Polls Are Simultaneously Crap...and Dangerous

A new article has been published today, based on poll data.

Here's the headline of the article that appears on the Time website:

Poll: Obama Hits a New High, Making Big Gains Among Women
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081001/us_time/pollobamahitsanewhighmakingbiggainsamongwomen

And here are some of the sweeping statements made in that article:

----McCain is losing female voters faster than Sarah Palin attracted them after the Republican National Convention. Obama leads McCain by 17 points with women, 55%-38%. Before the conventions, women preferred Obama by a margin of 10 points, 49%-39%. After McCain picked Palin as his running mate, the gap narrowed to a virtual tie, with Obama holding a 1-point margin, 48%-47%

----white women now favor Obama by three points, 48%-45%; in 2004, George W. Bush won the same demographic by 11 points against John Kerry. Where Bush carried married women by 15 points in that election, 57%-42%, Obama now leads by 6 points, 50%-44%, a 21-point shift.

----Non-college-educated white women split virtually evenly, 46%-45% for McCain. By contrast, Obama remains weak among white men. That group supports McCain 57%-36% overall, and non-college-educated white men back the Republican ticket by an even greater margin, 63%-27%.

Ohay, now if you read those above paragraphs, which compare for example Bush's numbers (DURING THE ELECTION - a sample size of several million people, obviously) with the numbers for McCain now (based on a slightly smaller sample size, as you will see ina minute), you might think that McCain is in a heckuva lot of trouble.

But read down to the verry last paragraph of this article, and what do you see?

The poll, which surveyed 1,133 likely voters nationwide between Sept. 26-29, has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

This poll is comparing apples and oranges when it comes to Bush's numbers with women during his election, and McCain's numbers with women before the election.

And can anyone answer this question, based on the paragraph above? The only bit of info we're given.

1) Of the 1,133 people surveyed nationwide, how many were men? How many were women? (Because the numbers given in the article conclude things about both male and female voters - so they must have talked to both men and women, right?)

Logic would dictate that about 550 were men and 550 were women, right, but how do we know? Maybe it was 800 women and 300 men.

But let's say it was 550 men and 550 women. There are 50 states in the Union. (Not 57, as a certain presidential candidate seems to think.) That means that this poll talked to 10 people in each state. Mebbe. Considering the cost of phone calls, perhaps they didn't even bother wiht Alaska and Hawaii.

So, based on what 10 people in each state say, the author of this article has the audacity to say that McCAin is "behind in the polls." He may well be, but big whoop.

And what's that "likely voters" phrase mean? Where did they find the people who responded to this poll? Is anyone registered to vote a "likely" voter?

Did the pollsters only talk to Democrats? Did they talk to Republicans? What percentage of that "1,133 people surveyed nationwide" were Democrats, how many Republicans, how many Independents?

It is very easy to skew statistical data to get exactly the result you want.

Isaac Asimov once wrote an essay - albeit on radioactive half-life of various atoms, in which he stated: Once you have a large group, you can use statistics to predict the future. The larger the group, the more accurate (percentage wise) the predictions. The smaller the sample size, the more useless are the statistics.

So, in my view, any poll, regarding politics, that does not have a sample size of at least 10,000 people, is useless - and even 10,000 people is pretty low.

Why are Polls dangerous, then?

Because the media reporting on the poll skews the data to come to the conclusions that they want.

1) The statements made in the body of the article are not clarified...they make it seem as if a majority of the population feels the way that the members of the poll do... and when the members of the poll are merely 1,000 people, that's crap.

But, it is my belief that most people don't read to the end of these articles to see what ridiculous sample sizes are used. 90% of them see the headlines - and believe it. 80% of the rest read the first two or three paragraphs - and believe what they read. And 10% of people check the bottom paragraph first, see that the sample size is ridiiculously small, and dismiss the poll as ridiculous.

The statements, therefore, should be along the lines of, "80% of the people who participated in this poll believe that" such and such is true.

2) The sample size for each and every poll should be put in the first paragraph, as well as information on whom that sample size consists of.

So that's my contention. Any poll on political matters - considering that we're talking about 700 million people in the US - that does not have at least 10,000 respondents, is a worthless poll and doesn't even deserve to be mentioned.

Obama doesn't remember name of soldier on his wrist

After McCain talked about the bracelet from the mother of a slain soldier, Obama mentioned that he had one, too.

Obama: Jim, let me just make a point. I've got a bracelet, too.

(Looks up, adjusts wrist, looks down at wrist)

Obama: From sergeant... uh.. (adjusts wrist) uh, from the mother of sergeant Ryan David Jopek (phonetic). Given to me in Green Bay. And she asked me, can you please make sure another mother isn't going through what I'm going through?



Gaffe, or not? Comparable to him not bothering to visit the wounded soldiers in Germany?

Who is Running Alaska While Sarah Palin Is Campaigning?

That's one of the headlines at YahooNews today. I'm not even gonna bother to read the article, but the intent to smear is obvious.

I'm thinking someone called the Lieutenant Governor might possibly be doing it... and perhaps getting phone calls from Palin from time to time, or even participating in that technological marvel called a conference call...

*I'm* wondering...who runs the states when the various Senators go off on *their* campaigning. In particular ones like Obama and Clinton who have been in their seats for one term, or less than one term, and yet have no compunction but to go gallivanting off to try for the Presidency.

