Survey says, “Polls are useless!”  

We hear poll results reported to us on a daily basis.

“Most Americans believe this, or most Americans are in favor of that.”

“This politician is leading by so many points, or that politician is dropping in the polls.”

But, are these poll results worthy of even being reported anymore?

apolls 15

The Pew Research Center says, “Polling is not ‘broken.’”

Of course, what would we expect them to say?

That’s what they do…, they poll public opinion.

They’re not going to undermine their own industry, are they?

In an attempt to validate their own value, I believe they have done just that.

Let’s take a look at Pew’s defense of “survey methodology.”

“A comprehensive review of polling accuracy published in 2018 found that ‘relying on vote intention polls from more than 200 elections in 32 countries over a period of more than 70 years, there is no evidence that poll errors have increased over time….’”

Oh, really.

apolls 8

What about the 2016 presidential election polls?

“In 2016, problems with polls in a few key Midwestern states led many people to underestimate the chances of a Donald Trump victory. As a consequence, the immediate post-election assessment was that there had been a complete polling meltdown.”

And rightly so.

apolls 2

“But that ‘insta-narrative’ turned out to be oversimplified. The 2016 election was not, in fact, an industry-wide failure for the polls.”

I beg to differ.

apolls 16

The 2016 election WAS, INFACT, “an industry-wide failure for the polls.”

apolls 9

apolls 14

apolls 4

“Rigorous national surveys – designed to measure the popular vote rather than capture the effects of the Electoral College – were quite accurate by historical standards.”

Is that so?

Then where did all of the “Donald Trump has NO path to victory” talk come from?

“An average of the final, publicly released national polls suggested that Hillary Clinton would win the overall popular vote by 3 percentage points, and she ultimately won by 2 points.”

Again…, really?

I do not recall any polls reporting that Donald Trump was anywhere near 2-3 points within catching Hillary Clinton.

This seems like a bit of revisionist history to me.

apolls 6

Based on the polls, it was almost made to seem that a Trump voter was wasting their time even bothering to vote.

“Front and center among these problems is the fact that many state pollsters didn’t adjust their 2016 polls to reflect that college graduates are more likely to take surveys than adults with less formal education.”

Oh, really.

And what flawed survey did THAT information come from?

How would you “adjust” your poll in this case?

“This mattered more than in previous years, when there weren’t big partisan differences between the two groups. In 2016, however, college grads broke for Clinton while high school grads broke for Trump. State polls that didn’t adjust – or weight – their data by education were left with a biased sample.”

Sooooo, you have to be able to anticipate your poll results beforehand in order for you to be able to correctly adjust your poll results?

Alrighty then.

apolls 12

“Looking ahead to 2020, election junkies can expect to see some high-quality polling done at the national level and in many states.”

Really?

apolls 3

Why would we expect that?

Because that’s what you want us to believe for your own sake?

Survey says…, BINGO!

apolls 5

“The polling industry was founded using mail and face-to-face interviews before it adapted to the rise of telephone connectivity. It is in the midst of another metamorphosis, changing once again to meet the spread of internet access. This means we are in a period of great variety in survey methods. With that comes innovation, risk, creativity and challenges.”

“While evidence suggests that well-funded, telephone-based surveys still work [And what evidence would that be?], they have become much more difficult and expensive to conduct. Difficult because the swarm of robocalls Americans now receive, along with the development of call blocking technologies, means that lots of people don’t answer calls from unknown numbers.”

“Response rates have gone from 36% in 1997 to 6% today.”

Wait…, what?

apolls 11

“Response rates have gone from 36% in 1997 to 6% today.”

And Pew doesn’t see this as a serious problem?

Or, just a problem they are willing to overlook?

“The good news is that Pew Research Center studies conducted in 1997, 2003, 2012 and 2016 found little relationship between response rates and survey accuracy, and other researchers have found similar results.”

“Little relationship,” huh?

That would be “good news,” if it were true!

