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.
Submitted by Ender on Mon, 2012-02-13 11:45
-->
- Ender's blog
- Login or register to post comments

Comments :
But Wait!
There's another poll out from ARG
(pretty reputable) that has the following:
Primary Voters
2012
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.
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.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
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.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
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
Nice
Newlyweds still ;-)
I remember those days. Just passed our 17th here.
2 years for me
to the day. Yay, us!
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
The day before Valentine's ...
Chosen to make it easy to remember? ;-)
Happy 2nd anniversary!
congratulations Charles
It will be 2 years for us this May.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
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.
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.
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?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
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 :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
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.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
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.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
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
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%.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
I loved your links
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
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.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
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
There's even another one....
Sarah Palin
beat Romney in a Reuters poll last June.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!