It is important to require statistics in our high school education if we want to graduate smart voters who can do critical thinking.
16
I hate polling and if I inadvertently answer a call seeking my participation, I refuse. My proclivities as a voter are a private concern, not fodder to be spun into some "inevitability" by professional pollsters.
7
The poll-i-fi-cation of political coverage is directly related to the sports-i-fi-cation of political coverage. I'm not talking about horse racing-style coverage. No, I'm talking about the coverage of the NFL, specifically the NFL pre-game show. For a time (say, the 60s-80s), the NFL Pre-Game/Political Pre-Game (meaning election coverage), was on a one-to-one ratio (The NFL Today on CBS or Fox, its opposite number on NBC on Sunday, Meet The Press/Face The Nation, also on Sunday). As cable proliferated, there were more NFL pre game shows (NFL Insiders, Football Night in America, NFL Network, for goodness sakes) but many more political pre game shows (whole networks like Fox, MSNBC, and CNN, devoted to almost nothing but horse race/football-pregame like content). Thing is, in the NFL, there are actual games every week from September through late January and then a big game the first Sunday in February. Contrast that to one actual game in politics every 2 years (elections on the 1st Tuesday in November) and then, every fourth year, you have a veritable orgy of games--caucuses and primaries. But most of the time, in politics, it's all pre-game. So politics has far fewer "game days" (4 November election "game days" + maybe 10 primary/caucus game days over 1,461 days--the number of days in a 4 year cycle) per the gazillions of hours of pre-game than does the NFL (or any other sport). No wonder the reliance on polls is maddening--you're keeping score of games that are rarely played.
Polls are a prime example of the media MAKING news, more than reporting it. If, say, Rubio pulled off an upset in Iowa or New Hampshire, the media would breathlessly declare Rubio the front runner and spend an inordinate amount of time burying anyone who didn't live up to expectations. Again, say Trump finished fourth or fifth, there'd be all sorts of talk about how his bubble had burst.
What can we do about it? Quit watching or reading poll-related coverage. What WILL we do. Nothing.
What can we do about it? Quit watching or reading poll-related coverage. What WILL we do. Nothing.
6
I have posited for years that the low numbers of those polled, around 1,100 for many national polls, that the sheer minute numbers leave them basically useless. Out of a population of around 320 million, the 1,100 is just .00000343 of the population, 343/100,000 If about 160 million of those are eligible voters, never mind whether hey vote or not, the number becomes even more minute: .00000687, 687/100,000, both very, very, very minute numbers. For the media to jump all over these polls as a certainty of the outcome of anything is, IMO, way off base, which is just what Mr. Bruni is writing about.
1
It isn't our addiction to polls it is what the media propagates. As many have said, say a candidate's lead easily falls within the poll's margin of error, you still get this screaming headline overstating the statistically insignificant results. My personal favorite was how on the eve of the general election, Romney was "surging at the polls."
5
The criticism of polls is well taken and welcome. The addiction of the media is a travesty of journalism.
However, Bruni is a bit too harsh on the media. Together with the accounts of poll results, there has been adequate coverage of campaign events, and evaluations of the reactions of those attending these events.
But hurrah for a sane reminder of another of our crazy culural abberations.
However, Bruni is a bit too harsh on the media. Together with the accounts of poll results, there has been adequate coverage of campaign events, and evaluations of the reactions of those attending these events.
But hurrah for a sane reminder of another of our crazy culural abberations.
1
The "our" refers mainly to news media rather than the electorate.
3
Would the New York Times have published this editorial if Hillary Clinton were still comfortably leading in the polls?
17
This reminds me of a joke I recently heard:
Why did God invent pollsters?
To make astrologers look legitimate!
Why did God invent pollsters?
To make astrologers look legitimate!
8
Where was this column months ago, when every mention of Bernie Sanders in the NYT was accompanied by a mention of how far behind he was in the polls? The NYT's Public Editor even justified the lack of coverage of Sanders' campaign by citing the national poll numbers this article describes as "meaningless." That was on September 9, months before any primary.
So what's going on here? For a choice example of the sort of "horse race" punditry Mr. Bruni disparages here, look no further than his own gushing effort on October 13, "Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Debate Magic." Some adjectives used to describe Hillary in that column: energetic, buoyant, effervescent, poised, neither defiant nor apologetic. Some adjectives used to describe Sanders: clumsy, bowed, irascible, redundant.
Suddenly, in spite of the best efforts of NYT columnists, polls show that the "horse race" is running neck and neck. So it must be time for a high-minded column bemoaning our addiction to polls.
But can we now expect a substantive column on public policy from Mr. Bruni? Will we get a single column that's not about the twists and turns of the presidential campaign? No, of course not - only hand-wringing in lieu of substance.
So what's going on here? For a choice example of the sort of "horse race" punditry Mr. Bruni disparages here, look no further than his own gushing effort on October 13, "Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Debate Magic." Some adjectives used to describe Hillary in that column: energetic, buoyant, effervescent, poised, neither defiant nor apologetic. Some adjectives used to describe Sanders: clumsy, bowed, irascible, redundant.
Suddenly, in spite of the best efforts of NYT columnists, polls show that the "horse race" is running neck and neck. So it must be time for a high-minded column bemoaning our addiction to polls.
But can we now expect a substantive column on public policy from Mr. Bruni? Will we get a single column that's not about the twists and turns of the presidential campaign? No, of course not - only hand-wringing in lieu of substance.
22
To paraphrase a British comic from years ago:
A billion flies can't be wrong: eat garbage!
A million lemmings must be right: leap into the ocean!
Why do we care so much what other people think? So we can follow their example and vote for one of the many nincompoops running for president?
A billion flies can't be wrong: eat garbage!
A million lemmings must be right: leap into the ocean!
Why do we care so much what other people think? So we can follow their example and vote for one of the many nincompoops running for president?
9
Who pays the musician chooses the music. You can forge the results you want if you buy a poll - just say the chief statistician what result you want, he or she can forge it.
But you can order a realistic, very precise poll if you want (up to 2% margin error). There's technology and methods for that.
But you can order a realistic, very precise poll if you want (up to 2% margin error). There's technology and methods for that.
4
And let's not forget the late polls that, if they were an accurate measure, would have Mitt Romney as our current president.
5
The other problems with polls and surveys are legendary. The first problem is the survey design and questions which are notorious for leading questions (Rassmussen) and the actual sample design. The second is a problem with the mathematically illiterate public and media. Having some 20 years experience designing and analyzing the actual statistics of both sampling and analysis, a classic example I see in a number of comments that complain that the margin of error results in an overlap of the possible outcomes. The problem is not polls, it is the design, analysis and reporting of the poll and its results that is the problem and it is apparent neither the public or the media has a clue as to how to interpret the results.
1
The worst consequence of the media's hysteric reverence for polling is that participation in the candidates' debates was largely determined by where the candidates stood in the polls. So that meant that a candidate with low poll numbers wasn't allowed to take part, meaning that s/he was pretty much doomed to forever have low poll numbers, due to lack of exposure.
Even more serious than that, though, is that the voting public was denied to opportunity to hear the full spectrum of candidates and views. Poll numbers are not necessarily good indicators of their worthiness.
Even more serious than that, though, is that the voting public was denied to opportunity to hear the full spectrum of candidates and views. Poll numbers are not necessarily good indicators of their worthiness.
3
The way the media covers elections (for example CNN) seems to increasingly mirror the way sports channels cover a football game. In the case of the election, the game is 18 months long, and the airheads on the TV call poll by poll with some comments that are analogous to how sportscasters call the play-by-play in a football game.
There seems to be very little analysis on the bigger substantive issues (for example, how their economic policies differ and whether they are appropriate, or do their immigration policies make sense). Instead everything is focused on short term things in the TV coverage.
I have found the off button is the best cure. If I want to hear some analysis, I turn on NPR (although even that I can only take in limited doses).
There seems to be very little analysis on the bigger substantive issues (for example, how their economic policies differ and whether they are appropriate, or do their immigration policies make sense). Instead everything is focused on short term things in the TV coverage.
I have found the off button is the best cure. If I want to hear some analysis, I turn on NPR (although even that I can only take in limited doses).
1
Not everyone has evolved including Bernie Sanders who cleverly uses surrogates, so called Berniebots, to attack Hillary Clinton and smear the organizations that support her like Planned Parenthood and others.
Unfortunately, news media run polls and report the horse race for the same reason that politicians run negative ads: it works. It gets them ratings.
And viewers--well, enough of them to provide some sort of kind of justification for this craziness--are to blame as well, because they like the horse races, and they don't bother to understand how polling works.
The media ain't gonna stop, and neither are the voters suddenly going to get a clue. We badly need legislation that yanks the money out of politics, drastically shortens these insane campaigns, and establishes rules for how primaries work, and there isn't a snowball's chance we're going to get it.
And viewers--well, enough of them to provide some sort of kind of justification for this craziness--are to blame as well, because they like the horse races, and they don't bother to understand how polling works.
The media ain't gonna stop, and neither are the voters suddenly going to get a clue. We badly need legislation that yanks the money out of politics, drastically shortens these insane campaigns, and establishes rules for how primaries work, and there isn't a snowball's chance we're going to get it.
1
It is not an insane addiction to polls but plain insanity. We don't understand the numbers let alone the inferences. But at least jobs are created as pollsters!!
1
Let's be clear here. Americans are not addicted to polls. America's media is addicted to polls, we are merely subject to them.
There should be a maximum of one poll per month, in order to be relevant.
There should be a maximum of one poll per month, in order to be relevant.
7
I couldn't agree more.
My problem is that the NYTimes is a frontrunner in overusing poll research, and doing so in a way that the overemphasis has an outsize effect. Overreacting to the success of Nate Silver's 538 blog, it has dedicated a huge amount of money and print space to the Upshot, in which we are presented almost daily with the latest polls.
Comparably fewer resources are spent on fostering an inclusive public space in which good inquiry and sound deliberation can take place among people who start off at odds with each other. We are encouraged to frame politics as a game where what matters is "whose side is going to win?," one where betting odds are what matters, and we are encouraged to identify with, and root for a team, when the nature of the situation is more like a Grand Jury investigation, where these attitudes and the behaviors they encourage are toxic.
The NYTimes is a leader in noticing the problem. If only it would be a leader in fixing it, instead of doing more to keep it in place.
My problem is that the NYTimes is a frontrunner in overusing poll research, and doing so in a way that the overemphasis has an outsize effect. Overreacting to the success of Nate Silver's 538 blog, it has dedicated a huge amount of money and print space to the Upshot, in which we are presented almost daily with the latest polls.
Comparably fewer resources are spent on fostering an inclusive public space in which good inquiry and sound deliberation can take place among people who start off at odds with each other. We are encouraged to frame politics as a game where what matters is "whose side is going to win?," one where betting odds are what matters, and we are encouraged to identify with, and root for a team, when the nature of the situation is more like a Grand Jury investigation, where these attitudes and the behaviors they encourage are toxic.
The NYTimes is a leader in noticing the problem. If only it would be a leader in fixing it, instead of doing more to keep it in place.
16
I'm one of your many readers who deplore horse-race coverage, because it's absolutely meaningless: no one knows what will happen in the future, and all the handicapping, extrapolating, and empty talk does nothing but help us take our personal and national anxiety to ground. And while we're so busy wringing our hands about the unknowable future, we're missing the present. We're ignoring things that are actually taking place, or, more tragically, things that are not taking place because we're not paying attention.
I guess we can't expect our press to be wiser than we are (I confess to reading poll stories from time to time), since you have to sell papers or hits or ads. But I would love to see more psychologically sound discussion about why we do this pointless, powerless thing--and what it costs us in missing our actual lives. . .and the things around us that we CAN change.
I guess we can't expect our press to be wiser than we are (I confess to reading poll stories from time to time), since you have to sell papers or hits or ads. But I would love to see more psychologically sound discussion about why we do this pointless, powerless thing--and what it costs us in missing our actual lives. . .and the things around us that we CAN change.
8
Everything is click bait. The same is true in "Science" reporting. We live in the age of big data. In my day "deluge them with data" was a wicked ploy. We knew there could be "good" data and "bad" data. We all love polls (sorry, epidemiology!!). Man bites dog gets in the paper. There is little we do that doesn't vary by say, 24% weekly, monthly or from six months ago, and is still "statistically significant". Not only that, Dr. House was right: everybody lies. We need Nate Silvers to parse the prejudices in both kinds of "studies". Whatever the vitamin, lifestyle, drug or candidate.... there are tons of studies (polls), and the juicy one goes next to the new car ad on page one. Unfortunately, we need good info to choose a drug or a candidate.
1
All anyone has to do for a sobering reminder if to remember the Chicago Tribune headline "Dewey Wins!" to remember that polls are sometimes driven by people who want to be able to say they predicted it first. That has negative results in my state. How many times have presidential contests been declared by one entity before our polls have even closed. That is frustrating when you get off of work and head to the polls only to be told the contest is over. Then for all intents and purposes it's nothing more than a symbolic vote
Finally, I believe polling questions are written in a specific way to generate a specific response. For several years I did Gallup, Rasmussen And Zogby and there were times the questions appeared to be driven for a certain response. What demographic do they use? Likely Democratic or Republican voters? What is the balance? When I read a NY Times poll I expect a certain result. The same with a FOX News poll. Overall I am completely tired of seeing them every day I hit the mute button when it comes on. I will decide on my own, not some biased and stupid poll.
Finally, I believe polling questions are written in a specific way to generate a specific response. For several years I did Gallup, Rasmussen And Zogby and there were times the questions appeared to be driven for a certain response. What demographic do they use? Likely Democratic or Republican voters? What is the balance? When I read a NY Times poll I expect a certain result. The same with a FOX News poll. Overall I am completely tired of seeing them every day I hit the mute button when it comes on. I will decide on my own, not some biased and stupid poll.
1
While everything that Mr. Bruni says is correct, it is rather illustrative of the Times' editorial position that a story debunking the reliability and meaning of polls is onlt published once Mr. Sanders surged to the lead in said polls. Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.
3
We are not addicted to polls..we are driven to them. They are force fed to us! Most people don't answer polls and there are huge gaps in where this info comes from and this is where the true silent majority live. Yet polls can influence the lazy people who prefer short cuts to facts and they also answer polls. It's a truly viscous cycle IMHO. Press on and Mind The Gap people!
Polls and Pols are more misleading and dishonest than ever before. Re Polls, now that people screen their calls and often don't answer those from numbers they don't recognize, polls rely on such a small sample people who like to be bothered, there is less chance of accuracy. Remember the headline "Dewey Beats Truman?" Well that's where we are with polls today.
1
I am very curious as to who actually responds to the polls. Most of the people I know screen their phone calls; many do not have landlines, and have mailboxes set up for what a computer sees as being spam. So, on whose opinions are we basing all of this frenzied hype re polls? I realize some people do answer their phones and respond, but I am positive they differ significantly from those of us who do not.
16
The media covers the polls (including Bruni) but forgets to write about the candidates.
Why? Because it sells newspapers (or ratings).
I can't remember an election with such shallow yet breathless coverage.
Why? Because it sells newspapers (or ratings).
I can't remember an election with such shallow yet breathless coverage.
3
I dislike and don't believe in the polls. I couldn't even finish reading this column by Frank Bruni because I care so little about polls. If we, as a country, banded together and just said no: "No, I won't participate in your poll. Don't ask me any questions." Then maybe they'd all go away.
1
In a country obsessed with Twitter and Facebook and the like is it any wonder it is also obsessed with polls? Instant info, no thought involved.
1
Tell it to your editors, Frank. You're preaching to the choir here.
3
If Bernie wins Iowa and NH then the media will (suddenly!) need to step away from polls and report BREAKING NEWS!
Although the initial attention will be good for Sanders momentum, it will quickly devolve into the game of attacks and slander. Too bad this is all predictable and unavoidable. However, the media and its pundits, so far, haven't caught on that Bernie supporters despise that game. They're weary of it.
Also they know they will be called on to continue their support once Bernie is in the White House. They are excited to be part of the solution rather than dismissed by their elected officials.
Although the initial attention will be good for Sanders momentum, it will quickly devolve into the game of attacks and slander. Too bad this is all predictable and unavoidable. However, the media and its pundits, so far, haven't caught on that Bernie supporters despise that game. They're weary of it.
Also they know they will be called on to continue their support once Bernie is in the White House. They are excited to be part of the solution rather than dismissed by their elected officials.
4
Hallelujah! There is hope that the media will cure itself, since it has identified its illness! Polls are appallingly lazy "journalism", and you've articulated the damage they do quite well. I sincerely hope that a) voters ignore them and b) the media stops reporting them. They are almost completely meaningless. We voters must gird ourselves against such manipulation.
1
Mr. Bruni,
I agree that polling is getting out of hand. I thought people knew that polls were merely a tool to measure mood rather than trends. That polls are predictive of a certain demographic is a flawed conclusion. That the media are using them to forward their opinions is disgraceful.
I agree that polling is getting out of hand. I thought people knew that polls were merely a tool to measure mood rather than trends. That polls are predictive of a certain demographic is a flawed conclusion. That the media are using them to forward their opinions is disgraceful.
Yes! Report the policies along with intended and unintended consequences and NO MORE POLLING.
3
People have to make a living.
Can't also help but think that there is some sort of "polling envy" going on between the polling groups - "My poll is bigger / better than yours."
Which leads to serious questions of reliability and validity as they apply to the results.
Which leads to serious questions of reliability and validity as they apply to the results.
1
The most insightful analysis of polls that I've seen is a blog at https://presidentialpoliticsblog.wordpress.com , and even it is now admitting that the polls are of limited predictive value, even as self-fulfilling prophesies.
And yes, the blame falls on the press, the big media that have the power to demand real answers, real positions, on crucial issues, and then analyze those answers for truthfulness and viability. Take today's NYT, for example. Is there an interview with Donald Trump with him giving answers to serious questions? Is there a story about Ted Cruz explaining the relative usefulness of science and biblical explanation? Is there an assessment of Rubio's tax plan?
And yes, the blame falls on the press, the big media that have the power to demand real answers, real positions, on crucial issues, and then analyze those answers for truthfulness and viability. Take today's NYT, for example. Is there an interview with Donald Trump with him giving answers to serious questions? Is there a story about Ted Cruz explaining the relative usefulness of science and biblical explanation? Is there an assessment of Rubio's tax plan?
1
Canadians can elect a prime minister in one month's time. Why does it take the U.S. 2 years to elect a president? Then, after we do, it takes another 2 months before the electoral college really confirms the popular vote. No wonder we are "screwed up"?
Actually, if we voted after 2-3 months of campaigning, maybe we'd have a more legitimate ballot and winner. All the money in the world hasn't provided us a good system. In fact, money IS the culprit, and CITIZENS UNITED, is the Supreme Court's idea of how to "run/ruin" the system. And, I thought they were an educated group. Instead of being level-headed, we learn that they are at least as biased as the president who put them on that board. Oh no, once again, politics wins over intelligence. No wonder, we get what we deserve.