“The bad news is that it’s impossible to predict whether this remains true if response rates go down to 4%, 2% or 1%, and there is no sign that this trend is going to turn around as peoples’ technology habits continue to evolve.”

“It’s impossible to predict,” huh?

Again, I beg to differ.

The “bad news,” for Pew is, I think it’s completely reasonable to predict that such low response rates would definitely affect survey accuracy…, even more than they do now.

The question is, if the use of phone polls are fading out of these surveys, what is filling the response gap?

Pew Research Center says, “The internet.”

“As digital access became the norm, pollsters began to look for a way to reach respondents online. This method has a number of upsides [And a number of serious downsides.]. People can take the survey in private and at their convenience, pollsters don’t have to hire and manage roomfuls of live interviewers or pay phone bills, and survey methodologists have found that there are measurement advantages to self-administration. Market research surveys moved en masse to the web, and academics were drawn to the combination of low costs and ease of experimentation.”

“There is, however, one significant challenge. While there are ways to draw random samples of the U.S. population offline using master lists of people’s home addresses or phone numbers (thanks to the U.S. Postal Service and Federal Communications Commission, respectively), there is not yet a way to do this through the internet.”

NO WAY TO DRAW RANDOM SAMPLES THROUGH THE INTERNET!

Oh…, that’s the only “challenge?”

That’s a pretty significant challenge, I would say.

“Traditional survey research is aggressively based on the statistical theory of the random sample, where every member of the population has an identical (or at least known and nonzero) chance of being included. This produces surveys that reflect the country in all its racial, ethnic, religious and income diversity. Low response rates can erode the randomness of the sample.”

EXACTLY!!!

The methodology, that Pew describes here, blows the whole concept of “random sampling” out of the water…, making their surveys, and the surveys of others, virtually worthless.

apolls 1

It’s the complete randomness factor that lends any level of validity to any of these polls.  Without that, we are really left with nothing worth reporting…, unless, of course, the poll seems to be in your favor.

apolls 10

 

Thank you to The Pew Research Center, and these contributors to their report:

Claudia Deane, Vice President, Research, Courtney Kennedy, Director, Survey Research, Scott Keeter, Senior Survey Advisor, Arnold Lau, Research Analyst, Nick Hatley, Research Analyst, Andrew Mercer, Senior Research Methodologist, Rachel Weisel, Senior Communications Manager, Hannah Klein, Communications Manager, Calvin Jordan, Communications Associate, Andrew Grant, Communications Associate, and Travis Mitchell, Copy Editor.

 

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know if you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

We’re all entitled to our opinions.  I value yours and your feedback as well.

I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

 

Trump is the big winner in this week’s primaries!

Yes…, President Trump just keeps on winning, while the democrats and the lamestream media come out the losers…, again.

acandidates 5

According to Doug Schoen, for Fox News, “Trump is big winner and Sessions is the big loser in Tuesday primaries, while Dems remain divided.”

He also reports that, “The President’s current chances for reelection may be stronger than national polls indicate.”

“There are two key takeaways from the outcome of Tuesday’s primaries in Alabama, Maine and Texas.”

“First, the big winner of the night was President Trump.  Several Trump-backed candidates defeated their opponents and unquestionably benefited significantly from The President’s support. The most notable of these was former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville, who defeated former senator and attorney general Jeff Sessions for the GOP nomination for a U.S. Senate seat in Alabama. Tuberville will face Democratic Sen. Doug Jones, considered a highly vulnerable incumbent.”

acandidates 6

“Second, Democratic primary results show the party is deeply divided, complicating the Democrats’ path to winning majority control of the Senate and defeating Trump in the November election.”

