One
of the harsher criticisms delivered by a New Testament author is found in the
Letter to the Hebrews. (If you aren't a "believer," I hope you'll
tolerate this brief observation because it leads somewhere important.)
The
writer criticizes Hebrew believers that aught, based on the passage of time and
experiences of life, to be eating a diet suitable to adults. The writer uses
the phrase "strong meat" to describe the diet that the writer
expected those Hebrew believers to be of sufficient maturity to consume. (For
the vegan reader, that's going to take you sideways if you get locked up on it
… maybe think of the writer as having endorsed Brussel sprouts.) The writer's
point is that, as adults, from the time our milk teeth drop out and our
permanent teeth drop in, we are capable of eating more than breast milk from
our mothers.
The
writer's criticism focused on those Hebrews that should be, spiritually
speaking, on an adult diet of spiritual understanding, but who were, instead,
still feasting at the teat, surviving on the barest spiritual nutrition.
“Time
to grow up,” I think, was the author's point.
Elections
seem to bring out the teat sucker in folks.
I
have in mind the consumption of news about presidential polls.
So,
in the span of a few short days, we have been invited, courtesy of traditional
news sources, to believe that we have swung from a Trump bump to an electoral
Armageddon in which the Democratic Beast rises to the throne of America. Is
that so obviously the case? If you take the Pablum of predigested summations,
you may think it is so.
I
think not. And, if you are a thinking person, you may think not too.
If
you are a person that isn't content to avoid macerating facts, if you don’t
simply accept the spoon fed agenda of the lap dance media, you will have looked
through their filters and studied and understood the implications of what is,
and what is not, being reported, about polling.
It's
time to grow up.
If
you have read this far, then I know you are capable of reading and
understanding basic written English; to my thinking, that also means that you
are capable of getting beyond the Pablum of media reports about presidential
polling, that you can, you should actually take up the source information and
screen it for its meaning.
Because
it seems to be the place where folks shop for polling data, let's use
RealClearPolitics and its polling summary page as an example. I've reorganized
and reproduced their summary here:
As shown, the largest sample polling was that of the Los Angeles Times poll. That poll, of over 2000 participants, showed the narrowest margin between Clinton and Trump, a single point of preference separating the two.
Moreover,
that poll, based on its sample size had a self-reported negligible margin of
error. Finally, among the polls summarized, that poll sought the views of
LIKELY VOTERS, and was one of only TWO polls in the RealClearPolitics summary
that sough the views of so-called LIKELY VOTERS.
The
other poll of LIKELY VOTERS was completed a week prior to the LA Times Poll. It
included a smaller polling sample, produced a reportable margin of error, and,
while it showed Clinton ahead of Trump, the spread between them was nearly
completely covered by that margin of error.
The
remaining EIGHT POLLS were all of small sample sizes compared to the Los
Angeles Times poll.
The
remaining EIGHT POLLS were of a different demographic group. Where the LA Times
and Reuters/IPSOS polls sought the views of LIKELY VOTERS, the remaining polls
all sought the views of REGISTERED VOTERS.
Give
some thought to what this could be telling you.
As
a nation, a substantial minority of us, in many cases nearly 50% of those who
are not only old enough to vote but are also eligible to vote do not vote. The
most recent presidential election in which both the number of registered voters
and the number of actual voters is certain, 2004, showed a turnout of about 60%
of registered voters. You can check my math here and here.
Of
course, there are many uncertainties in every election that can cause
variations in the turnout and the outcome. Yet, if the search is for the most
likely accurate forecast of how the election actually would turn out, you have
to ask yourself, would the more accurate picture be gained by polling those who
are registered to vote? Or, would the more accurate picture be gained by
polling those who are, based on prior behavior and declared intentions,
actually LIKELY TO VOTE?
The
wildly ranging numbers in the REGISTERED VOTER POLLS, it seems to me, are
exactly what to expect in a large scale group amongst whom nearly 50% are
unlikely to actually vote in an election, even though they have bothered to
register to vote.
Here’s
another curiosity for a “meat-eating” poll reader:
If
a poll of REGISTERED VOTERS showed one kind of trend or condition, but a
contemporaneous poll of LIKELY VOTERS produced a contrary trend or condition,
what meaning, if any, might/could/should we draw from a preference for polls of
REGISTERED VOTERS or of LIKELY VOTERS?
Seriously.
Suppose
that polling REGISTERED VOTERS produced reliably more accurate results, results
that actually matched election outcomes. Or suppose, to the contrary, that
polling LIKELY VOTERS did so. In either event, for what possible reason would a
news agency or its polling partners choose to gauge the less reliable group?
Think
about it.
Suppose
you had to make your living betting on the outcomes of NFL games.
If
you did so, which of the following would be more important to you: knowing what
would be the actual starting line-up for Sunday's game, or simply knowing the
undifferentiated list of all 53 eligible players on the team's roster?
To
be sure, when injuries require that they do so, coaches will go into the bench;
and you will want to know, in turn, about the depth of the bench for various
positions, but in the first instance, how likely are you to pick one team over
another, or even more so, pick a game based on point spread, if you are told
only that there will be 11 unidentified players on one team playing against 11
unidentified players on the other team. The risk of losing on your bets would
be enough to make you seek legitimate employment!
If
the coach puts a passing quarterback on the field, that is some indication of
the game to be played.
Here,
the generic "registered voter" is placed in comparison with the more
certainly known "likely voter."
If
you think it odd for me to focus on the differences to be found in REGISTERED
VOTER polls and LIKELY VOTER polls, I’d recommend reading some coverage of the differences.
You can read about this topic, in the context of previous elections, here,
here,
here,
here,
and here.
And
if a media organization likes the odds spread when polling REGISTERED rather
than LIKELY voters, and then actually produces only polling of REGISTERED
voters, that should give you that one more insight:
Yes,
the media does have a preferred candidate, and they don't like the trends among
likely voters, so they disguise them by polling a fairly irrelevant group
instead.