Another interesting news article yesterday based on polling information.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080924/pl_rasmussen/homeowners20080924
Most Americans Still Say Home-Buying Is Best Investment

and note the categorical statements about all Americans in the article.

1) Two-thirds of Americans (66%) think buying a home is the best investment most families can make, despite the recent meltdown of the U.S. housing market. Just 19% disagree.

2) Forty-four percent (44%) also say it's a good idea for most Americans to invest in stocks, bonds and mutual funds, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Thirty-one percent (31%) don't think it's a good idea, and 24% are undecided (see crosstabs).

3) Just 18% expect the stock market to go up between now and Election Day in early November. Thirty-four percent (34%) think it will go down, and a similar number (32%) expect it to remain about the same


The entire article eis like this. 44% of Americans, 34% of Americans, etc.

And then, at the very bottom of the page, it tells you exactly home many of the 300 MILLION inhabitants of the US took part in this survey. 1,000 people.

1,000 peope, that's it. And from 1,000 people they can extrapolate that 2/3rds of Americans think that buying a home is still a good idea?

This was a phone survey. And as I have stated time and time again when I rant about polls, who answers phone these days? Not a very high percentage of people...not a representative percentage of people.

And I don't care how representative they are, you can not gauge what 300 MILLION people will do in answer to a complex question, based on what 1,000 people will do.

Did they talk to blacks? Latinos? Hispanics? Illegal immigrants (who are allowed to vote in various Democratic states, coff, coff).

For the last week or so the news, based on a poll, that Obama is going to have a hard time winning because of the racism of white Democrats, has been making the rounds. And I have yet to see any of the people who comment sorrowfully on this shameful state of affairs, point out that it's based on poll data of just 2,227 people!

"God has a plan for our lives."

In an article about the devastation in Galveston, there's a paragraph about people there whose belief in God is unshaken, and they're together in prayer.

Texans look to the heavens as they rebuild, heal from Ike

"I know it's hard. Looking around, it's tough," the Rev. Eddie Shauberger told the congregants. "But there is a God, and he has a plan for our lives."

What's easier to believe, I wonder. That there is no god and nature is a bitch...or a bastard, whatever... or that there is a God, and he just loves sending this kind of devastation, taking away everything people have ever worked for, ya da ya, to "test them", to see if they'll stay strong in their faith despite tremendous temptation to say, Gee, God. If this is the kind of stuff you pull on people who love you, I guess I can't love you any more, because you're obviously a bit psychotic."

No one asked me...

Yahoo news reported today:
Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

Mark the sentence, please. One-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks.

Well...that's a lie.

One third of 2,227 adults --- 2,227 adults who participated in poll, --- harbored negative views towards blacks.

Now - who were these adults? How were they selected?

Here's a bit of the article: The AP-Yahoo News poll used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, a Menlo Park, Calif., firm that interviews people online after randomly selecting and screening them over telephone.

Okay - there ya go. Who these days answers their telephone? I don't. I've got call screening, and if its someone I don't know, I don't answer the phone.

Were these 2,227 people scattered all over the country? Or were they in one state? Etc. etc.

We don't know how the pollsters were chosen, we know nothing about their background. All we know is that based on the example of 2,227 adults (did that include 18 year olds, 80 year olds?) this Yahoo article states categorically that an entire percentage of people think this or believe that.

So if black folks (and whites) read that they'll say, Gee, we are a racist country. (Will I be generalizing too much if I say that 75% of people who read that article won't bother to go down to the very bottom sentence to see exactly how many people took part in the poll?)

Obama's Inflame-the-Latinos Ad About Rush

Obama put out a Spanish language ad in four states, in which, according to Limbaugh, he's inflaming Latinos and Hispanics by calling Rush racist, etc., and lying about things he's said.



Limbaugh is against illegal immigration...and being against illegal immigration does not make someone racist. But, of course, illegal immigration will win out, because as soon as someone says they are against illegal immigration, they are accused of being racist, and that's it, end of discussion.

Limbaugh getting desperate...

I'm no fan of Barack Obama, but I am a fan of the truth and of non-distortion, and Limbaugh today on his radio show was all gleeful about an Obama gaffe that wasn't really a gaffe. And the fact that he is trying to portray it as one is rather pathetic...

We've got another Obama gaffe, and this was a great one if ABC has left it up on their website. It was on Good Morning America today, an exclusive interview with Good Morning America, and the subject of this particular interview was campaign low blows versus standard attack ads. And Mark Mooney, ABC reports, quotes Obama as having said on Good Morning America today, "If we're going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily."

Obviously, obviously, what he means is that he wins the contest as the victim of those attacks, not as the promulgator of them.

It is interesting to listen to Limbaugh talk. He's been commenting regularly that the Democrats are going to try to destroy Sarah Palin as a person, just as they tried to destroy Clarence Thomas, ya da ya da... "That's what Democrats do."

But at the same time is he and Hannity not doing the same thing to Obama by dragging up all his dirty laundry? I'm sure the Republicans would do it too, if only Obama weren't black... but like illegal aliens, it's impossible to criticize Obama without being hit with the cry of "racism." But when you consider that 99% of the blacks in the US are going to vote for Obama... simply because he's black, is that not racist?

It's just so hypocrticical that they criticize the Democrats for the same things that they themselves do. That's the problems with politicians, frankly. They can't criticize each other because they'd all turn out to be hypocrites if they did.

As an aside...obviously the time for a black President is very close at hand. Hopefully it won't be Obama...but who should it be? Colin Powell? I'd vote for him...