Actually, if we voted after 2-3 months of campaigning, maybe we'd have a more legitimate ballot and winner. All the money in the world hasn't provided us a good system. In fact, money IS the culprit, and CITIZENS UNITED, is the Supreme Court's idea of how to "run/ruin" the system. And, I thought they were an educated group. Instead of being level-headed, we learn that they are at least as biased as the president who put them on that board. Oh no, once again, politics wins over intelligence. No wonder, we get what we deserve.
Frank, political polls have only a fraction of the value Vice President Jack Garner assigned to a bucket (or pitcher, depending on which version you read) of a warm bodily fluid, generally rendered as "spit." But the polls are out on whether that was actually the referenced substance.
Check with me tomorrow for the most recent update.
Check with me tomorrow for the most recent update.
1
Yes Frank, it is insane. Journalism is at a crossroads and if the approach of reporting news does not change it will become entertainment; unhinged form truth and objectivity. It is not only reports on polling. Stories often start by giving unknown individuals on the street a megaphone to convey their emotions; the anger about Government failure to clear snow; anxiety about a terror attack; the ask for revenge through death penalty in a crime case and so on. Media gives a distorted impression of reality by carefully choosing the interviewed "person of the street".
I for myself have abandoned all TV watching 5 years ago. I read the NYT and the Washington Post. Frankly though even the NYT and WP come at times intolerable close to "heavily selective" reporting. I must applaud the Upshot feature in the NYT which I think is an excellent new way to capture reality.
I for myself have abandoned all TV watching 5 years ago. I read the NYT and the Washington Post. Frankly though even the NYT and WP come at times intolerable close to "heavily selective" reporting. I must applaud the Upshot feature in the NYT which I think is an excellent new way to capture reality.
2
polls are a substitute for thought. three polls showed Clinton up in Iowa.
One the CNN/ORC poll did not, guess which won was trumpeted.
the other three were ignored.
The MSM has Clinton Derangement Syndrome
Word
One the CNN/ORC poll did not, guess which won was trumpeted.
the other three were ignored.
The MSM has Clinton Derangement Syndrome
Word
The only poll that counts is the one where one actually shows up to vote and 'pulls a lever'. And based on recent election turn out percentages, less than 50% actually bother.
No, polls are for the talking heads on 24/7 cable news. If they don't have a mass shooting or missing aircraft, they have to have something to bloviate about.
No, polls are for the talking heads on 24/7 cable news. If they don't have a mass shooting or missing aircraft, they have to have something to bloviate about.
1
And then we get the bandwagon effect. The polls may be inaccurate, even in terms of who voters would mark their ballots for now, much less the actual day of the election, but when they create the trend instead of simply reporting it, they become dangerous, don't they? Would Jeb Bush be a good nominee and president? How could we possibly know, when all that is reported is that he is a schlumpy candidate who can't get much above 5% national support despite all the advantages he supposedly had? How many times can we be told he is a schlumpy candidate without beginning to believe it? Does a schlumpy candidacy automatically mean a bad president? What would he have to do to overcome that label now? Walk on water, or at least Jello? Can anyone rattle off Bush's proposals for job creation? Is he in favor of funding the Export-Import Bank? Anyone know? But everyone knows he is languishing in the mid-single digits in the polls. I've been heartened, actually, by the inaccuracy of polls in recent years because before that, they were so darn accurate, I wondered why we bothered to spend taxpayer money on elections when we could let the private sector pay for these polls and know the outcome weeks in advance of the official date. It's nice to know that living, breathing voters still have some say in the outcome.
As far as the unreliability of polls in predicting the future, the same might be said of the Iowa caucuses and their outsized influence on the fate of many candidates, particularly Republicans. The overly complex caucus process and requisite religious pandering (Trump declaring he is an evangelical presbyterian, for example) has recently produced wins for lightweights such as Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum. To me at least, the results in Iowa are meaningless.
1
In many ways, these observations can be applied to college/university rankings and ratings. They too are deeply flawed but similarly relied upon as if they were the Gospel. And, they miss the intangible factors that govern choice, as is true with voting choices. And, like polls, we do not correct their errors that occur (or cheating) in ways that are visible to the users. We breathlessly await them too -- hoping to see that whether our child wants to go or where we went is being highly ranked. Like polls, th validity and import of rankings/rating must be questioned. The science of ratings leaves us in quite the quandary. as do polls.
Excellent, excellent commentary. The media has gone haywire. The cable networks are obsessed with creating melodrama and faux excitement, 99.9% of which involves Donald Trump. Their inane nonstop coverage has propelled him from a long-shot into pretty much a sure thing. If this maniac wins the White House those idiots will be to blame. And it's not just FoxNews anymore. CNN and MSNBC are just as crazed.
The other night, CNN interviewed several people standing in line to get into a Trump rally and NONE of them could state where Trump stood on ANY issues. They all said they liked him because he was angry--even though it's clear even his anger is fake. I don't think Trump really wants to be President; he just likes being on TV all day long. I actually believe he makes some of his outlandish remarks in an effort to get out of the race, but the media WON'T LET HIM. He's selling too much toothpaste.
The other night, CNN interviewed several people standing in line to get into a Trump rally and NONE of them could state where Trump stood on ANY issues. They all said they liked him because he was angry--even though it's clear even his anger is fake. I don't think Trump really wants to be President; he just likes being on TV all day long. I actually believe he makes some of his outlandish remarks in an effort to get out of the race, but the media WON'T LET HIM. He's selling too much toothpaste.
As badly as Americans are addicted to polls, our far worse addictions are to superfluous politics (a 2016 presidential race that began in November 2014) and completely asinine politicians. And I just don't mean Trump, Cruz, Huckabee, and Carson. There is Steve King (IA), Michele Bachmann, Inhofe, and Palin.
Too infrequently this paper laments the lack of seriousness in political discourse and the general apathy of voters. However, media only covers the horse race and the most ridiculous statements made, so who is really at fault? If media turns politics into infotainment, why then should anyone be surprised, when, after being fed nonsense for years, the American people no longer pay attention to serious debate, are bored by policy proposals, and don't have the attention span to read a candidate's platform?
The reason for Stewart's and Colbert's popularity wasn't just that that their satire was funny; Rather it was smart, insightful, informative. And it never condescended. Their humor expected their audience to be informed and to take their citizenship seriously. Like media once did. Theodore Roosevelt was a successful president in part because of the journalism of Tarbell, Steffens, and McClure's magazine (kudos to D.K. Goodwin). If journalism could rally the American people then, in an age when corporations and banks literally owned Senators, it can today. However, it must start with telling the truth, calling politicians out and the consequences be damned.
Too infrequently this paper laments the lack of seriousness in political discourse and the general apathy of voters. However, media only covers the horse race and the most ridiculous statements made, so who is really at fault? If media turns politics into infotainment, why then should anyone be surprised, when, after being fed nonsense for years, the American people no longer pay attention to serious debate, are bored by policy proposals, and don't have the attention span to read a candidate's platform?
The reason for Stewart's and Colbert's popularity wasn't just that that their satire was funny; Rather it was smart, insightful, informative. And it never condescended. Their humor expected their audience to be informed and to take their citizenship seriously. Like media once did. Theodore Roosevelt was a successful president in part because of the journalism of Tarbell, Steffens, and McClure's magazine (kudos to D.K. Goodwin). If journalism could rally the American people then, in an age when corporations and banks literally owned Senators, it can today. However, it must start with telling the truth, calling politicians out and the consequences be damned.
1
Thank you for adressing this absurd fascination with polls. Repeating the faulty findings of bad polling techniques and a comic inability to understand what sample size and margin of error mean run rampant through the media. But most depressingly, regurgitating polling numbers has replaced actually discussing the issues candidates bring up. Almost every media outlet, NYT included, seams to go crazy over every poll. This has distracted from our national conversation about important issues.
Nate Silver is apparently good at his job of interpreting statistics and making predictions. But his talents aren't nearly as usefull as the media makes out. That he has become a media star depresses me. Predicting who will win is not nearly as important as discussing the issues that will decide an election. Telling people that someone is a winner before the contest takes place distorts the outcome and distracts from important issues we should be discussing.
The article also hinted at another sad fact for this Californian. A vote in California is meaningless. 1 million votes in California mean less than 1 vote in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina. Our bizarre electoral college and primary system have made a mockery of the 1 person 1 vote principle. There are only a few votes that matter, those of the exceptionally wealthy and those of the people in the early primary states.
Nate Silver is apparently good at his job of interpreting statistics and making predictions. But his talents aren't nearly as usefull as the media makes out. That he has become a media star depresses me. Predicting who will win is not nearly as important as discussing the issues that will decide an election. Telling people that someone is a winner before the contest takes place distorts the outcome and distracts from important issues we should be discussing.
The article also hinted at another sad fact for this Californian. A vote in California is meaningless. 1 million votes in California mean less than 1 vote in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina. Our bizarre electoral college and primary system have made a mockery of the 1 person 1 vote principle. There are only a few votes that matter, those of the exceptionally wealthy and those of the people in the early primary states.
I so agree with your comments. Most people do not have land lines. It is disappointing that media pundits accentuate misleading polls. We should be more focused on the real issue not polls that affect people on a daily basis and how are we going to solve problems. It is one thing to say we need to do this BUT how are you going to specifically do it. The devil is always in the details.
You make some good points, but you focus too much on the inaccuracy of polls. I think it's more important to look inward and ask, "Why do the media pay so much attention to polls?" The media exist to sell advertising time, and you can't sell advertising time without watchers, and you can't have watchers without something to report. So the polls become a substitute for news. How easy it is to report on a poll that comes to your inbox instead of actually reporting news!
Finally a clear eyed commentary on our obsession with presidential election polling. Indeed many television political talking heads rely on polls as talking points and to make matters worse cherry pick which polls to sight. The news media knows better and it's disheartening that so many rely on lazy reporting of polls while pushing propaganda of the candidates. One example of the media pushing poll propaganda is that Bernie Sanders does better against republicans in general election match ups. Journalists are smart enough to know that, unlike Clinton, Mr. Sanders hasn't had to face a negative campaign against him yet by the republicans. And when that happens there is no doubt that Sanders negatives will go up and his poll numbers down. General election polls are meaningless right now and shouldn't be considered as either predictive or insightful analysis of the state of the presidential race to come in November.
1
I lived in NH during a presidential primary and was called - without exaggeration - 3 to 8 times every single afternoon. After a while you start answering randomly. I refused to answer exit polls, as did everyone who I was with. I'm a statistician. Polls are rarely news. What politicians say is news. What they do is news. Their records are news. Cover that.
29
In the first place, polls started 10 months too early, prior to anyone having the slightest inkling of who all these people are.Are people responding with "I prefer__ because he has nice hair; I prefer__ because he's good looking?"
We all know that since the dawn of radio, the media have controlled outcomes of elections by telling the hapless, ignorant voters in Central, Mountain, and Pacific time zones who will win the election. And the sheeple vote for the projected winner so they can boast about being on the "winning side."
There are lies, dammm lies and statistics--and statistics are the worst form of coercion against the apathetic, confused American voter.
Stop this nonsense, now!
We all know that since the dawn of radio, the media have controlled outcomes of elections by telling the hapless, ignorant voters in Central, Mountain, and Pacific time zones who will win the election. And the sheeple vote for the projected winner so they can boast about being on the "winning side."
There are lies, dammm lies and statistics--and statistics are the worst form of coercion against the apathetic, confused American voter.
Stop this nonsense, now!
We have so much theater in this country, and unfortunately it is no longer entertaining.
We have TSA Theater, where under the guise that we are being protected, we are forced to take our shoes off and go through privacy infringed x-ray machines.
We have Political Theater, where under the guise of a democratic system we are only given a choice between those selected by the 0.1%
We have Journalistic Theater, where under the guise of giving the public honest information, we are fed only the news that will make that organization money, or bolster the point of view they wish to regurgitate on us.
Polls, schmolls. Meaningless as all the above mentioned theater.
America is scraping the barrel's bottom...
We have TSA Theater, where under the guise that we are being protected, we are forced to take our shoes off and go through privacy infringed x-ray machines.
We have Political Theater, where under the guise of a democratic system we are only given a choice between those selected by the 0.1%
We have Journalistic Theater, where under the guise of giving the public honest information, we are fed only the news that will make that organization money, or bolster the point of view they wish to regurgitate on us.
Polls, schmolls. Meaningless as all the above mentioned theater.
America is scraping the barrel's bottom...
"Marking to Market" -- as it's called in trading -- is a necessary but dangerous activity. Necessary because some expectation smoothing is required leading up to any big event (like the realization of a financial position) but also dangerous because, alas, inaccurate marks can lead to wildly erroneous expectations...and the only thing worse than being uninformed, is being misinformed (See: Rove, Karl)
Inaccurate marks played a large role in the the financial crash of '08, and they just might play a large role in the moral, political, economic, and cultural crash of '16, should Trump walk away with the nomination. Because Frank is absolutely right, the Markovian nature of polling leads to certain candidates being elevated or depressed purely based on statistical conjecture, even before said polling can be anywhere close to significant or prescient.
We don't live in a world where perception is as important as reality. We live in a world where perception DEFINES reality. And that puts a huge burden on all of us...pollsters, journalists, citizens...to not let the relatively unpredictive dog and pony show before an election tragically and unfairly narrow the greatest weapon we have in true democracy -- choice.
Inaccurate marks played a large role in the the financial crash of '08, and they just might play a large role in the moral, political, economic, and cultural crash of '16, should Trump walk away with the nomination. Because Frank is absolutely right, the Markovian nature of polling leads to certain candidates being elevated or depressed purely based on statistical conjecture, even before said polling can be anywhere close to significant or prescient.
We don't live in a world where perception is as important as reality. We live in a world where perception DEFINES reality. And that puts a huge burden on all of us...pollsters, journalists, citizens...to not let the relatively unpredictive dog and pony show before an election tragically and unfairly narrow the greatest weapon we have in true democracy -- choice.
Yup. And this is why the folks at 538, who know what they're doing, have developed algorithms for averaging and weighting poll results. In their analyses some polls count very little, some a good deal. When the poll is taken gets factored in. The end product is a statistically sophisticated estimate of the true sense of the electorate. FWIW, last time around they predicted the outcome in all 50 states.
3
We live in a culture of distraction and, as a consequence, our attention spans have become stunted as have our reasoning abilities. Polls are perfect for both the media and its audiences. The media absolves itself from its obligations to inform the public and the public is absolved from having an really meaningful facts or opinions to ponder.
The real winners are the candidates and their campaigns. All they have to do now is to put on an amusing enough or frightening enough show to pull in the ratings. Our Founding Fathers would be truly flabbergasted- maybe flabbergasted enough to stick with the old oligarchy. Which may be the point of it all.
The real winners are the candidates and their campaigns. All they have to do now is to put on an amusing enough or frightening enough show to pull in the ratings. Our Founding Fathers would be truly flabbergasted- maybe flabbergasted enough to stick with the old oligarchy. Which may be the point of it all.
1
Problem is, the presidential campaign has become sport.
The race begins when the candidates declare. A year-long preseason with appearances, ads and debates starts where there is no official scoring. Then six months of state-by-state battles culminating in conventions. Then the winners from the two parties have their own months-long contest (along with any third-party contestant who wants to join), which crowns a victor.
As the campaign process has lengthened, pundits and participants have wanted to score the preseason. Just like power rankers and odds-makers, the pollsters peddle their prognostications to eager buyers. Accuracy does not matter much -- the polls don't mean anything anyway.
It's this atmosphere that has brought us Donald Trump. He has mastered the format. No policy or proposals need be serious. Tweets mean as much as thoughtful remarks. Debates become entertainment. Polls do too.
Maybe that's not so bad. Maybe that's what our social-media age requires.
The race begins when the candidates declare. A year-long preseason with appearances, ads and debates starts where there is no official scoring. Then six months of state-by-state battles culminating in conventions. Then the winners from the two parties have their own months-long contest (along with any third-party contestant who wants to join), which crowns a victor.
As the campaign process has lengthened, pundits and participants have wanted to score the preseason. Just like power rankers and odds-makers, the pollsters peddle their prognostications to eager buyers. Accuracy does not matter much -- the polls don't mean anything anyway.
It's this atmosphere that has brought us Donald Trump. He has mastered the format. No policy or proposals need be serious. Tweets mean as much as thoughtful remarks. Debates become entertainment. Polls do too.
Maybe that's not so bad. Maybe that's what our social-media age requires.
1
"The race begins when the candidates declare". Wrong: the campaign begins the day after the previous election!
Excellent comments right on the mark regarding polls. So now we need a poll to determine whether America is more addicted to polls or pills. Is there some relationship between the two since one is an easy way for the media to deal with elections while the other is an easy way for the populace to deal with pain.
What Americans need to learn is that for some problems we have to deal with, there is no "easy way".
What Americans need to learn is that for some problems we have to deal with, there is no "easy way".
As an investor in stocks, I see a relationship between how
the news media treat the polls and how they treat the stock
market: in both cases, they find patterns in noise.
I've seen a headline "Market up on interest rate hopes," and the
very next day, "Market down on rate fears." But short-term
market movements are generally random.
The difference is that the market itself is the noise source,
whereas with political polls, it's sampling problems.
What to do? I ignore both kinds of coverage.
the news media treat the polls and how they treat the stock
market: in both cases, they find patterns in noise.
I've seen a headline "Market up on interest rate hopes," and the
very next day, "Market down on rate fears." But short-term
market movements are generally random.
The difference is that the market itself is the noise source,
whereas with political polls, it's sampling problems.
What to do? I ignore both kinds of coverage.
It's funny, Bernie talks so much about principle and yet his main claim to fame these days is that he's rising in the polls. On a related note, polls are self-fulfilling and many people will vote for Bernie and Trump because they hear they're hot right now.
Elections are determined by who actually shows up to vote and polls are notorious for being disconnected from this simple fact, as if "eligible voters", "registered voters" and "likely voters" are the same. People can tell pollsters whatever they are thinking at a moment in time but it is often what they think the pollsters want to hear or to hide their ambivalence, indifference or support for an unpopular candidate. One survey found that many fervent Trump supporters are unregistered to vote and, if registered, not likely to vote. On the other hand, younger and more liberal voters who only use cell phones are not included in these polls.
But you are right, Frank, polls generate conflict, which create horse race headlines, which attract readers/viewers, which generate ratings, which generate advertising revenue. As Deep Throat said, "Follow the money..."
But you are right, Frank, polls generate conflict, which create horse race headlines, which attract readers/viewers, which generate ratings, which generate advertising revenue. As Deep Throat said, "Follow the money..."
1
One of my favorite TV shows, CBS' Sunday Morning just ended. It's time for the punditocracy to take over the airwaves for the next couple hours.. and the first thing I see is Donald Trump's ugly mug and POLLS POLLS POLLS! I never feel quite so satisfied turning the idiot box off as Sunday morning.
You tell me these people are not shilling for the billionaire class, influencing voters with their bias and propaganda. The only poll that means anything is after an election when vote counts are reported. Period.
If you have talking heads and journalists making kool aid in your living room every day, it's pretty tough not to drink some. Just say no to the pollster and make up your own mind by examining the issues. All that other stuff is greed and money and clever folks trying to lead us by the nose.
You tell me these people are not shilling for the billionaire class, influencing voters with their bias and propaganda. The only poll that means anything is after an election when vote counts are reported. Period.
