Aug 18 2006

Polls Verses Ballots

Published by at 2:39 pm under All General Discussions,Leiberman-Lamont

I am still chuckling over all the fantasies being generated by the left regarding the latest Qinnipiac Poll showing Lieberman clobbering Lamont 53 to 41 among likely voters (previous post here). They have truly come with some amazing ideas on how Lamont is actually winning! The most hillarious claims are the huge gains in Democrat support for Lamont since his squeaker 52-48% win in the primary. Supposedly the poll shows a 65-35 split amongst Democrats only a week later! This has the left all thrilled. What happened?

Nothing. A poll is a statistical estimate based on a small sample. And they can be very far off if the pollster do not have a historic basis to adjust the mathematical weightings in unique circumstances – like third party candidates. Votes, on the other hand, are precise measurements. We all know the liberals still believe Kerry won in 2004 because the estimate (the polls) are supposedly more accurate than the measurement (the ballots). Nothing has changed in liberal la la land. I am well steeped in science and mathematics and engineering, and I know which number is more accurate – it is the measurement from the primary.

My guess is the truth is somewhere in between. It is hard to believe someone who voted against Lamont in the primary is all of a sudden going to ‘see the light’ in the general. But some will fall into the party line – for now. If I am correct, that means the poll is under-estimating Lieberman’s pull from the Democratic base. And unless the pollsters change their models – which they are loath to do since it makes comparisons over time impossible – then this hidden bias will remain in the estimates until the next measurement is taken in November.

One response so far

One Response to “Polls Verses Ballots”

  1. carol johnson says:

    Uh…speaking of polls and/or ballots:

    Per Free Republic:

    The Democratic National Committee moved on Saturday to penalize 2008 presidential candidates who defied a new nominating calendar designed to lessen the longtime influence of New Hampshire and Iowa – the two states that have traditionally kicked off the nominating process.

    …Any candidate who campaigned in a state that did not abide by the dates of the new calendar would be stripped at the party convention of any delegates won in that state.

    A Freeper made this comment:

    “Don’t forget, it was IA that put dean out of the race…;)”

    when defending Iowa’s traditional role in weeding out the crazies in the race. People over there seem to think that this is a move that will benefit those like Hillary who haven’t polled well in those states. Still others see it as a way for the Dems to essentially “redistrict” their own party to reflect the need to cater to minorities for supporting the party line.

    My husband just made a comment that made me sit up and take notice after shaking my head that this had to be the stupidest stunt yet that the Dems have tried to pull on their own party.

    He asked – “What if it has nothing to do with any of that stuff and is just Screamin’ Howie Dean’s chance for some payback for the asskicking he got in Iowa?” I don’t know how he did in New Hampshire…maybe someone else knows the answer to that question. It makes absolute sense!

    We will, undoubtably hear more about this soon. I understand that the New York Times is doing an article on it tomorrow. Stay tuned!