16-10-17 POLL POOP

POLL POOP – A DIVE BELOW THE HEADLINES 10/17/2016
DECONSTRUCTING THE (CNN) CLINTON NEWS
NETWORK’S “POLL OF POLLS”
The Clinton News Network (CNN) just published their “Poll of Polls” showing Hillary Clinton with an 8 point lead
– Clinton 47%, Trump 39%, Johnson 7%, Stein 2% - in a four way race. The “Poll of Polls” is CNN’s average of the
results of 4 previously published polls:
Fox News Poll 10/10 – 10/12
Washington Post/ABC News Poll 10/10 – 10/13
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll 10/10 – 10/13
GW Battleground Poll 10/8 – 10/13
On 10/15 I wrote about the irregularities and bias in the Fox poll. I’ll get into the other three here. Before I do I want
to say that I look at the numbers in these polls along with the methodology. It seems that skewing the number of
respondents by party affiliation with higher numbers of Democratic respondents and gender with higher numbers of
female respondents is the most common thread in all these crooked polls that are done in the hopes that folks only
read the headlines.
From Gallup data for 2015 I found that our country was ID’d by them as 26% Republican and 29% Democrat. Why
don’t the polls use a count to get real close to a 3% split not a +9 Democratic advantage like in the Fox poll?
The 2010 US Census data had our population split by gender as Female 50.8%-Male 49.2% with the male
population 2000-2010 increasing faster than the female population. So any poll that wants to lean female is not
representative and I find most polls do. Some stretch that to a 6 point differential and claim that Clinton has a 4 point
lead. In this election gender is more critical than in elections past.
Another aside before I dive – the GW Battleground Poll has a link to a “Republican Analysis”. I read that and said to
myself “Who the hell is this Republican?” RHINO? Not really. Some guy or gal who hasn’t gotten off the
reservation to see what the folks are really saying. You see, on the reservation (Washington DC and its surrounds)
the analysis is “just right”. Then it dawned on me “GW” poll. George Washington University in Washington, DC.
UNBIASED?
Here’s the “POOP DIVE”:
Washington Post/ABC Poll
1) When I looked at the actual Washington Post/ABC poll results there was a separate link to “Data: Complete
trends over time”. Going there I found out the poll’s published data on how they determined the number of
respondents. They completed 1152 interviews from which 920 registered voters and 740 likely voters are
determined and used to generate poll results.
In order to understand how 1152 becomes 920 and then becomes 740, the pollsters say that you need to
understand that “this survey uses statistical weighting procedures to account for deviations in the
survey sample from known population characteristics, which helps correct for differential survey
participation and random variation in samples”.
I’m just a simple kind of guy but that line sounds like “this survey has been rigged to the benefit of
the Democratic candidate, but TRUST US.

2) The male/female count. This poll has percentages as answers for all questions. Nowhere within the poll
can you find the number, not a percentage, of male/female respondents. In their fancy electronic view of
the poll you can get a “detailed view” under a tab with that name. When you open that view up you can
look at things a number of ways but they never tell you how many male respondents and female
respondents there were by a number count. IS THERE SOMETHING HERE THAT COULD
EVIDENCE A BIAS?
3) Party affiliation. Again, just like the gender question, the only facts you get about party affiliation is in
percentages so you can’t actually get a count by party. Based on answers to the last poll question, 33% of
respondents ID’d themselves as Democrat, 25% Republican, 33% Independent, 5% Other, 4% No Opinion.
Obviously leaning left quite a bit. There’s a +8 Democratic tilt from the jump. I’d love to hear who the
4% No Opinion folks were and if they participated in other answers. That makes no sense at all.
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll
1) When I looked at the actual NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll results there was what I can only describe
as a “perfect setup” for biased answers to the questions from which the published poll headlines would be
created. Seven questions into the poll interview, respondents are asked if they’re likely to vote and then
they can move on to question 8, from which the poll’s headlines about who’s in the lead are drawn. In the
six questions leading up to the “headline questions”, respondents are asked how they feel about Trump,
Clinton, Pence, Kaine, Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, Alicia Machado, Paul Ryan, the Democratic
Party, the Republican Party. WHY?
2) The male/female count. This poll has a female advantage 53% to 47% male. Let’s go to 50/50 based on
census. That’s a 6 point differential. The poll now comes down to a 5 point race and we haven’t even talked
about the party affiliation differential.
3) Party affiliation. As Donald Trump says “Follow the numbers”. In poll question QF1 we find that 46% of
respondents voted for Obama in 2012 and 32% voted for Romney. In poll question QF4 we find that 26%
of the respondents are “Strong Democrat” versus 19% who are “Strong Republicans”. NO POTENTIAL
POLL BIAS HERE.
GW Battleground Poll
1) I went to the GW Battleground Poll site and checked a link called “Polling Data (cross tabs)”. As opposed
to info provided by other polls that only gives percentages, this data, with a heading of ‘The Tarrance
Group, Inc./Lake Research Partners Battleground #15380: Weighted Tables October 8-13, 2016’,
provides a body count for answers to poll specifics. Every polling firm should be associated with The
Tarrance Group or another firm offering the same ability to produce “weighted” tables. Weighted?
2) The male/female count. This poll has a female advantage 531 to 470 male. Again this is the same 53/47
advantage that NBC used above. Just like that poll, let’s go to 50/50 based on census. That’s a 6 point
differential. This poll now comes down to a 2 point race and we haven’t even talked about the party
affiliation differential.
3) Party affiliation. Using the polling data referenced in #1 above, there’s a cross column labeled “Partisan”.
This cross column reflected these responses:
Hard GOP – 291 respondents
Soft GOP – 98 respondents
Ticket Splitters – 176 respondents
Soft DEM – 69 respondents
Hard DEM - 367 respondents
Great Question Should Be In Every Poll
Using these numbers, GOP vs DEM without Ticket Splitters favors Democrats 53% to 47%. Using just the
strong partisan respondents the Democratic advantage grows to 56% to 44%. We had this poll down to a 2
pointer using gender, are we even now?

LOOKS LIKE A BLUE LEANER, SMELLS LIKE A BLUE LEANER, HELL, MUST BE A BLUE
LEANER. IT’S SO NICE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE FINDINGS SHOWING WE HAVE
MEDIA ALONG WITH THEIR CRONIES THAT HAVE TRIED TO DECEIVE THE AMERICAN
VOTERS.
SO GOOD LUCK:
CNN – CLINTON NEWS NETWORK
ABC – AMATUERS BACKING CLINTON
CBS – CLINTON BUTT SUCKERS
NBC – NOBODY BUT CLINTON
MSNBC – NOBODY BUT CLINTON – MORE STEROIDS
FOLKS ARE WATCHING.
In summary, this is why the ‘Poll of Polls’ is biased. The problem with
disseminating this false data in the form of a blaring but untrue
headline is the effect on decisions being made by “LIV’s” (Low
Information Voters).
Please forward this to your family and friends and ask them to bring up the crooked polling and
back it up with facts when they have the opportunity to discuss the upcoming election with a
reasonable individual. There’s a problem there too. When I try to have a reasonable discussion
with a Democrat, it takes about 5-10 words before the “Trump” word is spoken by them
followed by a rant and a refusal to talk reasonably and discuss facts.
Be strong in your position