If you have talking heads and journalists making kool aid in your living room every day, it's pretty tough not to drink some. Just say no to the pollster and make up your own mind by examining the issues. All that other stuff is greed and money and clever folks trying to lead us by the nose.
1
Thank you for acknowledging that reaching accurate numbers in polling is a challenge beyond most of today's pollsters. By showing the great variations in some current polls you have rightly shamed the media and the pollsters.
6
Why should the pollsters feel shame? They are measuring something that doesn't matter.
Suppose the polls were 100% accurate? Would they mean anything more?
Suppose the polls were 100% accurate? Would they mean anything more?
Bruni is correct, polls often are amazingly off, but he misses the bigger story: They usually exaggerate the strength of conservative candidates. This helps them win by drying up support for liberals who are seen as losers.
The system is rigged.
Examples of the Exaggeration of Strength on the Right by Pollsters and a
Suppression of Left of Center Strength:
1968 New Hampshire Prez Primary: Gene Mc CArthy, the anti war candidate, was polled at around 10 percent. But people hated the Vietnam War and he got 44 percent.
1972: Mc Govern does much, much better than expected in New Hampshire, getting 37.1 percent to Muskie's 46.1 percent. Muskie sang the praises of Lyndon Johnson's War at Chicago 1968; Mc Govern was the stalwart and true blue liberal
1980: Carter was supposed to vanquish Kennedy in the NY pres primary. But Kennedy, who ran a campaign of "undiluted liberalism" (The exact phrase from the New York Times) in New York got about 59 percent.
1980: Bess Myerson was supposed to beat the more liberal Holtzman in the New York Senatorial Primary; Holtzman wins.
1986: The General Election Senate in New York: The polls say D'Amato is ahead of liberal Green by 25 points; he wins by 10. Those polls killed the Green campaign.
AND: 2009 nyc mayor: Blumberg is supposed to win by 25 to 30 points.He wins by only 2-4.He spent a fortune, even tho pub Polls said he was way ahead; his private polls showed a tie NO MORE SPACE
The system is rigged.
Examples of the Exaggeration of Strength on the Right by Pollsters and a
Suppression of Left of Center Strength:
1968 New Hampshire Prez Primary: Gene Mc CArthy, the anti war candidate, was polled at around 10 percent. But people hated the Vietnam War and he got 44 percent.
1972: Mc Govern does much, much better than expected in New Hampshire, getting 37.1 percent to Muskie's 46.1 percent. Muskie sang the praises of Lyndon Johnson's War at Chicago 1968; Mc Govern was the stalwart and true blue liberal
1980: Carter was supposed to vanquish Kennedy in the NY pres primary. But Kennedy, who ran a campaign of "undiluted liberalism" (The exact phrase from the New York Times) in New York got about 59 percent.
1980: Bess Myerson was supposed to beat the more liberal Holtzman in the New York Senatorial Primary; Holtzman wins.
1986: The General Election Senate in New York: The polls say D'Amato is ahead of liberal Green by 25 points; he wins by 10. Those polls killed the Green campaign.
AND: 2009 nyc mayor: Blumberg is supposed to win by 25 to 30 points.He wins by only 2-4.He spent a fortune, even tho pub Polls said he was way ahead; his private polls showed a tie NO MORE SPACE
Polls are definitely an issue - the results vary widely, they are increasingly unreliable, and they focus on the "horse race". I suggest that the NY Times lead by relegating poll results to the bottom of page 46 rather placing them on page 1, and instead do the following in the remaining week before the Iowa caucuses:
On each day, select a major issue that is central to the Presidential campaigns - or should be. Describe what each candidate is saying on the campaign trail about that issue, and their past record if they have one, through legislation they have co/sponsored, programs they or their administration have implemented, past statements - and how these views may have evolved. This will provide a basis for informing the public about where each candidate stands on vital issues.
Here's one set of issues that could guide a week of coverage:
1. Economic inequality
2. The Middle East
3. Climate change
4. Health care reform
5. Civil liberties
6. Immigration reform
7. Voting rights, and the influence of money in political campaigns
There are other issues that could be in this series. After these reasonably in-depth exploration of each candidate's views, on next Sunday, a summary graphic comparing the candidates could be published.
Wouldn't this be a better use of newsprint or electrons than reporting the results of the latest poll?
On each day, select a major issue that is central to the Presidential campaigns - or should be. Describe what each candidate is saying on the campaign trail about that issue, and their past record if they have one, through legislation they have co/sponsored, programs they or their administration have implemented, past statements - and how these views may have evolved. This will provide a basis for informing the public about where each candidate stands on vital issues.
Here's one set of issues that could guide a week of coverage:
1. Economic inequality
2. The Middle East
3. Climate change
4. Health care reform
5. Civil liberties
6. Immigration reform
7. Voting rights, and the influence of money in political campaigns
There are other issues that could be in this series. After these reasonably in-depth exploration of each candidate's views, on next Sunday, a summary graphic comparing the candidates could be published.
Wouldn't this be a better use of newsprint or electrons than reporting the results of the latest poll?
4
Polls allow people to let others do their thinking for them.
1
Nate Silver has it correct. The average of the polls gives a good picture.
But who cares? Unless you vote for the current polls' favorite just because they are the favorite.
Vote Democrat in 2016!!!
The country you save may be your own.
But who cares? Unless you vote for the current polls' favorite just because they are the favorite.
Vote Democrat in 2016!!!
The country you save may be your own.
3
Frank, you hit the head on the nail.
Exactly.
And, like you, I also am a political junkie and turn to Real Clear Politics everyday, just like many others, for my daily poll fix.
Exactly.
And, like you, I also am a political junkie and turn to Real Clear Politics everyday, just like many others, for my daily poll fix.
1
Rather, "Our Insane Addiction to Primary Elections".
Frank -- You, Maureen, Nicolas and Ross all wrote about some aspect of the nonsense on the campaign trials.
Seems the serious public policy discourse subsumed, or lost all together.
Please caucus with you colleagues and get back on track.
Frank -- You, Maureen, Nicolas and Ross all wrote about some aspect of the nonsense on the campaign trials.
Seems the serious public policy discourse subsumed, or lost all together.
Please caucus with you colleagues and get back on track.
3
"Our" addiction to polls? You mean the media's poll monkey on its collective back.
Stories are made up, who's up, who's down, here's the "predicted" this or that. It is one of the significant factors in why people are so turned off by politics, major issues and the news. Everything is portrayed as a horse race with winners and losers regardless of the topic.
At the same time, despite the "analysis" many of the poll driven stories are full of their own spin and biases of the authors or editors, for they rarely focus on margins of errors, sampling sizes, and, importantly in some cases, exactly how questions are put to those being polled. The latter in particular is often behind certain desired outcomes, for if you basically force people to make a choice between two or three options, none of which they would pick to actually address a problem or consider doing ("Would you rather live under ISIS or the Taliban?"), then the "result" (trumpeted in a headline, "X% of [fill in group] favors/is against Y" is meaningless. It's essentially simplistic made up news that we are then told represents our society, forces the most weak-kneed of our politicians (no shortage of those today) to act the way the poll sponsors want and contributes to the divisiveness in our society.
Proper poling has its place and can be informative but NOT to decide issues of public importance or to select candidates for office.
Stories are made up, who's up, who's down, here's the "predicted" this or that. It is one of the significant factors in why people are so turned off by politics, major issues and the news. Everything is portrayed as a horse race with winners and losers regardless of the topic.
At the same time, despite the "analysis" many of the poll driven stories are full of their own spin and biases of the authors or editors, for they rarely focus on margins of errors, sampling sizes, and, importantly in some cases, exactly how questions are put to those being polled. The latter in particular is often behind certain desired outcomes, for if you basically force people to make a choice between two or three options, none of which they would pick to actually address a problem or consider doing ("Would you rather live under ISIS or the Taliban?"), then the "result" (trumpeted in a headline, "X% of [fill in group] favors/is against Y" is meaningless. It's essentially simplistic made up news that we are then told represents our society, forces the most weak-kneed of our politicians (no shortage of those today) to act the way the poll sponsors want and contributes to the divisiveness in our society.
Proper poling has its place and can be informative but NOT to decide issues of public importance or to select candidates for office.
2
Polling is what media-entertainment companies do instead of journalism. it's not necessarily cheaper, but it fills the space. in essence, a poll is not news. a poll is at best, people's opinion of the news. the poll is a way to test media strength. if the pollster uses language from the sponsoring media's recent editorial, they get a feel for the penetration.
even dumber are the polls about who's winning the war or whether the market will go up or down. why not poll on who will win the next mega-lottery?
not only that, but the language is that of the dominant culture, the questions are leading, the methodology is missing, and altogether, this is not why the founders gave such license to the press.
even dumber are the polls about who's winning the war or whether the market will go up or down. why not poll on who will win the next mega-lottery?
not only that, but the language is that of the dominant culture, the questions are leading, the methodology is missing, and altogether, this is not why the founders gave such license to the press.
The only political poll worth looking at to determine the state of mind of the American people is the U.S. stock market. And that has been giving us flashing-red “thumbs-down” signs about President Obama and his stewardship of the country.
1
It's fascinating to me that on the football pre-game shows almost all the time is spent analyzing the teams with only a few minutes spent on predictions. On the political shows it's the opposite: little time is spent on the candidates' positions and almost all is spent on the predictions.
Polls are particular worrisome and annoying if they do not agree with Frank Bruni's predisposition.
Polls always seem to Trump reality with the so called news media in tow.
Whenever a pollster calls me, I hang up immediately. They are like TV commercials: they pollute your brain. I don't know about you, but do here in the Deep South we do get more than share of "pollsters" with queries like "Would you rather vote for a good Christian bon-again family man like XXX or a sinful Obama-loving anti-American pedophile like YY?"
1
Ah, the polls may drive the media crazy BUT they are a gift to those who teach research methods! Teaching students to consider what was asked, how it was asked, and to whom it was asked is pure gold. Election years are a gift to professors.
If by we you mean the media, then yes it is insane.
The concentration on poll numbers is discouraging. It is cheap headlines and lack of in depth effort by the news media to be so seduced by the "numbers". It contributes to the political circus our elections have become. There was a Fourth Estate that elevated the discussion, but it has ceased it roll, and contributed to the dumbing down of the electorate. News shows and newspapers, need to rise above the tabloid rags available at supermarket check out aisles.
Polls are for lazy reporters and readers who Just want a shortcut.
What would be helpful is for a reporter to research an issue, contrast candidate positions and poll voters who are informed on that issue, analyzing the results for biases.
Maybe then the press could raise the level of debate instead of bemoaning it.
What would be helpful is for a reporter to research an issue, contrast candidate positions and poll voters who are informed on that issue, analyzing the results for biases.
Maybe then the press could raise the level of debate instead of bemoaning it.
If I don't recognize a phone number on my landline caller ID I never answer. I rarely answer unknown numbers on my cellphone and if one gets through I promptly hang up. How many people are out there like me? And who do we support? The polls totally miss voters who refuse to be bothered by telepollsters at dinnertime.
In addition to polls is the constant chatter about how much money a candidate has raised as if that is the only determining factor. It seems that money and publicity, good or bad, is all that counts and yes, the media is complicit in making this so.
No wonder our democracy is broken.
No wonder our democracy is broken.
Bruni notes that we treat politics like sports. Way too many pick their party and support it regardless of their platform. Millions, who rely on Social Security and Medicare, will reliably vote Republican in spite of the fact that the Republicans try time and again to destroy these earned benefits. I am a Knicks fan, but I also can appreciate Golden State's superiority.
What's preventing the news editors at the Times and other media outlets to actually edit poll "news?" Why not do some due diligence to learn which polls are reliable, and which are "listeria," and then report the results of only those that pass muster?
There is no particular reason, beyond page views, why the media must report the data of EVERY poll. Apply some editorial judgement and separate the wheat from the chaff.
There is no particular reason, beyond page views, why the media must report the data of EVERY poll. Apply some editorial judgement and separate the wheat from the chaff.
2
Interpreting polls requires a deep understanding of statistics in general and pitfalls of sampling and question design in particular. Last election cycle, NYT had the brilliant Nate Silver to help us distinguish the signal from the noise. As I recall, this greatly angered your fellow columnists and enough of you banded together to run him off.
It is time to stop referring to it as Political Journalism. That is dead. It is all political theater and entertainment and is in large part the reason so many Americans have disengaged from the system, IMHO.
Watching individual polls and trying to discern the outcome of an election is very similar to trying to plan your retirement based on watching the stock market on a day to day basis. Dow down 14 points today? SELL! Any investor will tell you this is a terrible strategy.
Nate Silver completely synthesized this lesson when he began a project that surveyed all the polls, aggregated them, and then watched them over time. The same exact model that investors use when watching the stock market. This is the reason almost any investor will tell you that unless you plan to manage your portfolio actively, your best bet is to buy a small group of low-cost ETFs and rebalance them every year or two.
The 538 blog is a MUCH more reliable - because it flattens out bias and massively increases the sample size - than any individual poll. If you care about polls, don't watch individual stocks, watch the S&P 500 over 6 months. Read 538.
Nate Silver completely synthesized this lesson when he began a project that surveyed all the polls, aggregated them, and then watched them over time. The same exact model that investors use when watching the stock market. This is the reason almost any investor will tell you that unless you plan to manage your portfolio actively, your best bet is to buy a small group of low-cost ETFs and rebalance them every year or two.
The 538 blog is a MUCH more reliable - because it flattens out bias and massively increases the sample size - than any individual poll. If you care about polls, don't watch individual stocks, watch the S&P 500 over 6 months. Read 538.
1
Yes, yes, yes. It is idiotic in the way that a drunk might down a shot of Bourbon to make a toast to the importance of sobriety.
Many examples to cite, but this kind is particularly infuriating: Because the Democratic campaign has no orange haired huckster or born-again sociopath, the media have to drum up some drama. Both Clinton and Sanders have been reliably civil, yet the first mention of a difference of opinion is described, in the Times and elsewhere, as "Sanders and Clinton Take the Gloves Off!!!!!" The media are so desperate to use boxing or horserace metaphors that they would hype a difference in the candidates' favorite colors. "Clinton Loves Red and Attacks Sanders for his Embrace of Green as Burlington's Mayor!!!"
Many examples to cite, but this kind is particularly infuriating: Because the Democratic campaign has no orange haired huckster or born-again sociopath, the media have to drum up some drama. Both Clinton and Sanders have been reliably civil, yet the first mention of a difference of opinion is described, in the Times and elsewhere, as "Sanders and Clinton Take the Gloves Off!!!!!" The media are so desperate to use boxing or horserace metaphors that they would hype a difference in the candidates' favorite colors. "Clinton Loves Red and Attacks Sanders for his Embrace of Green as Burlington's Mayor!!!"
1
Frank Bruni's reference to journalism being a beleaguered industry needing to rely on polling as content to be reported is only part of the problem. It appears now that government and politics are the real beleaguered industry that needs a Donald Trump and a Sarah Palin to boost their level of interest with the public. In the past we didn't expect our leaders to be entertaining. Now it's a prerequisite. Or at least that's what the polls "indicate".
An obscene waste of resources, the polls exist to serve the media-political complex: They provide non-weather-related content for breathless young news readers, a steady flow of income for pollsters, and a grade for political contestants. Two-plus years of non-stop polling provide no benefits to the public and serve only to trivialize American democracy.
1
POLLS
They count the chickens before they hatch
They ask questions with an insidious catch
A pushme-pullyou contraption
Quantifiable deception
Democracy's count-down-death-watch.
1
Instead of writing about polls endlessly, maybe the media could start writing about the candidates' policies. Of course, it's far easier to do the former, which is why we have a lack of the latter.
3
Pew Research seems to be more legit, than who CNN, can decides to get on the blower , or people who follow their 24/7 blabber. When in the course of any given day, if things are boring, there is always a crisis. In the Situation room, one can watch. Then there is Sunday when Fareed Obama is on. He always clears any misunderstandings up.
As bad as the obsession with polls over substantive analysis is the implication that what happens in two small, very unrepresentative, very white states tells us anything about who is likely to win. It is a huge, misleading distraction for the media to act like either Iowa or New Hampshire reflect the country as a whole. They should not be the first states vote.
I am a professional pollster, so many polls now are not reliable. The general public does not know how to recognize the ones that are done properly. Then they don't know how to read them
You talk about the horror of Trump winning and then go to Clinton losing. Finally you lump Trump and Sanders together. You are clearly backing Clinton. We shall see on election day, but one interesting poll shows Sanders beating Trump nationwide. Those who back Sanders (and those who back Trump) are very energized and will come out to vote. Clinton has so much baggage that I here everyday say they'll vote for anybody else or stay home in the general election.
Go Bernie!
Go Bernie!
1
@C.C.—Oy. You miss the point of the article. The poll you sight that Sanders beats Trump is meaningless. The republicans have yet to run a general election campaign against Sanders like they have been doing to Clinton for the past year or so. Once that happens, Sanders poll numbers will drop and his negatives increase. The fact that Clinton polls even or better with the republicans after all the scandal hyping and negative ads shows her strength as a candidate not weakness.
1
Everybody wants a crystal ball. Polls have become so unreliable that they are the latest in media crystal balls. In a day and age of identity theft and scams, most people with any sense are not going to divulge their age and their income over the phone or on the internet unless they have an agenda, so numbers of people to sample are dwindling. Trying to get an accurate picture of American voters predicated on a sampling of so few or unreliable seems ridiculous. But people like a "sense" of the future even when there's no "sense" to be had, hence the absurdity of polls.
If we can't even predict the exact trajectory of a hurricane until it's nearly on top of us, how can predict the outcome of something as complicated as a human being in a voting booth?? A poll is not a serious tool; it's just another ruse to try to persuade people to vote a certain way, by trying to shape a victory through irrelevant numbers. A crystal ball is a better tool as an indicator. Or maybe tea leaves.
If we can't even predict the exact trajectory of a hurricane until it's nearly on top of us, how can predict the outcome of something as complicated as a human being in a voting booth?? A poll is not a serious tool; it's just another ruse to try to persuade people to vote a certain way, by trying to shape a victory through irrelevant numbers. A crystal ball is a better tool as an indicator. Or maybe tea leaves.
Who takes these polls seriously other than the politicians and their supporters? The "silent majority" does not listen or allow the numbers to change its mind. Some in the media are desperately trying to keep up with their competitors and with the hysteria encouraged on CNN and other news outlets. Give the American people some credit – they change channels and turn to the entertainment news when confronted with a new poll or with political buffoonery.
By "Our" you mean the media of course. The only "poll" that matters is recorded in a voting booth. Garbage polls do not report their non-response rate and describe in detail how the raw responses are adjusted... and the vast majority them are garbage. Questions are framed to solicit certain responses. The polling results are irrelevant... the polling process tells a lot about the organizations connected to the poll.
The polling orgy is but a small part of the real problem: cable news networks.
Pollsters are like weathermen, they will still have a job tomorrow.
But you have to ask yourself who is answering that land line, that doesn't have caller ID? Forty-three percent of American homes no longer have a land line,
However, it does take a bit of an effort to go on FB and search for a fan page, read, then like. Trump has 5.3 million fans, more than double that of Hillary, who also trails Sanders. And, the FB people are a true cross section of demographics, unlike the voters in certain geographical areas who tend to vote the same.
