Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > > Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > > > And who does the exit polling? The media, which has a proven bias. The
> > > > fact is that exit pollsters have to correct exit poll data because
> > > > pollsters ALWAYS project more votes for democrats than what actually
> > > > occurs.
> > >
> > > You are absolutely right. But the margin is small. The fact that they
> > > ALWAYS do it makes it totally consistent and repeatable, which
> > is why they
> > > are capable of correcting it as you noted above. Their may be
> > bias in their
> > > methods, but they do fairly correct the data to present more accurate
> > > results.
> >
> > Yes, but what about the impact? Most people know that their one vote
> > will have little impact on an election either way. When the media report
> > the democrats are winning by even a small margin, this discourages
> > republicans from going and voting, expecting the election to be lost.
>
> But I don't think they report this. Even you mentioned that they "correct"
> for this bias.
THEY correct for what THEY, in their biased opinions, is the correct
level of their own bias. I hope you are objective enough to recognise
how impossible this sort of scheme is to have any sort of accuracy.
Its like asking police to accurately measure how much police brutality
there is, or the Chinese how much human rights violations there is in
China. You are guaranteed to get bad results.
> However, I agree with you that elections should not be predicted or polled
> before the voting is done. Even though I don't think it has been proven to
> have interfered with the results, the potential is just too great.
> Elections would be more objective and fair if the media did not try to call
> them before they are finished.
>
> > That's a nice neat way to let the media off the hook. I don't buy it. I
> > have personally seen exit pollers ignore people with conservative
> > leanings and select people who look 'liberal' to participate in exit
> > polls, whether its done by hair length, clothing quality, or skin color
> > is irrelevant, it is profile that is at least as wrong as the police
> > profiling of blacks that liberals complain of.
>
> I think you see conspiracies more often than I do. Conspiracies are not the
> simplest explanation for the observed data. Mere stupidity, sloppiness,
> confusion are often more likely explanations. It is true that everyone has
> biases, and biases skew results, and more liberals seem to become media
> people, so the media has a liberal bias. But I don't think any of this was
> a deliberate plot by the Left. It just evolved that way. You give the Left
> too much credit if you think they could have infiltrated and taken over
> almost all media.
Did I say 'conspiracy'? No, I did not, so I think that it is you who is
assuming things here. I think that it is perfectly normal for people who
a) are vested in their own opinions to a high degree (as political
activists generally are), b) think people like themselves are more
honest, friendly, and trustworthy, and c) dislike people they disagree
with, will tend to conciously or subconciously behave at an exit poll in
a way which is biased in favor of their own side.
I also am of the opinion that Democrats generally feel more strongly
that they and their allies are more 'hard done by', that their opponents
'owe them something' for past sins (as per the reparations and other
issues), and thus, as individuals, are more amenable to subtly skewing
the results they collect by cherry picking poll subjects.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:06 MDT