“Alabama was the biggest race Tuesday and of special interest to [President] Trump. The President forced out Sessions as attorney general after Sessions recused himself from overseeing the investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election – a decision Sessions said he was required to make because he had been involved in the Trump campaign. Trump never forgave Sessions for the recusal and considered it a betrayal.”

acandidates 7

acandidates 8

acandidates 9

“In his bid to regain the Senate seat he resigned to become Trump’s attorney general, Sessions faced fierce opposition from The President, who repeatedly criticized him with harsh insults and actively supported Tuberville. Trump’s endorsement clearly carried more weight with voters than Sessions’ endorsements from prominent Republicans and his former Republican Senate colleagues, including Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.”

So, who are these other “prominent republicans who went out of their way to buck President Trump and endorse Jeff Sessions?

Ann Coulter

acandidates 10

Michelle Malkin

And republican senators:

Jim Inhoffe (OK)

Pat Roberts (KS)

Mike Enzi (WY)

Mike Crapo (ID)

John Barrasso (WY)

Roy Blunt (MO)

John Boozman (AR)

Ron Johnson (WI)

Deb Fischer (NE)

Michelle Malkin…, you have broken my heart!  Jeff “the backstabber” Sessions?!  Really?  What could you have possibly been thinking?  I’m going to have to re-evaluate our relationship.

acandidates 11

And my own senator, Ron Johnson!  Why would you endorse Jeff “the mole” Sessions?!

Very disappointing.

acandidates 12

“Meanwhile, in Texas, former White House physician Dr. Ronny Jackson, who was endorsed by [President] Trump, won his primary for a U.S. House seat, beating out Josh Winegarner. Winegarner was endorsed by the outgoing Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry.”

acandidates 13

“In many ways, the weight of [President] Trump’s endorsements in Alabama and Texas signals that The President’s current chances for reelection may be stronger than national polls indicate.”

Recollecting the polls and their accuracy during the 2016 presidential election, I would say this is most definitely the case.

acandidates 3

acandidates 4

A day or so before the primaries, I can recall the media touting that the Sessions-Tuberville race was a virtual toss-up.

Tuberville crushed Sessions, 60.7% to 39.3%.

Some kind of “toss-up,” huh?

“In several U.S. House and Senate Democratic primaries held in June, progressive challengers either defeated or came close to nearly defeating their well-funded establishment opponents.”

“Likewise, the division between the progressive and moderate factions of the party was manifest in Tuesday’s primaries.”

“Given the clear progressive insurgency within the Democratic Party across the country, there will also likely be greater pressure on the party to embrace left-leaning policies, such as defunding the police, which are unpopular with the general electorate.”

You mean most people don’t want to operate under jungle rules?

You mean most people believe that criminals should be arrested?

You mean that most people believe that other people who can’t behave in a civilized manner should be dealt with accordingly?

acandidates 14

acandidates 15

acandidates 16

If that’s what you mean, well then maybe you do agree with me that these favorable polls for Sleepy Joe are seriously flawed.

It’s hard to believe the democrats believe most people in the country want the Chicago, the L.A., or the New York lifestyle of burning, looting, shooting, killing and just general lawlessness.

acandidates 2

“Doing so could cost the Democrats the presidency, the Senate, and even their current House majority.”

We can only hope!

acandidates 1

The only mention of these primary events by CNN is a whiney little article about Sessions and how he was mistreated by The President, and how he paid the price for being associated with President Trump somehow, even though The President firmly backed his opponent in the primary.

Only the “logic” of CNN can explain that “expert” analysis.

WINNING!

 

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know if you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

We’re all entitled to our opinions.  I value yours and your feedback as well.

I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Polls?  Who needs polls?

According to Joseph A. Wulfsohn of Fox News, “Stony Brook professor Helmut Norpoth says Trump has a 91% chance of winning in November.”

a2020 3

“Despite recent polls that identify Joe Biden as the heavy favorite in 2020, a political science professor is still standing by his prediction model that shows President Trump having a ‘91 percent’ chance of winning in November.”