But you have to ask yourself who is answering that land line, that doesn't have caller ID? Forty-three percent of American homes no longer have a land line,
However, it does take a bit of an effort to go on FB and search for a fan page, read, then like. Trump has 5.3 million fans, more than double that of Hillary, who also trails Sanders. And, the FB people are a true cross section of demographics, unlike the voters in certain geographical areas who tend to vote the same.
The Republicans have actually used polls to exclude people from debates, and as Bruni notes, polls and media coverage might well have propelled Trump to the top. So we shall never see actually whether the polls were "right" or "wrong." It's scary indeed.
What I find disgusting is that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina all have the first voting rights and these three states are NOT reflective of the rest of the country. At least one state with a large city should be included in that category. PERIOD.
Just because pundits and reporters routinely misunderstand what can be stated from polling data does not make the data useless.
Perhaps pundits and reporters should take courses in how to make the best use of statistics before ascending to positions at The New York Times.
Perhaps pundits and reporters should take courses in how to make the best use of statistics before ascending to positions at The New York Times.
1
This is an excellent article and completely on point. I've never been called for a poll. Nobody I know has been called for a poll. Who are the pollsters calling? By breathlessly reporting every single whacked-out poll the media is definitely shaping the election and helping to pick winners who shouldn't win and losers who shouldn't lose. The 24/7 round the clock need for content drives them to do a great disservice to the American public.
1
A perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. The NYT, like most other media are fixated on covering the horse race aspects rather than the positions of candidates on the issues. So, the more polling, the more air time, ink, and web clicks that need to be reached have some raw data. Does the media really care how accurate they are rather than how often they get new ones to dice and slice?
1
I'm not one of those who think the media is engaged in some nefarious scheme with story after story on polling.
I think the media give us exactly what we want: schnibbles and snippets of instajournalism that matches our obsession with our smartphones and our insatiable desire to keep score and know who's 'ahead.'
Consider the proliferation of listicles, the inane rankings of increasingly meaningless characteristics ('10 most boring towns in California'-sfgate, I'm looking at you) that litter the media landscape. We are obsessed with these things because we are obsessed with knowing and being who's on top, just like with polling.
God forbid we should sit down and read something longer and more substantive than a poll, a listicle, college rankings, etc. Even our television programming is all about playoffs and rankings: 'The Bachelor'. 'Survivor.' 'Big Brother.'
We're #1, all right. Sure we are, honey. Sure we are.
I think the media give us exactly what we want: schnibbles and snippets of instajournalism that matches our obsession with our smartphones and our insatiable desire to keep score and know who's 'ahead.'
Consider the proliferation of listicles, the inane rankings of increasingly meaningless characteristics ('10 most boring towns in California'-sfgate, I'm looking at you) that litter the media landscape. We are obsessed with these things because we are obsessed with knowing and being who's on top, just like with polling.
God forbid we should sit down and read something longer and more substantive than a poll, a listicle, college rankings, etc. Even our television programming is all about playoffs and rankings: 'The Bachelor'. 'Survivor.' 'Big Brother.'
We're #1, all right. Sure we are, honey. Sure we are.
1
reporters of the politcal scene use polls becuase if they didn't, they would have very little to say. it is an attempt by the media to 'make themselves relevant' by inserting itself into the political process. e.g. why does MSNBC runs polls during its shows when the only people watching MSNBC are either liberal/progressives or political junkies? it makes little sense to ask a group of individuals who committed to a shared set of beliefs what their opinion on things related to those beliefs. moreover, people being polled apparently delight in lying to pollsters (you will never have a poll in which the participants self-describe themselves as being racist and yet people are, by their nature, naturally racist - racism is after all, just an expression of the xenophobia that members of any group has towards non-members )
Two points. This whole piece could have been summed up with" polling is biased, haphazard, inaccurate and a lazy mans way to gather data". Second, nice stab at putting Sanders in the same vein as Trump. I think if you check the facts Sanders probably relies less on polling as his story than any candidate. So now you have beaten polling up, bury it an never go back.
We live in a world where reality has become fictionalized. There has to be a narrative, a story line, drama. Polls are a drama inducing tool. With a small change in the numbers media imaginations soar. What does any of this really mean? Who cares. The show goes on.
And now we have don't even have real candidates. They too are fictionalized--bigger than life, nothing like us. Trump: rude, crude and over the top. Hillary: old, corrupt and over the hill.
Is this the best we have? Where did all the real people go? Blame on the media. Real people prefer fictional people.
And now we have don't even have real candidates. They too are fictionalized--bigger than life, nothing like us. Trump: rude, crude and over the top. Hillary: old, corrupt and over the hill.
Is this the best we have? Where did all the real people go? Blame on the media. Real people prefer fictional people.
9
Our addiction? It is to laugh!
To me it seems that polling is the last refuge of a media cowed by the years of attacks from the right (lame-stream, liberal, etc.) that turns every election into a horse race.
Quoting polls provides a way to say 'see I'm not biased (except for Trump-itis with a touch of Cruz syndrome.
How easy to not hold candidates feet to the fire on issues, and just sit in the booth claiming whose in the lead on the far turn.
Perhaps more of a return to the journalism of the not distant past, where blithe 'policy' statements resulted in tough follow-ups.
To me it seems that polling is the last refuge of a media cowed by the years of attacks from the right (lame-stream, liberal, etc.) that turns every election into a horse race.
Quoting polls provides a way to say 'see I'm not biased (except for Trump-itis with a touch of Cruz syndrome.
How easy to not hold candidates feet to the fire on issues, and just sit in the booth claiming whose in the lead on the far turn.
Perhaps more of a return to the journalism of the not distant past, where blithe 'policy' statements resulted in tough follow-ups.
Yes, if you are talking about the ever-expanding "press" you folks are too fascinated with polls because it gives you something to talk about. Most people do not answer phone polls and media internet polls reflect the thinking of their specific audience. That does not reflect what America thinks. DT spends his own money to "launch" a presidential campaign and pays people to attend, the press gives him so much attention that soon he is all anyone is talking about and, as even a first-year marketing student knows, people are inclined to vote for someone because of name recognition even if they're an ax murderer. So the press is the one skewing results. The answer is for Americans to put socially conscious democrats and independents in every elected position in the land. My dream team to run OUR country after the elections of November 8 is Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton as President, Senator Bernie Sanders as STRONG Vice President, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D) as Senate Majority Leader, Ms. Nancy Pelosi (D) democratic Speaker of the House working with other socially conscious democrats and independents across the land who will restore democracy in America.
2
If this article was written about 10 months ago, then all of Mr. Bruni's next columns for the remainder of 2015 were about something other than the election that, for 70% of those 10 months, was still more than one year away, we could be convinced of his moral fortitude. Further, if the focus was on one of many worthy topics facing our country, society and culture other than the election, perhaps others may have taken up the issue and effected change, no matter how small. It's too late to bemoan the addiction to polls.
1
What about the obsession with two of the whitest states in the nation deciding who the main contenders should be? I can't fathom why the dems and the GOP still let them have their high priest position but the media at least ought to focus on South Carolina and Nevada. They come next and they are both more representative of the country.
6
Agree 100 %. Not to mention the fact that one of the few things that both sides agree on is that ethanol needs to go away. Yet both sides continue to vote in favor of it just because of the Iowa caucuses.
The reporting on polls is just another example of the lazy journalism that is being practiced today in most of the main stream/main street.
The media has been reporting opinion as fact for as long as we have seen this disconnect between We the People as a Nation vs. We the People as a bunch of independent tribes. And I believe it is one of the reasons we are so polarized; if McConnell's and Ryan's opinions about Obama and the job he is doing and the actual shape of the Nation were not given the weight they so obviously get perhaps we would see better results getting US to participate in our government.
We would also, probably, not see a republican majority in both houses of Congress because the voters might have known who is actually doing the obstruction.
We can either have a democracy and a free press or we can have billionaires, a corporate media, and fascism. We cannot have both.
The media has been reporting opinion as fact for as long as we have seen this disconnect between We the People as a Nation vs. We the People as a bunch of independent tribes. And I believe it is one of the reasons we are so polarized; if McConnell's and Ryan's opinions about Obama and the job he is doing and the actual shape of the Nation were not given the weight they so obviously get perhaps we would see better results getting US to participate in our government.
We would also, probably, not see a republican majority in both houses of Congress because the voters might have known who is actually doing the obstruction.
We can either have a democracy and a free press or we can have billionaires, a corporate media, and fascism. We cannot have both.
7
Parties commission polls in the hopes of getting favorable results which can be used as a commercial: "you see, people are for me and you should too". As Bruni says, the media are complicit to this game and it should start with not publicizing them, thus reducing their effectiveness. They should also develop a rating of reliability, and announce it together with the poll numbers. No poll that surveys fewer than a thousand persons should be mentioned and the percentage of error should also be declared. So, Bruni should take the oath that he will never mention a poll and should pressure the Times for doing the same.
Good luck!
Good luck!
1
An addiction to polls?
Why, right above your column, Frank, it says that Shame can be beneficial in treating addiction.
So folks, make your choice: polls or shame! The addiction. Or the cure!
Why, right above your column, Frank, it says that Shame can be beneficial in treating addiction.
So folks, make your choice: polls or shame! The addiction. Or the cure!
2
You are right. Not a vote has been cast. Elections are now shaped by pollsters and the media hype surrounding them. Look where it has gotten us. Bad predictive stats trying to force results for ratings. And a lack of quality candidates willing to put up with it.
5
This is a hypocritical article. Every other article you right is about Donald Trump. You and the rest of "journalistic media" are the problem.
5
Write on.
1
I've noticed Frank Bruni quoting from Stuart Stevens a lot lately. Stevens, Mitt Romney's chief strategist in 2012, is the one who arranged for Clint Eastwood's opportunity to give a coarsened monologue before an empty chair at 2012's GOP convention during which Mr. Eastwood told President Obama to go do something with himself that apparently wasn't fit to describe.
We are, Frank, the company we keep.
We are, Frank, the company we keep.
7
"Our" insane addiction... refers to whom exactly?
3
Exactly. Polls aren't reliable enough to give us an accurate picture of what voters think, but they end up being pretty accurate about what voters WILL think; they become self-fulfilling prophecies. If the news media really do bemoan the "horse race" angle after each election, then why don't you all do something about it for a change. Can you imagine Trump in this position if the media spent time evaluating his "proposals"? I realize he doesn't actually have any, but that would become evident if the discussion was all about the proposals of those who do.
3
"Every candidate’s a thoroughbred, every day the Kentucky Derby and just about every other story on many newscasts and news sites an assessment of his or her odds. We’re resigned to treating campaigns as sport. It represents the surest path to a large enough audience to keep a beleaguered industry economically viable."
Here's the problem in blazingly accurate summary. A sports approach is better for the bottom line than is substantive discourse. Sigh...
Here's the problem in blazingly accurate summary. A sports approach is better for the bottom line than is substantive discourse. Sigh...
1
Shows like Morning Joe obsessively employ polls as a springboard to a political narritive. In Scarborough's case, usually to disparage a Democrat or as a theatrical vehicle to dispense right wing propaganda.
3
Frank are you trying to put an end to the one growth industry providing employment to Masters graduates from our Universities?
What will you do next ? Will you demand real professors teaching those poor students who have a hard time paying 35K a year for tuition?
What do you have planned for those poor adjuncts making 10 bucks an hour with their PhDs. Economics is economics and a job is a job.
Repeat after me Polling is important. Polling is important. Polling is what puts frozen pizza on the table. Now get out there and poll.
What will you do next ? Will you demand real professors teaching those poor students who have a hard time paying 35K a year for tuition?
What do you have planned for those poor adjuncts making 10 bucks an hour with their PhDs. Economics is economics and a job is a job.
Repeat after me Polling is important. Polling is important. Polling is what puts frozen pizza on the table. Now get out there and poll.
1
It's not just polls. As soon as I see a tweet I move on to a different story.
I agree. Even exit polls can be unreliable.
And thanks for writing an article which contains real discussion rather than parrtisan attacks on this or that Republican.
And thanks for writing an article which contains real discussion rather than parrtisan attacks on this or that Republican.
By "our" he means editorial page writers, pundits and talking heads, right?
4
We're not addicted to polls, the media is. Since they are so often wrong and can be easily skewed by the way questions are asked, stop reporting them and they'll go away.
77
Biased/fixed not skewed, otherwise u r right.
Also don't answer them. Just vote. My father was a conservative Republican who hated FDR. I once heard my mother say she voted for FDR. I was shocked. "Did Dad know?" Answer: "Why do you think they have secret ballots." Folks just vote and keep your lips zipped. I have a landline and hate these interruptions. Of course nobody cares what Rhodes Islanders think anyway. We only have 4 electoral votes. Another thing that should go the way of the hoop skirt along with polling.
I am a volunteer organizer for Bernie here in Pittsburgh.
When he was down by 90 some points, we worked. Going to summer fairs and music festivals.
When we was down by 80 some points, we kept working, hitting farmer's markets and shopping districts and the Labor Day Parade.
When he was down by 70 some points, we didn't stop working and visited our universities day after day.
When he was down by 60 points, we kept going to African American neighborhoods, explaining that Bernie had been for Civil right since he was a college student.
And so on.
And were the polls to show that he was 30 points ahead...why we would just keep working: doing phone banks, distributing flyers and carrying signs, handing out business cards to sympathizers to get them on our email list, having a movie party to see "The Big Short"; having debate watch parties.
And so on. Almost every day of the week.
And that, boys and girls, is how you win an election!
When he was down by 90 some points, we worked. Going to summer fairs and music festivals.
When we was down by 80 some points, we kept working, hitting farmer's markets and shopping districts and the Labor Day Parade.
When he was down by 70 some points, we didn't stop working and visited our universities day after day.
When he was down by 60 points, we kept going to African American neighborhoods, explaining that Bernie had been for Civil right since he was a college student.
And so on.
And were the polls to show that he was 30 points ahead...why we would just keep working: doing phone banks, distributing flyers and carrying signs, handing out business cards to sympathizers to get them on our email list, having a movie party to see "The Big Short"; having debate watch parties.
And so on. Almost every day of the week.
And that, boys and girls, is how you win an election!
8
I believe we are nurturing a vaccuous shallows in the American Public. The "popularity" of Trump symbolizes that Shallows. I have watched all of the Debates....and have seen absolutely no Substance in Donald Trump's contentless declarations of ego-driven "promises". Instead we are given statistics of his "proven" prowess as a "successful contender" who whom No one wishes to actually be in the White House.....yet many are Afraid he may "Win" it. Sometimes the sanest reaction to an insane situation....is Insanity.
Meanwhile, the Media contributes to the life makes more difficulty and complicated.
Meanwhile, the Media contributes to the life makes more difficulty and complicated.
1
So the message is "don't get high on your own supply" of the Drug called: Polls
Believe the MSM Journalists instead, presumably. Paul Craig Roberts calls all of you: Presstitutes
I would rather take the integrity of a flawed poll any day!
Believe the MSM Journalists instead, presumably. Paul Craig Roberts calls all of you: Presstitutes
I would rather take the integrity of a flawed poll any day!
3
Frank, you're right. The overreaching is not going to stop. News organizations today are all about ratings, which is all about money. News executives' greed for profits is as insatiable as some of the public's craving for poll numbers. It's a feeding frenzy that leaves many of us sick from an erroneous news overdose.
1
Polls are wonderful...so long as they are not about candidate preferences. If they guide the body politic toward examing issues, they make us think. But instead they exist to create marketable content, to shape iterative, mutable, candidate positions for ad investment optimization and-ultimately-supplant civil elections with for-profit commercial ones. Better poles would be far more pernicious.
Our strategy should be to destroy poles utterly by always either lying or giving coin-flip answers. If all did that, the real November election would revert to a moment of suspense, pride, belonging, and accomplishment instead of an epilog, a glitzy ersatz grand finale, a rigged Super Bowl, a Hunger Game come true.
Our strategy should be to destroy poles utterly by always either lying or giving coin-flip answers. If all did that, the real November election would revert to a moment of suspense, pride, belonging, and accomplishment instead of an epilog, a glitzy ersatz grand finale, a rigged Super Bowl, a Hunger Game come true.
1
While I hate to hear all the media bashing, I would submit the media may be the cause of the problem. The mere exposure effect: preference follows familiarity, which is often a function of sheer repetition. So, people follow polls because poll results saturate reporting and commentary. And when this nonsense starts more than a year before an election things don't improve. Would love to see what happens if only a few / fringe media outlets play the game while the rest take a pass. Would also like to see a report on the number of different polls we are being fed, and the feeding schedule. I bet that would be an eye popper.
4
Polls perform an important function. They remove choices from the electorate. The media, deriving income from sponsors for corporate owners, serve to narrow the field to those candidates that are either self-funded (billionaires) or party-picked (billionaire chosen). Polls are one of the social narratives that pacify an electorate that has Coke or Pepsi choices every election cycle.
7
True so; except that Coke and Pepsi taste very similarly; Elephants and Donkies look very differently and behave very differently.
1
Of course there is this addiction. We want to be with a winner. Is that not what it's all about? How about we stop having elections and we have CNN take the average of all the polls and have it inaugurate our next president based on that average. That way we can have a multitude of candidates offering all kids of views we disagree with. We can also save ourselves the embarrassment of having only 32 percent of the voting public making it to the voting booth, which is, of course the real problem.
Why should people even bother to vote when only a hand full of federal elective offices are considered "competitive" in each cycle. Gerrymandering is the real issue here and nobody, at least nobody in power, is willing to discuss it or attack it.
Tuning out is simply no fun and the circus that is now Trumpism is almost fun to watch. I hope they have it wrong, but I'm not betting on it.
Why should people even bother to vote when only a hand full of federal elective offices are considered "competitive" in each cycle. Gerrymandering is the real issue here and nobody, at least nobody in power, is willing to discuss it or attack it.
Tuning out is simply no fun and the circus that is now Trumpism is almost fun to watch. I hope they have it wrong, but I'm not betting on it.
1
Brilliant! Finally someone spells it out. Because we have 24/7 news, everything has to be promoted as possible. In 2012, Nate Silver and many others knew there was essentially no chance of a Romney win. The media played it as too close to call until the election. It ginned up audiences because if they admitted it was essentially a foregone conclusion no one would have watched.
3
"Every candidate’s a thoroughbred, every day the Kentucky Derby ...."
I think that points out the two biggest flaws in media election coverage.
First off thoroughbreds. To me, most of the candidates seem closer to milk horses or ponies.The presidency is one of the most difficult jobs in the world, to do well. Only a handful of incumbents over the entire history of the country are considered to have done well, and each of them have detractors. Donald Trump is the current Secretariat, even though he's never seen a starting gate. Seem that everyone who knows Cruz hates him. Man O' War? Hillary Clinton, bloodlines by marriage. The horse race attracts lots of nags who think they are thoroughbreds, or good at posing as one. The media's notion of quality is whichever nose is out front on a give day.
