hundred Democrats out of a hundred respondents that answered, would you think that poll was reliable?

    PB: Probably not at 100 out of 100.

    HH: Okay, so if it was 75 out of 100…

    PB: Well, I mean…

    HH: I mean, when does it become unreliable? You know you’ve just put your foot on the slope, so I’m going to push you down it. When does it become unreliable?

    PB: Like the Supreme Court and pornography, you know it when you see it.

    HH: Well, a lot of us look at a nine point advantage in Florida, and we say we know that to be the polling equivalent of pornography. Why am I wrong?

    PB: Because what we found when we made the actual calls is this kind of party ID.

    HH: Do you expect Democrats, this is a different question, do you, Peter Brown, expect Democrats to have a nine point registration advantage when the polls close on November 6th in Florida?

    PB: Well, first, you don’t mean registration.

    HH: I mean, yeah, turnout.

    PB: Do I think…I think it is probably unlikely.

Mind you this is the guy who actually does the poll saying this

Let me close with this bit from the American Spectator and an exchange between Ben Bradlee and Ed Rollins from 2004

    A few weeks later, the Washington Post ran a story that confirmed Rollins’ initial beliefs. The Post confessed that… well… oops… it had made a mistake with those California polling numbers. Shortly afterward came the November election, with California once again giving Reagan a more than 16 point victory. In fact, Reagan carried 49 states, winning the greatest landslide victory in presidential history while losing Minnesota in — yes — a close race. Mondale had 49.72% to Reagan’s 49.54%, a difference of .18% that might have been changed by all that money that went into California. Making Reagan the first president in history to win all fifty states.

    After the [2004] election, Ed Rollins ran into the Washington Post’s blunt-speaking editor Ben Bradlee and “harassed” Bradlee “about his paper’s lousy polling methodology.”

    Bradlee’s “unrepentant” response?

    “Tough sh…t, Rollins, I’m glad it cost you plenty. It’s my in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign.”

    Got that?

Now that election wasn’t close, this election will be a lot closer. Is this an in-kind contribution for The One? You tell me.

This is why the MSM will always hate the New Media, in Ben Bradlee’s day they would never be called on this. Today we will call them on it every single day.

Update: I can’t believe I forgot to check the numbers with independents but it’s make this poll even MORE of a joke:

Here is the split among independents in Florida according to the CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac poll


In Ohio

They don’t provide figures in Pa which I found strange but lets ask the obvious question

How do you reconcile +9 point Obama leads if Romney leads with BOTH independents & Republicans? And do you REALLY believe that Obama is doing better among democrats than Romney is among republicans by enough to make up for that difference. Do you REALLY?

John Nolte puts it best:


    In 2004 the vote was R+4.
    In 2008 the vote was D+3
    CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.

    In 2004 the vote was R+5
    In 2008 the vote was D+8
    CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9


    In 2010 the vote was D+3
    In 2008 the vote was D+7
    CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.

    Again, why won’t the media report the dramatic news that Democrats are expected to turnout in record numbers against Republicans?

    Because the media doesn’t believe it.

This isn’t reporting, this is propaganda and frankly after Romney wins should be treated as an in-kind contribution to the DNC, these are also not the tactics of a side that is winning.

Update 2: Stacy McCain is less diplomatic than me

    journalism is also my profession, and the fact that I’m pursuing it on a blog doesn’t change my astonishment at the utter shamelessness of these people. As usual this morning, I’ve been watching MSNBC and I think this would be an accurate headline:


    It’s really that bad. I watch MSNBC so you don’t have to, and their crew is practically breaking out the champagne to celebrate these poll numbers. Their smug self-satisfied glee makes me want Romney to stomp Obama so bad that Chuck Todd is crying like a little girl on Election Night.

    Is that a Neutral and Objective urge?

    Perhaps not, but at least I’m honest about it, and there’s that old thing about “afflicting the comfortable.” Keep in mind that Chuck Todd is not just a partisan talking-head MSNBC commentator; he is political director of NBC News.

I can’t wait to see the explanations come election day.

Update 4: Neo Neocon notes that Quinnipiac has a different defination of Big Red Flag than I do

From what Brown says, Quinnipiac doesn’t stratify its polls unless there’s a huge red flag staring them in the face. But Gallup does. Its accuracy would depend on what parameters it uses for stratification, and how well they reflect reality.

Or maybe a dem skew is considered a “huge blue flag” so that’s OK.

Support the USO
#NeverHillary  Not#NeverTrump

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo