“Scientific” Polls
When they perform the polls that we all hear about as being “scientific”, those which mainstream media editor’s everywhere use to determine coverage of certain candidates, they poll “likely Republican voters”.
Most often, the criteria that is used for “likely Republican voters” for the upcoming primary is Republicans who voted in the previous primary (2004).
In 2004 George W. Bush was an incumbent wartime president. There was ZERO CHANCE any other republican candidate would unseat him in the primaries.
Given this, only the most diehard partisan (read, neocon) Republicans voted in the primaries – there was something like 6-7% party turnout for that primary.
And these 6% were likely to be the most die-hard Bush supporters, voting rather symbolically.
Now they are the ones who are randomly called at home and “scientifically” polled.
And now for 2008, with the most wide open Republican nomination process in perhaps decades, they are the small minority who set the tone of media coverage.
It is not reality and it is not right. Ever heard of something called sheep’s wool over the eyes?
As a personal example of the inadequacy of the current polling: in the previous election, I was registered Independent in California. As an Independent, I have no say in partisan primaries. In the past I did not care, NOW I DO. So I registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Do you think I will be on the list of “likely Republican voters”? Fat chance…
But I’m certainly voting…
So, in conclusion, before all you mainstream media folks use the “scientific polls” to determine presidential coverage, debate placement, questions asked, face time in debates, etc., please take the time to realize there is a massive groundswell of previously disaffected popular support for Ron Paul that is NOT counted in the so-called scientific polls. Why do you think the guy wins every online poll in a landslide, has seen his contributions double every quarter, and wins roughly two-third of straw polls across the country?
Perhaps the “scientists” should tweak their science…
Filed under: Politics, Social Mood
My wife answered the phone last night and it was the Field Poll calling. She wasn’t interested in talking to them, so she gave me the phone. I decided to answer the poll questions to see what the poll was like.
They had many amazingly stupid questions, and were only interested in the head to head matches of Romney against Hillary, Obama, and Edwards; and of Giuliani against Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. They weren’t interested in McCain or Thompson, and for sure did not care about Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo, who really are the only ones I care about. It was funny when I told the pollster that several questions were too stupid to bother answering that she mentioned that lots of people had said that. and the questions were asked in the manner of only having the choice between the democrat and republican, and I have not voted for one of those parties since 1988.
After participating in this Field poll, and listening to how stupidly it was done, or done to be intentionally misleading, i recommend that you give little credence to the Field Poll organization.
Yeah, I have lost faith in a lot of the traditional reporting methods. Certain things I used to believe in at face value, but it’s pretty clear a lot of stuff is either stupid or shady these days, so you really have to be aware. I’m pretty hopeful for what this Ron Paul candidacy can get done.