Next, the Kentucky Derby (Iowa), the Preakness (New Hampshire), and the Belmont Stakes (South Carolina). These three states in total constitute 3% of the US population, yet the media puts the primaries or caucus of these three on such a high pedestal that their importance is greatly exaggerated, and could influence the preferences of remaining 97%, and discourage some candidates from continuing their campaigns(maybe even a real thoroughbred).
I think that points out the two biggest flaws in media election coverage.
First off thoroughbreds. To me, most of the candidates seem closer to milk horses or ponies.The presidency is one of the most difficult jobs in the world, to do well. Only a handful of incumbents over the entire history of the country are considered to have done well, and each of them have detractors. Donald Trump is the current Secretariat, even though he's never seen a starting gate. Seem that everyone who knows Cruz hates him. Man O' War? Hillary Clinton, bloodlines by marriage. The horse race attracts lots of nags who think they are thoroughbreds, or good at posing as one. The media's notion of quality is whichever nose is out front on a give day.
Next, the Kentucky Derby (Iowa), the Preakness (New Hampshire), and the Belmont Stakes (South Carolina). These three states in total constitute 3% of the US population, yet the media puts the primaries or caucus of these three on such a high pedestal that their importance is greatly exaggerated, and could influence the preferences of remaining 97%, and discourage some candidates from continuing their campaigns(maybe even a real thoroughbred).
5
Kind of ironic (or sad), this article about polls that is about too much emphasis on polls. This column represents the flip-side of the problem: news about polls is only a symptom of the short, click-bait oriented news cycle. Journalists and editors of all stripes are addicted to the "narrative" rather than doing real research and analysis into trends, history, and issues. Bruni can write an article seemingly lamenting this situation, but he would serve us all better if he would simply buck it and write something more substantive.
5
RDeanB
Totally agree....Bruni and others exemplify what they criticize and scold others for. I never read a Bruni column about an issue in this campaign.
The columnists are just following the cable TV news, or the internet trends. This is what our most important paper offers us. Look at the titles of the columns.
And then when there's a chance for something really new in our political discussion----the pro/cons of Sanders' universal tax supported health care, such as is common for generations in many nations--we get a media just saying the middle class won't stand for a raise in taxes, period.
No mention of the savings in medical expense offsetting taxes, and that taxes spread thru the society would be less of an individual burden. We're taxed now---by insurance/drug corporations. It's just not called that.
That's the worse example of the trend---the media hype and conformity at the same time.
Totally agree....Bruni and others exemplify what they criticize and scold others for. I never read a Bruni column about an issue in this campaign.
The columnists are just following the cable TV news, or the internet trends. This is what our most important paper offers us. Look at the titles of the columns.
And then when there's a chance for something really new in our political discussion----the pro/cons of Sanders' universal tax supported health care, such as is common for generations in many nations--we get a media just saying the middle class won't stand for a raise in taxes, period.
No mention of the savings in medical expense offsetting taxes, and that taxes spread thru the society would be less of an individual burden. We're taxed now---by insurance/drug corporations. It's just not called that.
That's the worse example of the trend---the media hype and conformity at the same time.
4
Like testing in the public schools, the tests themselves interfere with what they are testing for. Similarly in quantum mechanics. And similarly in polling.
The Times is guilty indeed. Nate Silver? What on earth does he provide us with? He encourages group think, the phenomenon that got us into Iraq. He damages democracy with his accuracy. But is his accuracy from prediction or from influence, or from predicting from influence?
We'll never get rid of polling, but it would be nice to treat it as the sophistic trick that it is. Perhaps if we simultaneously discuss astrological and phrenological predictions along with polling. That way we still get the polling. Quinnipiac still gets to do its thing. And we all read the numerology of polling along with other forms of numerology that may or may not be truly predictive.
The Times is guilty indeed. Nate Silver? What on earth does he provide us with? He encourages group think, the phenomenon that got us into Iraq. He damages democracy with his accuracy. But is his accuracy from prediction or from influence, or from predicting from influence?
We'll never get rid of polling, but it would be nice to treat it as the sophistic trick that it is. Perhaps if we simultaneously discuss astrological and phrenological predictions along with polling. That way we still get the polling. Quinnipiac still gets to do its thing. And we all read the numerology of polling along with other forms of numerology that may or may not be truly predictive.
11
When the latest poll becomes the lead item on the news I tune out. I have no interest in who is leading this morning! I will wait for the results after the election. Trump gives me moments of anxiety: how can this man get away with his act? Why are his supporters to keen? And how come they thrive on his insults of his opponents and voters. The media is not the only guilty party with their shallow and inane reporting; the voters too are to blame. The talking heads are more interested in their preening and their abject fear when interviewing Trump. They take his contempt in stride. I have lost all respect for the vast majority of tv news readers and talking heads. And when Trump's spokeswoman appears - off switch!!!
10
We learn all we need to learn about a candidate the first time she speaks. Liberal or conservative? Raise taxes or cut taxes? More regulation or less? More wars or enough already? After that, we don't need to waste our time listening to the candidate saying the same things over and over. It's just a question of the polls. If the candidate is far ahead or far behind, there's no reason to vote. If it's close, we might vote if we really like one candidate over the other -- but if the poll results are pretty much the same for both, we don't have to vote because either candidate will be ok.
The result of this voter analysis is that less than half of potential voters actually register and vote. In some cases, it's less than a quarter. This is why there's so much demand for more polls -- to keep potentially hostile voters at home so they don't actually vote.
The result of this voter analysis is that less than half of potential voters actually register and vote. In some cases, it's less than a quarter. This is why there's so much demand for more polls -- to keep potentially hostile voters at home so they don't actually vote.
5
People seem to think that since survey data can be quantified, that it is accurate. I have less of a problem with political horse race polls than some of the other surveys that are conducted. The one that is absolutely bizarre is the survey question about whether the country is headed in the right direction. That question would be useful if it were followed up to identify if there are any significant common threads as to why people feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. Otherwise it is just another brick in the wall to try to convince people that things are terrible and we need something different to change our direction. No doubt current polls about the primaries are wrong, and we will soon find that out. As you say, the media will ignore their errors and blithely move on to the next poll. In my opinion, the obsession with polling is making us dumber.
6
Polls have their place. Like unruly pups, polls are not content with their place. Like a child fascinated by unruly pups, the media loves to watch them escape, delights in their mischief and quickly moves on to other activities. It's the voters, like the parents, who are left to do the cleanup but they too delight in the unruly polls and the media's fascination with the mischief the polls create.
5
The NYTimes doesn't like the polls showing Sanders ahead, so they find a way to try to make truth a lie. Amazing. Journalism, not coporate cronyism will win the day. We'll know pretty soon who is actually winning. As you know, Sanders is not accustomed to losing.
18
I love Bernie and I'm a democratic socialist but please, we do not need to lose the gains made with a GOP loser like trump in the W.H. or for any GOP'er. I have to go with experience, endurance and a progressive that will make a difference. HRC has the world behind her and Bill. Again, I love Bernie and am with him on every issue but I have to vote for Hillary. SCOTUS matters as well.
1
Right. The NYT had a poll yesterday showing Clinton ahead 52-40 in Iowa and Sanders ahead 52-40 in NH. 'National' polls consistently have Clinton ahead by a comfortable margin. Yet, on the evening news the report was all about what a 'close' race it was in Iowa with the reporter suggesting that the Clinton camp was essentially in panic mode as Sanders closed in... many reports suggest that if Clinton looses in Iowa, we are back in 2008 and Sanders suddenly equals Obama and Clinton is sunk - again...
Re Trump: you said, "... polls, which in turn legitimized his fixation on them as proof that he’s up to the job: He must be, because plenty of people apparently picture him in it."
Plenty of people voted for Adolph Hitler, too, and thought he was wonderful for Germany & the world; thought that he would make Germany "great again." Look how well that turned out.
Re Trump: you said, "... polls, which in turn legitimized his fixation on them as proof that he’s up to the job: He must be, because plenty of people apparently picture him in it."
Plenty of people voted for Adolph Hitler, too, and thought he was wonderful for Germany & the world; thought that he would make Germany "great again." Look how well that turned out.
3
Voting behaviour is too complex a phenomenon to be explained by the heavily funded and rabidly partisan poll surveys. Accordingly more often than not the final election outcome belies the poll predictions.
11
Around six months ago I cut my cable. I suspect many people will have done the same by 2018 and more by 2020. I was never an avid consumer of the 24 hour news channels, because the noise from them is louder than actual news. Everything is breaking news. So the poll thing is easy to ignore. I may glance at it online, but find more interesting things to read about. My point is that with the decline of cable and its influence on peoples heads, we may see decline in the importance of polls as entertainment as well. I believe this is the last election that CNN, FOX or the other guys will have any significant influence over. And if I'm right, good riddance.
9
We cut the cord in 2009! Peace of mind.
Polls always need a Nate Silver to interpret them. Some polls are so consistently wrong that they shouldn't even be reported. Instead, they need to be weighted and ranked, adapted to conform with the fundamentals, and converted into a generic probability for each candidate.
All the hoopla about Trump and Sanders winning Iowa, as of today at least, is based on misplaced credence. Silver still shows Cruz and Clinton with the greatest probability, and unless a whole lot of good polls come along showing something else, that is the direction in which reality is actually heading.
Treating the results of a single new poll as "news" is just bad journalism.
All the hoopla about Trump and Sanders winning Iowa, as of today at least, is based on misplaced credence. Silver still shows Cruz and Clinton with the greatest probability, and unless a whole lot of good polls come along showing something else, that is the direction in which reality is actually heading.
Treating the results of a single new poll as "news" is just bad journalism.
3
Bruni hits on a key point as to how representative those polled are. My brother in NH described it to me. The polls are relentless, week after week and month after month. The calls come at dinner time or early evening (of course). He, and most people he knows, long ago gave up responding -- they just hang up. I have to believe that those who do respond to such an onslaught are not at all representative of the general population. And I don't see a technological or sampling fix for this.
Plus there is the separate issue of cell phones. I know a number of people who will not answer if it is from a caller they don't recognize. Etc., etc.
Plus there is the separate issue of cell phones. I know a number of people who will not answer if it is from a caller they don't recognize. Etc., etc.
10
Polling is counting sheep. If polls measure anything, it's what people guess are the right answers. Americans are 90% conformity and 10% non-conformity, often gussied up as libertarian or independent but both really just contrarian. Being right means being on the right side.
Our addiction isn't to polls. It's to the soul soothing balm of being a winner, however vicarious and illusory. Winning is the choice narcotic for Trump and all Machiavellians who feel the deep craving of voters to bask in the winner's warm glow absent in their lives. Dime bags of "winner" hook a critical mass of votes assuring election and the bliss of winning rapture. As Bruni notes, Trump oratory is "me winner" and "them loser" subbing in Obama, Clinton, immigrants, women, Blacks, as needed.
Sanders doesn't deal dime bags. No need to. Mostly his acolytes self-medicate. With a variant of winning that risks potent side effects, like the hypnotic myopia of suicide bombers. They're addicted to puritanical self-righteousness and delusional faith in principles masking disdain for ambiguity and sausage-making aspects of political consensus.
Most Americans are angry they've been exiled to the land of losers, the wrong side populated with real losers they hate. When pollsters call, most voters parrot what their winners have whispered in their ears.
Polls after election day invariably count more voters on the winning side than actual votes cast. Polls don't measure. Polls validate.
Our addiction isn't to polls. It's to the soul soothing balm of being a winner, however vicarious and illusory. Winning is the choice narcotic for Trump and all Machiavellians who feel the deep craving of voters to bask in the winner's warm glow absent in their lives. Dime bags of "winner" hook a critical mass of votes assuring election and the bliss of winning rapture. As Bruni notes, Trump oratory is "me winner" and "them loser" subbing in Obama, Clinton, immigrants, women, Blacks, as needed.
Sanders doesn't deal dime bags. No need to. Mostly his acolytes self-medicate. With a variant of winning that risks potent side effects, like the hypnotic myopia of suicide bombers. They're addicted to puritanical self-righteousness and delusional faith in principles masking disdain for ambiguity and sausage-making aspects of political consensus.
Most Americans are angry they've been exiled to the land of losers, the wrong side populated with real losers they hate. When pollsters call, most voters parrot what their winners have whispered in their ears.
Polls after election day invariably count more voters on the winning side than actual votes cast. Polls don't measure. Polls validate.
7
National media persons are a large part of the problem. They no longer spend time reorting and dicussing real news, because reading useless poll numbers is so easy. Also, it takes no talent, just look good and make nonsense sound sensastional
3
The people who need polls the most are the political consultants who run the campaigns. Why? They need to justify their expensive advice to the candidates. Polls are just a part of the great game of getting elected, since most candidates don't want to be caught dead committing to an original idea that can be criticized. Reliance on polling data is just another indicator of how truly broken our system is.
9
Polling is counting sheep. If polls measure anything, it's what people guess are the right answers. Americans are 90% conformity and 10% non-conformity, often gussied up as libertarian or independent but both really just contrarian. Being right means being on the right side.
Our addiction isn't to polls. It's to the soul soothing balm of being a winner, however vicarious and illusory. Winning is the choice narcotic for Trump and all Machiavellians who feel the deep craving of voters to bask in the winner's warm glow absent in their lives. Dime bags of "winner" hook a critical mass of votes assuring election and the bliss of winning rapture. As Bruni notes, Trump oratory is "me winner" and "them loser" subbing in Obama, Clinton, immigrants, women, Blacks, as needed.
Sanders doesn't deal dime bags. No need to. Mostly his acolytes self-medicate. With a variant of winning that risks potent side effects, like the hypnotic myopia of suicide bombers. They're addicted to puritanical self-righteousness and delusional faith in principles masking disdain for ambiguity and sausage-making aspects of political consensus.
Most Americans are angry they've been exiled to the land of losers, the wrong side populated with real losers they hate. When pollsters call, most voters parrot what their winners have whispered in their ears.
Polls after election day invariably count more voters on the winning side than actual votes cast. Polls don't measure. Polls validate.
Our addiction isn't to polls. It's to the soul soothing balm of being a winner, however vicarious and illusory. Winning is the choice narcotic for Trump and all Machiavellians who feel the deep craving of voters to bask in the winner's warm glow absent in their lives. Dime bags of "winner" hook a critical mass of votes assuring election and the bliss of winning rapture. As Bruni notes, Trump oratory is "me winner" and "them loser" subbing in Obama, Clinton, immigrants, women, Blacks, as needed.
Sanders doesn't deal dime bags. No need to. Mostly his acolytes self-medicate. With a variant of winning that risks potent side effects, like the hypnotic myopia of suicide bombers. They're addicted to puritanical self-righteousness and delusional faith in principles masking disdain for ambiguity and sausage-making aspects of political consensus.
Most Americans are angry they've been exiled to the land of losers, the wrong side populated with real losers they hate. When pollsters call, most voters parrot what their winners have whispered in their ears.
Polls after election day invariably count more voters on the winning side than actual votes cast. Polls don't measure. Polls validate.
Addendum:
In the land of near-sighted losers, the blind winner is king. King of the right side where losers feel again like winners. Every poll is a map to the Kingdom of winners and the land of the right side, restored to magnificent greatness. Every poll a funhouse mirror reflecting the winner each of us wants to see.
In the land of near-sighted losers, the blind winner is king. King of the right side where losers feel again like winners. Every poll is a map to the Kingdom of winners and the land of the right side, restored to magnificent greatness. Every poll a funhouse mirror reflecting the winner each of us wants to see.
5
Frank, WE aren't addicted to polls - the media are. Period. And if we pay any attention to the media, we can't help being inundated with poll after poll after poll.... Methinks perhaps insanity may be linked to this process. But I am certain that the relentless polling and reporting thereof skews subsequent polling and opinions. In other words, the polls and the media are helping - by design or accident, I can't say, though I have my suspicions - to determine the results. Some democracy.
20
The mobile phone issue is a huge problem for polling of any sort, not just political.
Young people frequently don't have land lines and caller ID makes it easy to ignore calls from unknown numbers on both cell phones and land lines.
That means the people being polled are not representative of the population at large and are generally older and less tech savvy (not that you need to be tech savvy to have caller ID, but...)
It will be interesting to see if we go through a whole season of primaries with polls being very very wrong before we start questioning their validity.
Young people frequently don't have land lines and caller ID makes it easy to ignore calls from unknown numbers on both cell phones and land lines.
That means the people being polled are not representative of the population at large and are generally older and less tech savvy (not that you need to be tech savvy to have caller ID, but...)
It will be interesting to see if we go through a whole season of primaries with polls being very very wrong before we start questioning their validity.
3
It's not just young people that don't have landlines. Lots of us older adults have given up our landlines too. The house is now quieter without the interruption of the almost constant phone calls from unknown intruders.
Pity the guys who are polled all the time, don't they get tired of being polled.
1
The thought that polls actually mean something useful is amusing to watch play out.
Just a few days ago, an international poll was published proclaiming the "best countries" that relied on the OPINIONS of those countries residents. Rather predictably, Germany came out on top - simply because Germans are rather loath to admit that they have any flaws at all.
Oh yes - polls are SOOOOO valid.
Just a few days ago, an international poll was published proclaiming the "best countries" that relied on the OPINIONS of those countries residents. Rather predictably, Germany came out on top - simply because Germans are rather loath to admit that they have any flaws at all.
Oh yes - polls are SOOOOO valid.
The dominant ancestry of Americans is German.
Which has what to do with the opinions of Germans in Germany? Americans of German decent thankfully do not share the blind obedience and nationalism to their country and can recognise and admit to the problems over here.
Hearing poll numbers is like checking the sports scores. Quick, easy, all I need to know (not.) The only way out of the fixation will be if the results become either massively wrong, or they become corrupt. I wonder when the latter will pop up in a big way.
2
Well, you have colleagues, Mr. Bruni. Perhaps you can lead the charge to focus on real issues rather that poll numbers that fail to reveal more than they reveal even if they were consistent and predictive, which clearly they are not. But anchoring a story on polling results is an easy short-cut, an excuse for avoiding the hard work that good reporting demands.
The press can do better and its readers deserve better.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
The press can do better and its readers deserve better.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
4
Once again, Mr. Bruni shows courage and clear thinking to tackle a topic that matters, and that partly indicts his fellow journalists – and himself. My political views differ from yours, Mr. Bruni, but I so greatly admire and appreciate your ethics, integrity, and journalistic chops. This column should compete for a Pulitzer.
Wait until the day after the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, when you'll find that the winners are Carly Fiorina and Martin O'Malley. Seriously, though, what we will likely find is that the methodology of most of the polls are seriously flawed. They do not and probably cannot find the preferences of young voters who do not use land lines and old voters who are so fed up with polls that we hang up on the pollsters who phone us.
