Poll Addiction Explained...sorta

[OCinBuffalo]

I thought this was a good read about polls, and why they are becoming less reliable.

 

Now, yes I am aware of the standard liberal spin in this article. And, I am also aware that the main premise for this artilce is to diminish the "Hillary Clinton's tailspin" story...which requires the Times to attack the vehicle for that tailspin: the very polls that define it. I love how the Times was once Nate Silver's biggest fan, and now attacks the raw data Silver uses. And of course, the most telling thing: Hillary's poll #s are so bad on the fundamentals polls(trustworthy, honest, etc.) that the leftist media's usual tactic of messing with the horserace polls...cannot produce the resutls they need this time...so now they attack the concept of polling itself.

 

However, all disclaimers aside, there were a few good points, like:

 

“A national poll is absolutely meaningless,” said Stuart Stevens, the chief strategist for Romney’s 2012 campaign. “One of every nine Americans lives in California. So one of every nine voters in that poll is going to be in California. When’s the last time anybody read a story about the Republican primary in California?”

Now, again, this is written by a guy who found a way to lose against an awful candidate, but still, he's right. If a national poll is meaningless for this reason, doesn't that call into question most of the analytics created that are based on national polls?

 

There's more interesting stuff like that in the article, provided you can prevent yourself from being distracted by its premise. There's also the silly and hilarious like this:

 

“He caresses his polls numbers,” said David Axelrod, one of the chief architects of Obama’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, adding that Trump’s first order of business when he steps up to a microphone is “a recitation of poll numbers. He’s like a Lothario recounting his exploits every time he starts a speech.”

Yes, David, now which other kettles do you want to call black? As if Obama didn't do that every time, and as if you didn't write it and teleprompt it every time.

 

Just in case you want evidence for my claim about the main premise of the article...there's this:

 

“If she’s three points behind in New Hampshire, it’s a close race,” Axelrod said. “But if she’s 27 points behind, her campaign’s in free fall. That’s a sexier story and the one that’s chosen. It becomes the meme. It becomes the prism through which everyone filters their coverage. It skews how people view everything that a candidate does: Is it conviction or desperation?”

which, after you get done laughing, exposes the premise in black and white. Oh, and btw, here we have Obama's campaign manager describing in detail the effect polling has on "people['s] view" of the race. So, yeah, messing with a poll clearly has an effect...and David Axelrod, not I, said so.

 

In any event, there are some valuable points and pieces of data that you can pick out of this train wreck attempt at deflecting the "Hillary Dead" narrative. But, I will note that Axlerod said desperation. Freudian slip?

Edited January 24, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[Nanker]

Saw the title of Ross Dout(Ass)hat's article, "The Way To Stop Trump", and wonder when they'll publish an article titled, "The Way To Stop Hillary".