Allow me to remind you of another poll that had a “heavy favorite!”

a2020 22

I think we have seen these polls are extremely flawed and propagandistic in nature.

a2020 11

‘“Mediaite’ [Mediaite is a digital news site that covers political news] reported on Wednesday that Stony Brook professor Helmut Norpoth is doubling down on his ‘Primary Model,’ which has correctly predicted five out of the past six elections since 1996 and every single election but two in the past 108 years.”

‘“The Primary Model gives Trump a 91 percent chance of winning in November,’ Norpoth said. ‘This model gets it right for 25 of the 27 elections since 1912, when primaries were introduced.’”

“As Mediaite noted, the two elections the model failed to predict were the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy and the 2000 [hanging chad] election of George W. Bush.”

“Norpoth’s model examines the results of presidential primaries as the strongest indicator as to the outcome in the general election, not the polls that dominate the political discussion. According to Norpoth, Biden is in a much weaker position than Trump because of his poor showing in the first two primary races.”

“Before making the stunning comeback in the South Carolina primary and carrying the following races, Biden came in fourth place in Iowa with just 15.8 percent of the vote and came in fifth place in New Hampshire with just 8.4 percent.”

“Norpoth stressed that ‘enthusiasm is key.’”

a2020 5

a2020 12

And I think we all know where the enthusiasm lies.

a2020 9

a2020 10

“Norpoth’s model, which correctly predicted Trump’s victory roughly nine months before the 2016 election, suggests that the president will win by even a wider margin in the electoral college with 362 electoral votes versus the 304 he earned against Hillary Clinton. Mediaite pointed out such a victory would nearly match Barack Obama’s 2008 election, when he earned 365 electoral votes.”

a2020 1

a2020 2

Please check out my own prediction blogs from March 16, 2020,

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT!  THE DEMOCRAT PARTY WON’T BE THE SAME AFTER THE 2020 ELECTION!

https://mrericksonrules.com/2020/03/16/extra-extra-read-all-about-it-the-democrat-party-wont-be-the-same-after-the-2020-election/

 

And from December 18, 2018.

“It’s tough to make predictions…, especially about the future.” – New York Yankee great, Yogi Berra

https://mrericksonrules.com/2018/12/18/its-tough-to-make-predictions-especially-about-the-future-new-york-yankee-great-yogi-berra/

 

“The Stony Brook professor appeared on ‘The Ingraham Angle’ back in May making the same prediction.”

“While the ‘Primary Model’ hands Trump his reelection, national polls suggest Biden will win handily in November. The Real Clear Politics average shows the former VP besting the sitting president by 8.7 points. In the latest Fox News poll, Biden has a 12 point lead over Trump.”

a2020 8

a2020 6

a2020 7

All I can say is, “All of you democrats/socialists/fascists/communists out there…, you just go on believing you have a 12 point lead over our guy.  That’s fine with us.”

I refuse to believe that the majority of the people in this country…

… want to defund and do away with police departments across the country.

a2020 20

… feel that rioting, looting and burning is a right.

… agree that the mob rules, and can destroy any statue, monument or memorial they feel like destroying, and at any time.

… feel that criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens do.

… feel that illegal immigrants have more rights than law abiding citizens do.

… feel it’s okay to disrespect our country and our flag.

a2020 16

… feel that it’s okay for politicians and the media to lie right to our faces, and on an on-going basis.

a2020 17

a2020 18

… feel that it’s okay to mercilessly attack, investigate, and harass our duly elected president.

… feel that it’s okay for our schools and colleges to operate as indoctrination centers for the liberals and their socialist/fascist/communist ideals.

a2020 25

… feel it’s okay for our country to have open borders, allowing people to stroll into our country whenever they want, while immediately becoming eligible for any and all benefits.

… feel our country and our society is evil at its core and needs to be “transformed” into some other vague type of socialist/fascist/communist hybrid type of government.

a2020 13

… want our tax cuts rescinded, and our taxes raised.

… want business tax cuts rescinded, and businesses forced out of our country again.

… want to allow climate change scientists to dictate our economy and our way of life.