32
12% of non-incumbent Republican winners of New Hampshire primary have won the Presidency. Democrats won 25% of the time. In sparsely populated states small samples are statistically adequate so paid canvassers and online polls are feasible. California with a 35 million potential random sample base requires between 600 to 2000 respondents depending upon oversampling of specific populations. Polling in New Hampshire ranges from 250 to 470 or so respondents for statistical accuracy. Statistical accuracy means reliable responses to polling questions, which may have no bearing on what actual attitudes and opinions are. When Trump in his NH political TV spot oozes genuine concern and says we have no borders...these people are just pouring in without borders and do bad things...no borders to keep them out. You can bet on a poll telling his media strategists that a high percentage of NH voters responded negatively to "no borders" and "these people do bad things." The shot of Trump looking off camera and speaking to an invisible person off the side is a result of polling that indicated folks don't hear as much when he looks straight at you and most people are more comfortable listening to him talk to someone else. Opponents should run spots of Trump in full flush face looking straight in to the camera because Trump's polling shows that folks find him scary to look straight in the eye or his face up close distracts from his message. Feels right to me.
4
12% of non-incumbent Republican winners of New Hampshire primary have won the Presidency. Democrats won 25% of the time. In sparsely populated states small samples are statistically adequate so paid canvassers and online polls are feasible. California with a 35 million potential random sample base requires between 600 to 2000 respondents depending upon oversampling of specific populations. Polling in New Hampshire ranges from 250 to 470 or so respondents for statistical accuracy. Statistical accuracy means reliable responses to polling questions, which may have no bearing on what actual attitudes and opinions are. When Trump in his NH political TV spot oozes genuine concern and says we have no borders...these people are just pouring in without borders and do bad things...no borders to keep them out. You can bet on a poll telling his media strategists that a high percentage of NH voters responded negatively to "no borders" and "these people do bad things." The shot of Trump looking off camera and speaking to an invisible person off the side is a result of polling that indicated folks don't hear as much when he looks straight at you and most people are more comfortable listening to him talk to someone else. Opponents should run spots of Trump in full flush face looking straight in to the camera because Trump's polling shows that folks find him scary to look straight in the eye or his face up close distracts from his message. Feels right to me.
This old curmudgeon does not hang up on pollsters. I confuse and frustrate them with my standard reply,
"We enjoy a secret ballot in this free country. It is not your business for whom I plan to vote."
Would that all of us had the same commitment to the same restraint.
"We enjoy a secret ballot in this free country. It is not your business for whom I plan to vote."
Would that all of us had the same commitment to the same restraint.
All good points. But Mr. Bruni left out an important one:
People prank pollsters. Imagine dialing a land line, and getting Bart Simpson.
People prank pollsters. Imagine dialing a land line, and getting Bart Simpson.
1
Frank, I've been saying for months that announcing the latest poll numbers on the nightly news is what we get instead of news. Reporting the actual news, or, heaven forbid, actual information or policy, would mean WORK. Nobody on TV news can even bring himself to say that Trump's campaign has no content. The candidates obsess about the polls, even Sanders is doing it now.
1
Yep, "poll-mad behaviour!" Frank, this isn't a horse race and the polls aren't touts and handicappers. The wannabe POTUS candidates are more in three-
legged sack races than a marathon for the Presidency. All of them, the plethora of unqualified, unlikeable and unelectable Republican Tea Party men and Carly Fiorina and the three Democratic candidates (Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley) are fighting like crabs in a bag. Bloated polling will be a big loser this presidential election year. Wouldn't it be great, wouldn't it be swell if a Deus ex Machina would sweep down into the big clown tent of polls and caucuses and erase the Hillary and Trump candidacies? Suppose Mike Bloomberg was that Deus ex Machina, who will soon descend and in the same meteoric fashion that Barack Obama won the DNC nomination and Presidency in 2008, the former billionaire Mayor of New York would claim the Presidency? Counting the voting results is the only reliable means to figure out how right and how wrong the pollsters predictions were. We are not only insanely addicted to polls in America, but to our handheld cyber-widgets we consult 24/7 like oracles or bibles.
legged sack races than a marathon for the Presidency. All of them, the plethora of unqualified, unlikeable and unelectable Republican Tea Party men and Carly Fiorina and the three Democratic candidates (Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley) are fighting like crabs in a bag. Bloated polling will be a big loser this presidential election year. Wouldn't it be great, wouldn't it be swell if a Deus ex Machina would sweep down into the big clown tent of polls and caucuses and erase the Hillary and Trump candidacies? Suppose Mike Bloomberg was that Deus ex Machina, who will soon descend and in the same meteoric fashion that Barack Obama won the DNC nomination and Presidency in 2008, the former billionaire Mayor of New York would claim the Presidency? Counting the voting results is the only reliable means to figure out how right and how wrong the pollsters predictions were. We are not only insanely addicted to polls in America, but to our handheld cyber-widgets we consult 24/7 like oracles or bibles.
Yes, there's a glut of polls and hearing different poll results each day is a tedious beyond belief. I'm glad you mentioned cell phones, Frank. FACT: polls are conducted overwhelmingly on landlines. Many young people (Those between 21 and 40 years of age) don't have landlines; they use cell phones ONLY. Hence, a huge demographic segment of the nation is left out of polls. Therefore, numbers obtained by such polls are absolutely meaningless, and reflect nothing. So much for polls.
1
Polling calculation is that the demographic of landline users are people who are settled, registered, probably paying attention, and most likely to vote. Demographic of cell phone users without landlines -- important distinction as a lot of cell phone users also have landlines -- are as you indicate younger, likely to change addresses with greater frequency -- and thus not registered and not likely to vote and very likely to be apathetic or oblivious. Those massive computer farms owned by Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google have precise, detailed information on everyone who's used google, use microsoft software to go online, who buys, banks, snapchats, instagrams, and is geo-mapped, sliced and diced by statistical likelihood to buy a car, rent a hotel room, view pornography, attend a NBA game, or travel by train in the next three weeks. Every ad google serves up on whatever webpage you're viewing is for products your data indicate high likelihood of interest and purchase and the advertiser or promoter pays a fee only if you respond by clicking their ad. The only reason we have new credit cards with chips embedded is to precisely geo-locate every transaction we make so commercial and increasingly political marketers can target us with greater efficiency. Obama won two elections with marketing data that precisely identified every voter who supported him -- literally one person in an entire apartment building -- and his campaign made sure that one person voted.
4
I watched he media choose a complete unknown, lavish him with attention and anoint him President in 2008. Watching from the outside was breath-taking. One might have thought there was someone controlling the spin.
So you lucked out that time. This time it looks like your chosen aspirant is a clueless reality tee vee star born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
let's see how this one works out for ya.
So you lucked out that time. This time it looks like your chosen aspirant is a clueless reality tee vee star born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
let's see how this one works out for ya.
This connects to the article from yesterday about many of New Hampshire GOP voters, like those interviewed in the article, do not support Trump, with one even claiming he didn't know a single Donald Trump supporter--despite Trump being at an alleged 32%.
Translation: Hillary and the Dems chance for the WH are tanking.
1
Without any sense of irony, election after election, news organizations, including The Times, dutifully assign gravitas to this junk science with an overabundance of horse race coverage and commentary. It's their template. Monkey see, monkey do.
What invariably follow are somber postmortems and high-minded mea culpas. Then immediately back to business as usual.
Albeit unintended, nothing reflects the spirit of this absurdity better than the name SurveyMonkey. So, without further ado, let the circus continue.
What invariably follow are somber postmortems and high-minded mea culpas. Then immediately back to business as usual.
Albeit unintended, nothing reflects the spirit of this absurdity better than the name SurveyMonkey. So, without further ado, let the circus continue.
1
Where have you been? Nate Silver's Five Thirty Eight uses EVERY poll imaginable to predict. And has a double-edged formula for determining outcomes: polls only and polls plus. He has Hillary WAY up in Iowa, while everyone else on TV is saying how close the race is there. If you remember, he was the one who was -- accurately -- depicting Romney's defeat in 2012, while everyone else was biting their nails and the Republicans had put down a deposit on the ballroom and catering.
For everyone's enlightenment and peace of mind, just google Nate Silver Five Thirty Eight and get a dose of sanity.
For everyone's enlightenment and peace of mind, just google Nate Silver Five Thirty Eight and get a dose of sanity.
54
Maybe that's why Paul krugman is rooting for Mrs Clinton! He has confidence in Nate Silver. He believes numbers (people's head count) but he doesn't get what people's hearts are telling them (Bernie).
Personally I enjoy reading political commentary, and polls are a good excuse to produce some. I'm not sure they do as much harm as this column suggests.
Thank you for writing this! It drives me crazy. Polls keep getting less and less accurate but are paid more and more attention. The ONLY SINGLE POLL that correctly got the results of the vote for Scottish Independence was the one taken of British users of Grindr, the gay hook-up app. True!
These polls are good because they help engage the voters, apart from providing sideline entertainment. But it becomes a concern when these are used as eligibility criteria for presidential debates. As a nation, we lose out when good candidates like Rand Paul and their ideas are filtered out by such questionable polls.
Polling or reporting of poll results continue electorates ignorance in US Civics; there is belief poll results confirms, that candidates are Constitutionally empowered to keep those promises. And why not, especially in cases of Trump and Sanders; the media never ask how they would handpick a confirming Congress?
Polls are like statistics according to Disraeli and popularized by Mark Twain in this country: "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics".
If candidates are not talking seriously about issues, then we are only left to gaze at the polls.
1
Your right, all polls do have a certain error margin. Usually the collecting agency will report the error margin if you inquire. What really matters is that the vast majority of Americans prefer Bernie once they have listened to him speak. Expect those pesky, unreliable polls to look worse and worse for Hillary over time.
Just so. Polls are a simulacrum of objectivity with bogus statistical measures presented to an audience of statistically ignorant users, both journalists and populace. Never do journalists actually explain what the margin of error means and so what the inherent uncertainty is. Polls do a fundamental disservice to our political system and make journalism hackier. Trump's "standing" in the polls is mostly a measure of his recognition factor, not of any real attraction a voter will have to actual policies. It's a type of Q rating for a Reality TV Personality. And so journalists give him more coverage as a result, with more recognition the ultimate effect. When journalists get lazy this way, politicians become more venal, and citizens remain ignorant. It's another way that bad journalism creates the opposite effect of imparting meaningful, objective info.
1
Frank, You really are a sad case. You are yourself the problem you keep indicting. You write nothing about nothing. Week after week. Fluff about fluff. So why are you so outraged? Most of us have real jobs. But being a Times pundit? What is it really?
OK moderator. Hit the delete button. At least someone read this.
OK moderator. Hit the delete button. At least someone read this.
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.
--Niels Bohr
--Niels Bohr
3
Astonishingly, not a peep about polls prominent place in the Times horse race only coverage, even going back a year.
Physician, heal thyself.
Mr. Bruni, do us a favor, start comparing candidates' policy proposals. That would constitute the first attempt of the Times to do so, only 3 years after Amy Chozick was assigned to a dedicated Hillary Clinton beat.
Physician, heal thyself.
Mr. Bruni, do us a favor, start comparing candidates' policy proposals. That would constitute the first attempt of the Times to do so, only 3 years after Amy Chozick was assigned to a dedicated Hillary Clinton beat.
6
There is another interesting aspect to the Trump phenomenon. The media likes to cover Trump because their ratings go up when they do. By one account, tv shows that booked Trump would see their ratings go up over 500% (because he was already a famous tv personality.) So the media covered Trump more than any other candidate because they wanted the advertising revenue they received from covering Trump, and in turn Trump became the front runner because he was getting 5 times as much media coverage as anyone else.
This could be the first election determined not by the influence of polls but by the influence of television ad revenues.
This could be the first election determined not by the influence of polls but by the influence of television ad revenues.
94
I don't believe most polls are representative, and I'm not convinced they predict how voters will behave. But then, I don't think that's what most polls are designed to do these days. That is the problem -- every poll has an agenda, and only in some cases is it to understand what the (whole) public is thinking or planning to do.
1
There was a time, boys and girls, when something had to happen first before it was considered to be news. Now we have something I like to call anticipatory news. That's when news organizations fill their time up with breaking news that hasn't happened yet. Hence, we get 3 months of wall to wall coverage of a downed Malaysian airplane that was pure conjecture from the time it went missing, we get a presidential horse race that starts two years before the first vote is cast and we get breathless declarations about polls that couldn't possibly be relevant until the parties choose their eventual candidates. Let's face it, the polls showed Trump ahead of Kasich because everyone owns a TV but they don't all live in Ohio. When faced with a question about who you would support of course you're going to give the pollster the name of the person you've heard about. This is not only bad for Kasich it is a poor reflection on our politics, our media and ourselves.
64
Polls take all the fun out of elections!
1
It's not just the level of undecided voters that account for the erratic poll results. It's what scientists refer to as "sample size", or the actual number (and corresponding cross-section) of people polled who will actually pull the levers. In New Hampshire, for example, polls of 1000 or so people, which represent less than half a percent (0.5%) are utilized routinely.
I'm not a scientist, but have been involved in classes where research studies had to be planned and pass a litmus test in terms of their design prior to recording data. It's likely that few of the polls out there could do just that, if examined by people who depend on research results for a living.
I'm not a scientist, but have been involved in classes where research studies had to be planned and pass a litmus test in terms of their design prior to recording data. It's likely that few of the polls out there could do just that, if examined by people who depend on research results for a living.
1
New words:
*Polliglut - Over-abundance of premature, contradictory polls, driven by political junkies constantly seeking new excitement
*Polligluttony - Poll bingeing. Potentially creates a hapless class of polligluttons
*Pollijournalism - Lazy journalism based on quantum poll reporting, not pavement-pounding investigation
*Pollicandidacy - Substance-free campaign strategy where a candidate leads in the polls merely for leading in the polls
*Polliglut - Over-abundance of premature, contradictory polls, driven by political junkies constantly seeking new excitement
*Polligluttony - Poll bingeing. Potentially creates a hapless class of polligluttons
*Pollijournalism - Lazy journalism based on quantum poll reporting, not pavement-pounding investigation
*Pollicandidacy - Substance-free campaign strategy where a candidate leads in the polls merely for leading in the polls
41
Too many people make their livings (often very good ones) competing for our attention. Polls are a part of this problem. They are a private-enterprise jobs program for both those who design and do them and those who talk about and analyze the results.
Much of what goes on in this country should be seen as inventing and preserving jobs programs. Weapons, military bases, health insurance, prisons, much of the law, and our long, expensive elections exist to provide opportunities for jobs and profits, and are defended by those who depend on the jobs or profits. Our elections and our health insurance show how when the rules are determined by competition rather than a rational design, what evolves tends to be a complex and inefficient system whose main raison d'etre is that it employs many people and offers many opportunities for entrepreneurs to get a piece of the action.
As polls become more numerous and consume more of our attention, candidates will structure their policies, beliefs, and personalities about doing well at the polls. Doing well in the polls will be taken as evidence that the candidate has something that will get him or her elected. But this means that people intend to vote for a certain choice because they believe that more other people intend to do the same. A system that chooses its leaders on such a basis can hardly expect good results.
Much of what goes on in this country should be seen as inventing and preserving jobs programs. Weapons, military bases, health insurance, prisons, much of the law, and our long, expensive elections exist to provide opportunities for jobs and profits, and are defended by those who depend on the jobs or profits. Our elections and our health insurance show how when the rules are determined by competition rather than a rational design, what evolves tends to be a complex and inefficient system whose main raison d'etre is that it employs many people and offers many opportunities for entrepreneurs to get a piece of the action.
As polls become more numerous and consume more of our attention, candidates will structure their policies, beliefs, and personalities about doing well at the polls. Doing well in the polls will be taken as evidence that the candidate has something that will get him or her elected. But this means that people intend to vote for a certain choice because they believe that more other people intend to do the same. A system that chooses its leaders on such a basis can hardly expect good results.
6
Whatever you want to call the phenomenon – follow the leader, bandwagon fallacy, hearse effect, argument by consensus, self-fulfilling prophecy – polls can be harmful to our political health.
Polls falsely elevate candidates who do well in early polls, and they unfairly punish those who do not. Each poll influences the next poll, and the skewing of a political race worsens as time passes.
We have always known this, but in 2016 the overuse of polls and the reliance on polls have been much more noticeable, as Frank Bruni discusses.
Most journalists treat polls as real events, which they unfortunately have become.
Poll results are easy to access and require no digging, so they are perfect fodder for news reporters and commentators who are lazy. Building a story on poll numbers is cheap and fast. There is no need to go from state to state to observe campaigns and to interview citizens. Stories about poll results are friendly to strapped newsroom budgets.
In fairness, most hard-working journalists believe there is a responsibility to report the latest poll results, and there probably is such a duty. It would be helpful if publishing or airing a story about poll numbers was always accompanied by a caveat -- beyond mention of the standard deviation -- that most polling methodology is unreliable.
Polls falsely elevate candidates who do well in early polls, and they unfairly punish those who do not. Each poll influences the next poll, and the skewing of a political race worsens as time passes.
We have always known this, but in 2016 the overuse of polls and the reliance on polls have been much more noticeable, as Frank Bruni discusses.
Most journalists treat polls as real events, which they unfortunately have become.
Poll results are easy to access and require no digging, so they are perfect fodder for news reporters and commentators who are lazy. Building a story on poll numbers is cheap and fast. There is no need to go from state to state to observe campaigns and to interview citizens. Stories about poll results are friendly to strapped newsroom budgets.
In fairness, most hard-working journalists believe there is a responsibility to report the latest poll results, and there probably is such a duty. It would be helpful if publishing or airing a story about poll numbers was always accompanied by a caveat -- beyond mention of the standard deviation -- that most polling methodology is unreliable.
2
One problem that leads to poll addiction is the length of the race. It's nearly two years now from start to finish. We're eager for any clue as to who has taken the lead and who has fallen behind.
The solution? Boil the presidential race down to two months. The starting gate opens and candidates can announce. One month later, a national primary. One month later, a general election. Then it's over.
Polls still might be important, but I doubt it. People would be too busy campaigning to worry about polls. The two votes themselves would be the polls that count, and they would come soon enough to make any interim result unneeded and unheeded.
Works for me. Anybody else?
The solution? Boil the presidential race down to two months. The starting gate opens and candidates can announce. One month later, a national primary. One month later, a general election. Then it's over.
Polls still might be important, but I doubt it. People would be too busy campaigning to worry about polls. The two votes themselves would be the polls that count, and they would come soon enough to make any interim result unneeded and unheeded.
Works for me. Anybody else?
Laudable but unrealistic. Too much is at stake.
In days gone by, there were efforts to educate political reporters in the statistics and interpretation of polls. This is needed now more than ever. How representative are today's polls? Are they biased by excluding cellphones? What are polling trends and margins of error? What is the sampling size and is it statistically meaningful?
Journalists need to cover polling data with understanding and discernment.
Journalists need to cover polling data with understanding and discernment.
3
The polls aren't the problem. Faulty interpretation is. Are the polls of likely voters or potential voters? What are the trends? What are the margins of error? How many recent polls are being evaluated?
Journalists and pundits: get your act together.
Journalists and pundits: get your act together.
2
Don't blame the polls. The pollsters do what they do, occasionally well but for the most part badly, because you guys in the media pay for them. They help you fill column inches or air time so don't have to tax your intellects reporting or opining on anything more substantial than who's up, who's down, who's hot and who's not.
2
We get the political coverage we deserve.
For example, Bernie Saunders is a shill for the US firearms industry as is clear from a careful analysis of his voting record on gun control. But he's the darling of many of the most vocal and popular amongst the so-called liberal left intelligentsia on these forums because Saunders' appalling record on gun control is seen as less repulsive than Hillary Clinton's ties to Wall Street.
