Hmm: Are polling firms now factoring in Democratic voter fraud?

Hmm: Are polling firms now factoring in Democratic voter fraud?
(Image via Texas Tribune)

[Ed. – Michaels correctly points out that most pollsters who work elections are motivated to get predictive, accurate results.  If they don’t, they’re going to lose clients and revenue.  So one of the most important things to look at is what they factor in to their algorithms to improve accuracy.  That said, the point noted in the first passage is also a must-read.]

Earlier this week, Thomas Lifson expressed skepticism about a Hart Research Associates poll showing Donald Trump down by 11 points.  As Conservative Treehouse revealed, the organization has been a big contributor to Hillary Clinton, handing over $220,500 in September alone.

But Hart is not taken seriously by those who follow the polling industry. …

[T]he major polls have a strong incentive to get accurate results.  As Frank Newport of Gallup can tell you, their reputation and their bottom line suffer when they misforecast an important election. …

Gallup, you’ll recall, showed Mitt Romney comfortably ahead for all of October [2012], with the race tightening in the final days. …

Frank Newport ordered an exhaustive review of the organization’s polling methods. …

A key problem, according to the report, was with the model for determining “likely voters.”  Gallup overweighed the respondents’ past voting history, and, revealingly, “the thought respondents were giving to the election.”

Though they don’t phrase it this way, the venerable polling organization concluded that Democratic voters do not give much thought to the election and aren’t likely to have voted in the past.  Who are these people?

[…]

Today, voters who haven’t voted in the past or thought much about the election are more likely to be illegal immigrants.

Continue reading →


Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.