… want the price of gas to go up, and want us to become dependent on Middle Eastern oil again.

… want to hand over all of our guns and do away with our 2nd amendment rights.

a2020 24

… want to move away from a free market economic system to a socialistic system.

a2020 21

a2020 15

… want our jobs to head back overseas.

… want our manufacturing companies to disappear…, again.

… want our country to be played for a fool, internationally…, again.

… want government to control every aspect of our lives.

a2020 19

And that’s just the start of what I refuse to believe the majority of the people in this country support.

Just sayin’.

a2020 23

a2020 14

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know if you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

We’re all entitled to our opinions.  I value yours and your feedback as well.

I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

So the “biased, liberal, fake news media” now feels it is OK to belittle the education level of selected groups of voters? 

The answer to this question is undeniably “yes,” at least as far as Eugene Scott of The Washington Post is concerned.

Mr. Scott chooses to point out that, “Americans are pursuing higher education at growing rates, but those without a college education are increasingly finding a home in the GOP.”

So are you implying that voters without college educations are somehow less informed, Mr. Scott?

Are you implying that voters without college educations are somehow less deserving of the right to vote, Mr. Scott?

During the latest midterm elections in 2018, if I heard it once I heard it a thousand times from the democrats, “Every vote counts!”  “Every vote deserves to be counted!”

I guess that’s only true when you’re “harvesting” what you believe are votes for democrats.  Right Mr. Scott?

Voter demographics should not have a bearing on anything.  Each voter is as important as any other voter.  The important things are that each legal voter have the opportunity to vote, and that they vote only once.

According to new data released by the Pew Research Center, higher educational attainment is increasingly associated with Democratic Party affiliation and leaning:

“In 1994, 39% of those with a four-year college degree identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party and 54% associated with the Republican Party.  In 2017, those figures were exactly reversed.”

More than half of registered voters who identify as Democrat have a bachelor’s degree, while fewer than 4 in 10 registered voters who identify as Republican have a bachelor’s degree.

Those with graduate degrees are even more likely to find their political home in the Democratic Party, according to the survey.

Meanwhile, the GOP has increasingly become more of a political destination to Americans who lack a college degree, according to Pew, “Among those with no more than a high school education, 47% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican, while 45% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic.”

In Mr. Scott’s estimation, “This may not bode well for the GOP long-term as the American public becomes increasingly educated.”

I think he means, “… as the American public becomes increasingly brain washed by our liberal education systems!”

According to Census Bureau data, “More than a third of American adults have a four-year college degree or higher, the highest level ever measured by the Census Bureau.”

Why Mr. Scott…, I do believe you are “fake news!”

You say, “This may not bode well for the GOP long-term as the American public becomes increasingly educated,” but if “more than a third of American adults have a four-year college degree or higher,” that would mean close to two thirds do not.  How does that “not bode well for the GOP?”

Mr. Scott goes on to say, “As the Republican Party increasingly becomes the party of those without degrees, their leaders may feel pressure to champion policies that benefit working class voters…”

Well, we can’t have that!  Right Mr. Scott?

That damn “working class,” right Mr. Scott?

Those pathetically ignorant “working class” voters who don’t deserve to vote, but pay for all of your liberal “give-away” programs, right Mr. Scott?

Pew data shows that the educational makeup of the two major parties’ electorates also has changed substantially over the past two decades, particularly when factoring in race:

“When race and education are taken into account, white voters who do to not have a college degree make up a diminished share of Democratic registered voters.  White voters who do not have a four-year degree now constitute just a third of Democratic voters, down from 56% two decades ago.  By contrast, non-college white voters continue to make up a majority of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters at 59%.”

Ha!  I knew it wouldn’t take long before race got involved in the issue!

Apparently “non-educated” white voters are less desirable that “non-educated” Black or Latino voters.

Mr. Scott finishes by saying, “Some top GOP officials have attracted attention for their desire to win women and people of color to their party.  Perhaps moving forward we’ll see more emphasis on what can be done to win the highly educated.”