Careful analysis of fiscal policy also requires a grasp of economics and econometrics that is simply beyond the capabilities of 99.9% of the US electorate, and indeed of any electorate. Most humans are stupid, lazy and easily bored. Just what do you expect from us - profound intelligence leading to deep insight?
For example, Bernie Saunders is a shill for the US firearms industry as is clear from a careful analysis of his voting record on gun control. But he's the darling of many of the most vocal and popular amongst the so-called liberal left intelligentsia on these forums because Saunders' appalling record on gun control is seen as less repulsive than Hillary Clinton's ties to Wall Street.
Careful analysis of fiscal policy also requires a grasp of economics and econometrics that is simply beyond the capabilities of 99.9% of the US electorate, and indeed of any electorate. Most humans are stupid, lazy and easily bored. Just what do you expect from us - profound intelligence leading to deep insight?
5
Colenso,
Maybe you are attempting some kind of 2016 satire but a D- from the NRA seems rather indicative of someone not being a shill for the arms industry.
Should I be more diligent in making sure I put on my tin foil hat in the morning?
Maybe you are attempting some kind of 2016 satire but a D- from the NRA seems rather indicative of someone not being a shill for the arms industry.
Should I be more diligent in making sure I put on my tin foil hat in the morning?
1
So we're headed for shallow shoals
Because of addiction to polls?
There are polls good and bad
And the bad ones are sad
In elections that may try our souls.
But Nate Silver has great success
Avoiding the real bad polls mess,
It's not an affliction
To have an addiction
Just be selective nonetheless.
Because of addiction to polls?
There are polls good and bad
And the bad ones are sad
In elections that may try our souls.
But Nate Silver has great success
Avoiding the real bad polls mess,
It's not an affliction
To have an addiction
Just be selective nonetheless.
13
Mr. Bruni, everything you say is true, absolutely true. However, when polls were used to benefit Barack Obama, you had no problem with all these problems. The key factor here is the bandwagon effect; it is the most under reported important aspect of election dynamics. We know that if people think that their candidate is going to win they are more likely to vote and more likely to persuade their neighbors to vote for their guy. During 2012, Romney lost by only about 3 percentage points, and that was in the aftermath of the country rallying around the president during Superstorm Sandy. Romney lost the key state of Florida by less than a percentage point and Ohio by about 2 percent. The reason he lost was because Republican voters stayed home, in part because they believed their guy was going to lose, because that was media narrative. Every poll taken on the question showed that most Americans by a large margin believed that Obama would win.
8
Absolutely true, especially about Romney in 2012. Let's NOT forget that the evangelicals also stayed home, because to them a Mormon is not a "real Christian". The GOP made a serious error in not considering that; they thought casually that "any religious candidate will be good enough for the evangelicals". They were wrong. (Interestingly, Mormons are the one group detested by BOTH the left & the right.)
Considering that, plus the aftermath of Sandy....Romney did surprisingly well. Contrary to how most lefties spin it, Obama did NOT win a "massive landslide" and in fact, got fewer votes than he did in 2008 -- highly unusual for a sitting POTUS.
My observation after decades of voting: you cannot underestimate how badly people want to be aligned with "a winner". They hate being on the losing side, and feeling like they choose wrong, or are "losers" themselves. So they gravitate towards the candidate who seems popular and who "everyone says" will win. This is especially true of "swing voters" in swing states; they literally make up their minds in the voting booth.
Considering that, plus the aftermath of Sandy....Romney did surprisingly well. Contrary to how most lefties spin it, Obama did NOT win a "massive landslide" and in fact, got fewer votes than he did in 2008 -- highly unusual for a sitting POTUS.
My observation after decades of voting: you cannot underestimate how badly people want to be aligned with "a winner". They hate being on the losing side, and feeling like they choose wrong, or are "losers" themselves. So they gravitate towards the candidate who seems popular and who "everyone says" will win. This is especially true of "swing voters" in swing states; they literally make up their minds in the voting booth.
There is plenty of high quality polling out there. It's being done by Gallup and the usual suspects. Gallup results have always been among the cream of the crop, and that continues to be true. The problem is that the media want more polls more often on more subjects. And doing them the right way is too expensive, particularly for newspapers on tight margins. That results in quantity over quality. So now we know what Americans think about Hillary's nail polish based upon polls that are entirely unreliable.
12
Didn't Gallup just stop doing political polling atthe start of the year?
I'd check that flirtation with Gallup. They have been bad throughout history, not just in recent times.
Horse-races are exciting and news media have to attract eyeballs, so they make political campaigns into horse-races. Polls are used to show who's winning and who's losing. That they may be wrong doesn't matter to the news cycle.
We ought to be concerned about how polls affect the electoral process. Some campaigns use bogus polls to manipulate voters, but even legitimate polls have an impact that can easily be negative.
We ought to be concerned about how polls affect the electoral process. Some campaigns use bogus polls to manipulate voters, but even legitimate polls have an impact that can easily be negative.
9
The media's addiction to polls is inversely complemented by its allergic reaction to public policy.
One of journalism's basic responsibilities is to inform the public.
And yet, 35 years after the introduction of St. Reagan's trickle-down fraud, very few journalists have bothered to mention to politicians or to the public that there's zero evidence trickle-down economics works and that there's a mountain of evidence that it's a demonstrated lie and economic crime against American humanity.
After decades of systemic 0.1% campaign bribery, very few journalists bother to mention to Congress that our political process is an international disgrace and a 0.1% violent assault on the notion of one-man-one-vote.
When media polling substitutes for policy discussion, the end result is an uninformed citizenry answering questions in a high-wind tunnel of cultured ignorance.
To wit:
Public Policy Polling's poll two weeks ago of likely Republican Iowa caucus voters showed only 28% of those polled could correctly confirm that President Obama was born in America.
72% of those polled couldn't fully grasp the concept of President Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate.
http://goo.gl/vBiX5L
So essentially, thanks to some master propagandists who were treated with kid gloves instead of with the hammer of truth by the media, we have a citizenry that produces the same poll results as one would get in a mental institution.
Stop polling and start reporting, Bruni.
The national IQ has collapsed.
One of journalism's basic responsibilities is to inform the public.
And yet, 35 years after the introduction of St. Reagan's trickle-down fraud, very few journalists have bothered to mention to politicians or to the public that there's zero evidence trickle-down economics works and that there's a mountain of evidence that it's a demonstrated lie and economic crime against American humanity.
After decades of systemic 0.1% campaign bribery, very few journalists bother to mention to Congress that our political process is an international disgrace and a 0.1% violent assault on the notion of one-man-one-vote.
When media polling substitutes for policy discussion, the end result is an uninformed citizenry answering questions in a high-wind tunnel of cultured ignorance.
To wit:
Public Policy Polling's poll two weeks ago of likely Republican Iowa caucus voters showed only 28% of those polled could correctly confirm that President Obama was born in America.
72% of those polled couldn't fully grasp the concept of President Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate.
http://goo.gl/vBiX5L
So essentially, thanks to some master propagandists who were treated with kid gloves instead of with the hammer of truth by the media, we have a citizenry that produces the same poll results as one would get in a mental institution.
Stop polling and start reporting, Bruni.
The national IQ has collapsed.
260
Thanks for saying this! For years I have been complaining about the media's refusal to inform the public about basic facts of policies that deeply affect all our lives. Your example of trickle down economics (and magical cost free tax cuts) is a prime example of an epic media failure. Had journalists bothered to make sure the public understood what a fraud these claims are politicians on the right would not still be getting away with proposing massive tax cuts for the wealthy while claiming to be fiscally responsible.
I have been waiting to hear an objective analysis of the advisability and feasibility of reinstating Glass Steagall (there is a disagreement among serious people though not so much about the mistake of repealing it in the first place) and the effectiveness of Dodd Frank. I would also like to see an objective explanation for why Bernie has repeatedly advocated a "Medicare for all" program but wants that program administered by the states. That sounds cumbersome and risky to me, but I assume there is a good reason he has pushed for that?
That reminds me of another colossal media fail. Most people think that other advanced countries with cheaper, more effective health care all have single payer systems. The media has never made it clear that Germany, Switzerland, and quite a few others have systems which are a blend of a public option and private insurance policies - which is exactly what our Medicare system now has with the choice of Medicare Advantage policies.
I have been waiting to hear an objective analysis of the advisability and feasibility of reinstating Glass Steagall (there is a disagreement among serious people though not so much about the mistake of repealing it in the first place) and the effectiveness of Dodd Frank. I would also like to see an objective explanation for why Bernie has repeatedly advocated a "Medicare for all" program but wants that program administered by the states. That sounds cumbersome and risky to me, but I assume there is a good reason he has pushed for that?
That reminds me of another colossal media fail. Most people think that other advanced countries with cheaper, more effective health care all have single payer systems. The media has never made it clear that Germany, Switzerland, and quite a few others have systems which are a blend of a public option and private insurance policies - which is exactly what our Medicare system now has with the choice of Medicare Advantage policies.
3
You argue that polling is bad. You "prove" your point based on poll results. Do you read what your write?
Socrates,
I think you underestimate the intellect of the average American. I think people know their ballots have little or no meaning it is only large blocks of money that create law, whether it be Kochs, Adelsons, Planned Parenthood or the AARP.
Polls are their only opportunity to strike back against a system they know is rigged against them.
The pompous idiots who speak on our information media are in fact life following art and are the incarnation of Mary Tyler Moore's Ted Baxter.
If you want to know what will happen the next 12 months Davos was the place to be. The information media is simply theatre we are all Winston Smith.
I think you underestimate the intellect of the average American. I think people know their ballots have little or no meaning it is only large blocks of money that create law, whether it be Kochs, Adelsons, Planned Parenthood or the AARP.
Polls are their only opportunity to strike back against a system they know is rigged against them.
The pompous idiots who speak on our information media are in fact life following art and are the incarnation of Mary Tyler Moore's Ted Baxter.
If you want to know what will happen the next 12 months Davos was the place to be. The information media is simply theatre we are all Winston Smith.
3
bnyc - It ends with Dem SCOTUS appointees who reverse Citizens United and the McCutcheon Decision; but we better hurry, since GOP'ers obviously plan a Constitutional Convention before 2020, where 34 states with about 100 million residents will discard the inconvenient wisdom of Jefferson, Madison and Franklin:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/08/texas_governor_greg_ab...
in favor of an A.L.E.C./Chamber of Commerce/Koch Bros./Adelson wish list becoming the Law of the Land.
Massive Dem turnouts are needed, and financial backers for lawsuits forcing fair re-districting in red states, widely implementing SCOTUS's Dec. decision:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-upholds-creation-of-a...
We're in a race, with GOP'ers wanting such a Constitutional Convention before their gerrymandering can be un-done, and before the 2020 census can take effect.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/08/texas_governor_greg_ab...
in favor of an A.L.E.C./Chamber of Commerce/Koch Bros./Adelson wish list becoming the Law of the Land.
Massive Dem turnouts are needed, and financial backers for lawsuits forcing fair re-districting in red states, widely implementing SCOTUS's Dec. decision:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-upholds-creation-of-a...
We're in a race, with GOP'ers wanting such a Constitutional Convention before their gerrymandering can be un-done, and before the 2020 census can take effect.
45
SCOTUS decision was obviously in June; Catbert & Catbert are miserable at editing :)
3
Here's the funny thing about "Citizens United". This election cycle proves in a number of ways why SCOTUS will likely never revisit it. And at the end of the day neither party will push for it. The bottom has dropped out of the political money game. The problem was never really so much the money as it was media access and control of gatekeepers. Getting media attention and getting past the media gatekeepers are what cost all of the money in the past. But something happened in the past few years, and reached a head this cycle. Candidates found direct ways to reach constituencies. While at the same time the money didn't seem to actually have any effect on the outcome. Hillary, Trump, Sanders and Bush all reflect this. Look at how much money Bush has poured in to no measurable effect. Look at how much better funded Hillary is over Bernie, yet he still competes with her neck and neck. And Trump, arguably the richest man on the stage, has somehow managed to wage an effective campaign by not taking donations and yet not spending his own money either.
5
I wish people would read the constitution. If there was a constitutional convention, its product would have to be approved by 38 states to go into effect. It's just a way the states can propose amendments like the congress can.
A poll about the standing between two leading candidates may not tell us much.
However, it was valuable to know that all that money and all that presumption failed for Jeb! It was polls that told us nobody at all was buying what Jeb! and donors were selling. Same with Scott Walker, who for a moment was taken seriously, until polls laughed him out.
Polls have their place. We need to know that place.
However, it was valuable to know that all that money and all that presumption failed for Jeb! It was polls that told us nobody at all was buying what Jeb! and donors were selling. Same with Scott Walker, who for a moment was taken seriously, until polls laughed him out.
Polls have their place. We need to know that place.
34
I would like to see more serious academic studies done on the effect of polling on voter turnout. Grosser and Schram's experimental studies showed a possible increase in turnout from polling (and more recently Agranov et al. with a similar methodology), but their methodology is quite limited (such experiments use unrealistic voting over such things as colored balls). Salience, the perception of whether one's vote will effect policy, is surely effected by polling, and might go either way depending on circumstances. Polling probably affects not just how many potential voters turn out, but which voters turn out, which may be the main issue (the Agranov experiment concludes that poll results may increase landslides). More expensive and more difficult studies are needed to examine the actual effect on voting outcomes.
Polling might be more acceptable with mandatory voting laws, but its effect could still be insidious.
Polling might be more acceptable with mandatory voting laws, but its effect could still be insidious.
4
I love statistics. I know that makes me a geek, but I love statistics. Thank you for the sophisticated analysis.
Yesterday, Timothy Egan rued the fact that with all the electronic gizmos at our finger-tips our attention spans have devolved into eight, yes, eight seconds. He also adds that goldfish have longer attention spans!! Humiliated by a goldfish!! So I think, what seems like an insane Addiction to Polls is simply a necessity to compensate for our short attention spans. We look at the polls not more than eight seconds and before the brain can register, another poll is required to make some or any sense. The disparity of polls from moment to moment indicates very clearly the numbers are not right because it takes twice or thrice as much longer to make a telephone call. What do these pollsters do? Put citizens on robot calls over and over? The sheer logistics of polls conducted so frequently and being right is downright IMPOSSIBLE. Even if it is all computerized there has to be a human interaction. Or maybe, it is because of my computer illiteracy and my eight second attention span, I cannot get the hang of these polls, let alone drawing inferences.
3
About the margin of error:
The so-called "margin of sampling error" describes the uncertainty introduced in all random sampling, because the sample is much smaller than the population sampled. Thus the population of all coin-flips is 50% heads, but in a small random sample of coin-flips one often gets a result far from 50%.
The theory of sampling is good mathematics, and among its conclusions is that the margin of uncertainty, or sampling error, varies as the square root of the sample size. Thus in a sample of 100 the uncertainty works out to plus or minus about ten per cent; for 10,000, one per cent.
HOWEVER -- and this is a big "however" -- the theory assumes that the sample is truly random. It is meaningless to say that the margin of error is 4% if the poll is skewed in the direction of, say, people who log on to a website, people who don't have cellphones but do have landlines, or people who are willing to talk to people who call them on the telephone. Correcting the sample one actually gets so that it resembles the whole population demographically may increase accuracy. But since the whole point of sampling is to answer questions when we do not know the results for the whole population, it's meaningless to publish a margin of error and treat it as though the true results must lie within the range it describes.
The so-called "margin of sampling error" describes the uncertainty introduced in all random sampling, because the sample is much smaller than the population sampled. Thus the population of all coin-flips is 50% heads, but in a small random sample of coin-flips one often gets a result far from 50%.
The theory of sampling is good mathematics, and among its conclusions is that the margin of uncertainty, or sampling error, varies as the square root of the sample size. Thus in a sample of 100 the uncertainty works out to plus or minus about ten per cent; for 10,000, one per cent.
HOWEVER -- and this is a big "however" -- the theory assumes that the sample is truly random. It is meaningless to say that the margin of error is 4% if the poll is skewed in the direction of, say, people who log on to a website, people who don't have cellphones but do have landlines, or people who are willing to talk to people who call them on the telephone. Correcting the sample one actually gets so that it resembles the whole population demographically may increase accuracy. But since the whole point of sampling is to answer questions when we do not know the results for the whole population, it's meaningless to publish a margin of error and treat it as though the true results must lie within the range it describes.
30
Great stuff. The other big issue with modern polling is that it is never straight up polling. They always attempt to balance and skew results to reflect "expected reality". Case in point the infamous "Likely Voters". For most polling Likely Voters are measured as those who participated in the last 2 Presidential Elections. In years past this has been reasonably accurate. But it has trouble dealing with certain watershed events in politics. Case in point Barrack Obama. As the nations first black president he drew a far greater percentage of black Americans to the voting both than was the historical case. But without Barrack or a similar candidate on the ticket will those voters remain active? This showed up in 2 ways. In 2012 polling underestimated the black turnout as they did not have 2 Presidential election cycles to be considered likely. Hence polling for Romney was overestimated. However in 2014 and now for 2016 this large black population does have 2 presidential cycles so is counted as likely. But common sense says actual turnout will probably return to pre 2008 levels or some balance between. Hence polling for Dems is likely being overweighted substantially. And there really is no fix to the polling. Weighting for turnout is at best a guessing game,a nd its why you see 27 point swings.
4
The only poll that counts in politics is the election. All of the other polls are nothing but gossip. Whether polls have any effect on the election, either for the better or worse, is debatable. I suspect that much of our present political discord is related to the frequent polling and the electorates desire to be part of the 'in group'. However, with the vacillations of the polls, the electorate is confused and either doesn't vote or holds their nose and guesses.
I am afraid that civics is no longer well taught or part of our collective responsibility. Try to think before you vote, by all means, vote.
I am afraid that civics is no longer well taught or part of our collective responsibility. Try to think before you vote, by all means, vote.
9
In college decades ago I wrote a paper blasting campaign polling and recommended that everyone has a duty to refuse to answer political polls. I thought at the time that polling manipulates both voters and campaigners and undermines democracy. Political history since then has reinforced my view. The problem is not that polling is inaccurate. Better that it be believed to be inaccurate. Unfortunately, this will not be enough to keep politics and voters from being manipulated by poll results.
18
I sometimes question whether the hundreds of polls are somehow conducted of precisely the same 1000 people; and that as revenge for being forced to do nothing with their lives but submit to endless polling interviews on phones that they never put down they resolve to goof with us. Now, that’s a theory that could explain the observation that polls gave Bernie a 30-point swing favoring his nomination in New Hampshire last week.
But I do find this column entertaining: a pundit every bit as fascinated by polls lambasting our dependence on polls to drum up the perception that someone’s riding high or in trouble, causing journalists of all stripes to run to the candidates demanding explanations for why some poll says they’re riding high or in trouble. It’s more circular and co-dependent than the Military-Industrial-Complex. But, even this inconsistency falls to the need to find a column’s weekly grist.
What I hope for in terms of realties In Iowa and New Hampshire is that Hillary and Jeb! win. That might surprise Bernie and cause all Republicans to acknowledge that there remains hope, after all. But I’ll wait for the vote counts and ignore the polls.