It seems to me, Mr. Scott, that your “highly educated” people are more often than not the people that are more “highly confused.”

Also, why is it that liberals seem to only value education as a result of a college education?

How about educations and training acquired by our “trade” professionals, like electricians, plumbers, welders, carpenters, HVAC technicians, mechanics, licensed practical nurses, construction professionals, et al?  Do these educations, most of which are quite extensive, not count just because they are practical?

How about the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who serve in our military, most of whom do not have college educations?  Do these educations not count because they are practical in nature?

No, these educations don’t “count” in the minds of liberals because these are educations that do not indoctrinate the students into the liberal political ideology.

Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu, also of The Washington Post, have their own take on voter demographics, specifically as they pertain to Donald Trump’s election and support.

Carnes and Lupu say that, “Media coverage of the 2016 election often emphasized Donald Trump’s appeal to ‘the working class.’ The Atlantic said that ‘the billionaire developer is building a blue-collar foundation.’ The Associated Press wondered what ‘Trump’s success in attracting white, working-class voters’ would mean for his general election strategy.  On Nov. 9, the New York Times front-page article about Trump’s victory characterized it as ‘a decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters.’”

“But what about education?” They continued.  “Many pundits noticed early on that Trump’s supporters were mostly people without college degrees.  There were two problems with this line of reasoning, however.”

“First, not having a college degree isn’t a guarantee that someone belongs in the working class, nor should it somehow indicate that these people are not successful (think Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Aretha Franklin, Quentin Tarantino, Ellen DeGeneres, Simon Cowell, Ted Turner, Rachel Ray, Kim Kardasian, Mark Wahlberg, Al Pacino, Seth Rogan, Marshall “Eminem” Mathers, and Robert ‘F-you’ DeNiro, just to name a few).”

“And, second, although more than 70 percent of Trump supporters didn’t have college degrees, when we looked at the NBC polling data, we noticed something the pundits left out: during the primaries, about 70 percent of all Republicans didn’t have college degrees, close to the national average (71 percent according to the 2013 Census).  Far from being a magnet for the less educated, Trump seemed to have about as many people without college degrees in his camp as we would expect any successful Republican candidate to have.”

So Mr. Scott, you have been debunked!

“Observers have often used the education gap to conjure images of poor people flocking to Trump, but the truth is, many of the people without college degrees who voted for Trump were from middle- and high-income households.”

Many, if not most, of these “observers” are quite confused and quite biased as well.  “Poor people” flocking to candidates is, again, only desirable when they are “flocking” to the appropriate liberal candidate.

“In short, the narrative that attributes Trump’s victory to a “coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters” just doesn’t square with the 2016 election data.  According to the election study, white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters.”

In a word, there are “uneducated voters” and then there are “uneducated voters.”

It would appear that it is the democrats who are a party of extremes.  They seem to be comprised mostly of college eggheads, highly paid entertainers, extreme social and environmental interest groups, high school drop-outs, high school graduates who haven’t furthered their education, and all of those who live off of the government and have no intent to better themselves.

In a recent National Review article (The National Review is recognized as a leading conservative magazine, but was exposed during the election as just another “swampy,” establishment, media outlet) about Trump’s alleged support among the working class bordered on a call to arms against the less fortunate, saying that, “The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles.  Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin,” and that “the truth about these dysfunctional downscale communities is that they deserve to die.”

According to Carnes and Lupu, “This kind of stereotyping and scapegoating is a dismaying consequence of the narrative that working-class Americans swept Trump into the White House.  What deserves to die isn’t America’s working-class communities.  It’s the myth that they’re the reason Trump was elected.”

Shame on you National Review, and shame on you Eugene Scott.

And thank you to Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu for reporting the facts and not twisting the facts to fit the liberal narrative.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

remember-when-you-said-trump-would-never-be-president-but-36286487

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