But I do find this column entertaining: a pundit every bit as fascinated by polls lambasting our dependence on polls to drum up the perception that someone’s riding high or in trouble, causing journalists of all stripes to run to the candidates demanding explanations for why some poll says they’re riding high or in trouble. It’s more circular and co-dependent than the Military-Industrial-Complex. But, even this inconsistency falls to the need to find a column’s weekly grist.
What I hope for in terms of realties In Iowa and New Hampshire is that Hillary and Jeb! win. That might surprise Bernie and cause all Republicans to acknowledge that there remains hope, after all. But I’ll wait for the vote counts and ignore the polls.
3
Richard: If you think ?jeb can win Iowa and New Hampshire, then you may have inhaled too much exhaust fumes from your snowblower today.
6
So how about polling Americans to find out which polls they really trust? No, never mind: they'd probably assume you're referring to Polish politicians.
6
Or Polish sausage.
1
Polls don't write stories or columns.
Supposedly human hacks do.
Start there with the actual agents, and leave the polls alone.
And, buy a mirror, to steal from a recent commenter.
Supposedly human hacks do.
Start there with the actual agents, and leave the polls alone.
And, buy a mirror, to steal from a recent commenter.
23
Excellent column. I too am sick and tired of hearing about polls. Whenever I do, I keep thinking: are they polling the same people over and over, those who are lonely and actually pick up their phones? Or are they, to meet deadline, cheating and just adding a point or two to their last poll? How is the public to know, anyway? And does anyone BUT the media, and those of us here who are incensed at the nonstop coverage of a campaign that's already gone on way to long.
Just one year ago, Jeb! had yet to declare, although he was busy rounding up cash. As I recall, he didn't even declare till May, when embarrassed into it. And by July-August, he was toast, following the first presidential debate. And why were we having a presidential candidate debate more than a year out from the election? I'm beginning to think the vast-right-left-wing conspiracy consists of only media, desperate for filler.
I have never ever been called for a poll, at least, for the calls I actually pick up for. No caller ID reading Quinniapac College, Monmouth University, Gallup, or even my local city hall (just kidding). One time--yesiree, one time--I was called to ask if I were pro choice or prolife, and promptly hung up on. But a candidate poll? Never.
But I agree with your most important point, Frank: to think a candidate's fate can be determined by polls long before a primary--even if the polls are totally unreliable--should worry every US voter.
Just one year ago, Jeb! had yet to declare, although he was busy rounding up cash. As I recall, he didn't even declare till May, when embarrassed into it. And by July-August, he was toast, following the first presidential debate. And why were we having a presidential candidate debate more than a year out from the election? I'm beginning to think the vast-right-left-wing conspiracy consists of only media, desperate for filler.
I have never ever been called for a poll, at least, for the calls I actually pick up for. No caller ID reading Quinniapac College, Monmouth University, Gallup, or even my local city hall (just kidding). One time--yesiree, one time--I was called to ask if I were pro choice or prolife, and promptly hung up on. But a candidate poll? Never.
But I agree with your most important point, Frank: to think a candidate's fate can be determined by polls long before a primary--even if the polls are totally unreliable--should worry every US voter.
60
The few times I've been contacted for a pollster, I tell the caller if the company calls again, I'm complaining to the FCC and taking out a restraining order.
Me neither. Never called -- not once in over 40 years of voting -- not on a national election. Very rarely on some local property tax issue, but never a Presidential campaign.
And Christine: I live in a SWING STATE! and am over 50! and I have a LANDLINE (same one, for the past 36 years). If I never get a call, who the heck are they calling?
And Christine: I live in a SWING STATE! and am over 50! and I have a LANDLINE (same one, for the past 36 years). If I never get a call, who the heck are they calling?
I should think having the same people polled over and over is just as bad as having the same people's comments appear, at considerable length, for hours before anyone else's is allowed to.
1
Bruni nails it, but it's even worse. In theory, the most reliable polls are the exit polls on election day, the results of which circulate among the political class before the winners are formally announced. Presidential elections are a small data set, but even there the exit polls told the insiders that John Kerry won in 2004; the polls were wrong because nobody outside a handful of Republican operatives realized how strong Republican turnout would be in rural Ohio. But for competitive Senate races, there's a much more robust data set; over the past several decades, the divergence between exit poll findings and actual outcomes is massive. The reason is that lacking no alternative, exit polls have to assume that turnout in particular geographic areas or among particular ethnicities will follow the patterns of the last election; the premise is frequently wildly wrong.
7
Good point. As some others have noted: in 2008 and 2012, very eager and excited black voters not only voted in record numbers almost 100% for Obama, but there were millions of new registrations from people who had never even remotely bothered to vote. They were voting for the historic event of electing the First Black POTUS.
It did not indicate that they cared about politics otherwise, or were loyal to the Democratic Party, or cared about any issues. It only showed that they wanted to elect a black candidate. Well, now they have -- twice -- so whoever runs from here on out as a black candidate will never get that "edge" of being "the first".
Today, the Democratic Party -- curiously for a party based on diversity and race identity politics -- does not have one single black candidate....not one single candidate under 67....not one Hispanic or Asian....not even a gay candidate. But two old, white, rich folks from the Northeast. They didn't even bother with a Southerner (like BILL Clinton). That's how little they care about anything besides their Northeastern lefty cohort, and oh yeah -- old rich white people.
It is staggering to think the Democratic "bench" is this shallow and narrow. Really folks? NOT ONE Hispanic? Not ONE black or even mixed race candidate? There is not ONE Democratic hopeful, even a long shot, who is under 67?
It did not indicate that they cared about politics otherwise, or were loyal to the Democratic Party, or cared about any issues. It only showed that they wanted to elect a black candidate. Well, now they have -- twice -- so whoever runs from here on out as a black candidate will never get that "edge" of being "the first".
Today, the Democratic Party -- curiously for a party based on diversity and race identity politics -- does not have one single black candidate....not one single candidate under 67....not one Hispanic or Asian....not even a gay candidate. But two old, white, rich folks from the Northeast. They didn't even bother with a Southerner (like BILL Clinton). That's how little they care about anything besides their Northeastern lefty cohort, and oh yeah -- old rich white people.
It is staggering to think the Democratic "bench" is this shallow and narrow. Really folks? NOT ONE Hispanic? Not ONE black or even mixed race candidate? There is not ONE Democratic hopeful, even a long shot, who is under 67?
The most accurate poll in the 2012 Cycle - according to then NYT's Nate Silver- was the Investors Business Daily/TIPP Poll.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-be...
This time, they report Hillary's National Lead has almost vanished. Pretty good considering the media blackout of coverage of Bernie compared to Hillary or any Republican.
http://www.investors.com/politics/policy/hillaryclinton-lead-nearly-vani...
"The IBD/TIPP Poll shows that regionally, Clinton saw her support drop most in the Northeast (where it fell to 36% from 50%) and the West (37% down from 49%). Sanders now holds the lead in both places. Clinton support also tumbled among suburban voters, dropping to 39% from last a month’s 50%. And she has lost backing among moderate Democrats, falling to 44% from 58%. Sanders picked up 10 points among moderates, to 37%."
Uh-Oh, Hillary. It is looking like 2008 all over again.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-be...
This time, they report Hillary's National Lead has almost vanished. Pretty good considering the media blackout of coverage of Bernie compared to Hillary or any Republican.
http://www.investors.com/politics/policy/hillaryclinton-lead-nearly-vani...
"The IBD/TIPP Poll shows that regionally, Clinton saw her support drop most in the Northeast (where it fell to 36% from 50%) and the West (37% down from 49%). Sanders now holds the lead in both places. Clinton support also tumbled among suburban voters, dropping to 39% from last a month’s 50%. And she has lost backing among moderate Democrats, falling to 44% from 58%. Sanders picked up 10 points among moderates, to 37%."
Uh-Oh, Hillary. It is looking like 2008 all over again.
91
david - It's germane that Nate says as of Jan. 23 that HRC has an 84% chance to win the Iowa caucuses, will win South Carolina, and Nevada, will prob'ly lose NH to Vermonter Sanders:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-...
We trust Nate's forecasts :)
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-...
We trust Nate's forecasts :)
1
david - Nate Silver says IBD/TIPP " have no idea what they're doing; literally ":
http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-fox-business-debate-ibd-poll-2015-11
and Silver has not been relying on their numbers to produce any forecasts.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-fox-business-debate-ibd-poll-2015-11
and Silver has not been relying on their numbers to produce any forecasts.
2
He also wrote at the link I provided that they had the most accurate polling of the 2012 cycle. Take a look.
Watch the turn out in Iowa and New Hampshire. The bigger the turn out the bigger a problem Hillary has. Voters under 45 break 2:1 in favor of Bernie over Hillary. She takes the geezer vote, but leaves younger voters cold.
Watch the turn out in Iowa and New Hampshire. The bigger the turn out the bigger a problem Hillary has. Voters under 45 break 2:1 in favor of Bernie over Hillary. She takes the geezer vote, but leaves younger voters cold.
1
The Times, then, own Nate Silver in 2012 called that election with nearly 100% clarity, both the electoral vote and the Senate Races.
Too bad for the Times and we the readers/voters that the only effective one was allowed to slip away.
Too bad for the Times and we the readers/voters that the only effective one was allowed to slip away.
34
craig - To your point, Nate says HRC has 84% chance to take Iowa caucuses:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-...
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-...
3
“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.”
There is another reason to choose the "Hillary is in free fall meme." It is consistent with the real story about Hillary Clinton, the real story about which the press is largely silent, filling the space instead with lame stories about polls, process and Trump.
The State Department announced yesterday it is blocking the release of Clinton's most damaging SAP emails until after the first primaries. How convenient.
And the NYT is silent. There used to be a columnist named William Safire…
BLIZZARD OF LIES
"Blizzard of Lies" by New York Times' Safire
Called Hillary Clinton "a congenital liar."
The blizzard of lies by the Department of State
Block crook Hillary Clinton's inevitable fate.
With her SAPiest emails yet to dump
State's plowing her past the primary hump
Claims the DC blizzard prevents unloading her SAP
Before Iowa, New Hampshire, and SC wrap.
State is hiding Hillary Clinton's email SAP
Unaware its scheme is a RICO trap.
Out of the frying pan it will go and into the fire
The State Department, with the congenital liar.
There is another reason to choose the "Hillary is in free fall meme." It is consistent with the real story about Hillary Clinton, the real story about which the press is largely silent, filling the space instead with lame stories about polls, process and Trump.
The State Department announced yesterday it is blocking the release of Clinton's most damaging SAP emails until after the first primaries. How convenient.
And the NYT is silent. There used to be a columnist named William Safire…
BLIZZARD OF LIES
"Blizzard of Lies" by New York Times' Safire
Called Hillary Clinton "a congenital liar."
The blizzard of lies by the Department of State
Block crook Hillary Clinton's inevitable fate.
With her SAPiest emails yet to dump
State's plowing her past the primary hump
Claims the DC blizzard prevents unloading her SAP
Before Iowa, New Hampshire, and SC wrap.
State is hiding Hillary Clinton's email SAP
Unaware its scheme is a RICO trap.
Out of the frying pan it will go and into the fire
The State Department, with the congenital liar.
23
Speaking of congenital liars, Safire was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon before embarking on his Times career, so yes, the late columnist had experience with congenital liars.
9
If a paper like the Times (and by implication other media) are covering this up, how can this account for her numbers being in free fall? The fact is, the vast majority of Americans are paying no attention to this.
Thx for segue, Kevin.
Clinton vs Nixon. Her obstruction vs. his literally took Woodward's breath away.
Her admitted-to felonies:
Stealing 60k+ email, deleting 30k+ email, altering 30k emails, scrubbing server = 120,001+ counts of obstruction.
Maximum sentence:
20 yrs/count x 120,001 counts = 2,400,020 years.
Sounds about right.
KARMA:
America's forewarning about Hillary Clinton 41 yrs ago was, in retrospect, one of the high points of modern historical irony.
I am referring, of course, to the removal of Hillary Rodham, 27, from the Watergate committee investigating Nixon. She was let go when the investigation ended and was declined a recommendation by Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, for reasons of ethical deficiency that included habitual lying, attempted concealment of documents, and conspiring to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality. Zeifman recently stated his only regret is not having reported Ms. Rodham to the Bar.
Historical irony shocks us out of our complacencies, forces us to confront our fears, makes us remember our obligations, reminds us who we are.
But an awareness of historical irony requires critical thinking, honest reflection, virtually nonexistent today in this era of disinformation and reflexive response: 140 characters, max.
If we are to repair a country weakened by dangerously unfit leaders, we must, all of us, recognize that ironic warning 41 yrs. ago and heed it.
Clinton vs Nixon. Her obstruction vs. his literally took Woodward's breath away.
Her admitted-to felonies:
Stealing 60k+ email, deleting 30k+ email, altering 30k emails, scrubbing server = 120,001+ counts of obstruction.
Maximum sentence:
20 yrs/count x 120,001 counts = 2,400,020 years.
Sounds about right.
KARMA:
America's forewarning about Hillary Clinton 41 yrs ago was, in retrospect, one of the high points of modern historical irony.
I am referring, of course, to the removal of Hillary Rodham, 27, from the Watergate committee investigating Nixon. She was let go when the investigation ended and was declined a recommendation by Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, for reasons of ethical deficiency that included habitual lying, attempted concealment of documents, and conspiring to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality. Zeifman recently stated his only regret is not having reported Ms. Rodham to the Bar.
Historical irony shocks us out of our complacencies, forces us to confront our fears, makes us remember our obligations, reminds us who we are.
But an awareness of historical irony requires critical thinking, honest reflection, virtually nonexistent today in this era of disinformation and reflexive response: 140 characters, max.
If we are to repair a country weakened by dangerously unfit leaders, we must, all of us, recognize that ironic warning 41 yrs. ago and heed it.
1
I have refused to participate in political polls for many years. There is only one legitimate poll. It's the one on election day. It is the most accurate (even considering the voting process) and the only one with the power of law. People, consider the candidates, and vote for YOUR choice.
30
Whether it's politics or the stock market, the clairvoyant is the clear winner. No matter how inadvertent the call, getting it right, may augur significant fame and fortune or the palmist du jour.
Derivative action causes others, (nominees, money managers, etc) to jump on the band wagon and glean their share. Perhaps there is a new social disorder, "Swamism" in the making. But, I think it's just plain old capitalism at work.
Derivative action causes others, (nominees, money managers, etc) to jump on the band wagon and glean their share. Perhaps there is a new social disorder, "Swamism" in the making. But, I think it's just plain old capitalism at work.
4
Exactly!
The capitalistic SALES component is significant in playing the stock market, as every financial planner, it seems, knows how to beat every other one when picking stocks. The greater the gap in knowledge between any seller and buyer, the greater opportunity for risk, and even fraud.
Political polls employ statistics to give the appearance of having removed the fickle human behavioural component of elections into a clear SALES event. The reality, as you identify, is that there is a huge gap between what is thought to being bought and sold, and the result is very risky indeed.
The capitalistic SALES component is significant in playing the stock market, as every financial planner, it seems, knows how to beat every other one when picking stocks. The greater the gap in knowledge between any seller and buyer, the greater opportunity for risk, and even fraud.
Political polls employ statistics to give the appearance of having removed the fickle human behavioural component of elections into a clear SALES event. The reality, as you identify, is that there is a huge gap between what is thought to being bought and sold, and the result is very risky indeed.
2
Polls drive me crazy, especially the way the media ignores the margin of error. It is bad enough that polls are unreliable but poll results that are within the margin of error are absolutely statistically insignificant. If Bernie is "leading" Hillary 27 to 24 with a margin of error of +- 4 then Bernie could be at 23 or 31 and Hillary at 28 or 20 so this poll tells us nothing. But the media will insist on reporting these numbers as if they were statistically significant which is completely misleading and dishonest.
As a method of predicting the future polls are about as reliable as looking into a glass ball or throwing tea leaves and should be considered with an equal amount of skepticism.
As a method of predicting the future polls are about as reliable as looking into a glass ball or throwing tea leaves and should be considered with an equal amount of skepticism.
100
The only poll that counts is on election day. It just aggravated me that the media anoint someone a front runner before a single vote is cast.
I think "Front Runner" Hillary Clinton as a term is about to go into mothballs after Iowa and New Hampshire. The bigger the turnout on election daytime worse it will be for Hillary and she knows it. Older voters skew to her, younger voters skew heavily to Bernie. Watch the turn out number on each election day.
I think "Front Runner" Hillary Clinton as a term is about to go into mothballs after Iowa and New Hampshire. The bigger the turnout on election daytime worse it will be for Hillary and she knows it. Older voters skew to her, younger voters skew heavily to Bernie. Watch the turn out number on each election day.
41
About the margin of error:
The so-called "margin of sampling error" describes the uncertainty introduced in all random sampling, because the sample is much smaller than the population sampled. Thus the population of all coin-flips is 50% heads, but in a small random sample of coin-flips one often gets a result far from 50%.
The theory of sampling is good mathematics, and among its conclusions is that the margin of uncertainty, or sampling error, varies as the square root of the sample size. Thus in a sample of 100 the uncertainty works out to plus or minus about ten per cent; for 10,000, one per cent.
HOWEVER -- and this is a big "however" -- the theory assumes that the sample is truly random. It is meaningless to say that the margin of error is 4% if the poll is skewed in the direction of, say, people who log on to a website, people who don't have cellphones but do have landlines, or people who are willing to talk to people who call them on the telephone. Correcting the sample one actually gets so that it resembles the whole population demographically may increase accuracy. But since the whole point of sampling is to answer questions when we do not know the results for the whole population, it's meaningless to publish a margin of error and treat it as though the true results must lie within the range it describes.
The so-called "margin of sampling error" describes the uncertainty introduced in all random sampling, because the sample is much smaller than the population sampled. Thus the population of all coin-flips is 50% heads, but in a small random sample of coin-flips one often gets a result far from 50%.
The theory of sampling is good mathematics, and among its conclusions is that the margin of uncertainty, or sampling error, varies as the square root of the sample size. Thus in a sample of 100 the uncertainty works out to plus or minus about ten per cent; for 10,000, one per cent.
HOWEVER -- and this is a big "however" -- the theory assumes that the sample is truly random. It is meaningless to say that the margin of error is 4% if the poll is skewed in the direction of, say, people who log on to a website, people who don't have cellphones but do have landlines, or people who are willing to talk to people who call them on the telephone. Correcting the sample one actually gets so that it resembles the whole population demographically may increase accuracy. But since the whole point of sampling is to answer questions when we do not know the results for the whole population, it's meaningless to publish a margin of error and treat it as though the true results must lie within the range it describes.
4
Such a poll tells us that the race is within the margin of error: too close to call.
1
Frank, I'll be quick. It's not polling, it's Citizens United. The Roberts Court is the faucet and polling is the hose.
53
While I do not agree with the SCOTUS decision in Citizen's United, in fact, the biggest spender or the one with the deepest pockets is not always the winner.
Eric Cantor lost his seat in Congress, despite Koch millions for his campaign -- to an upstart, who spent $200K.
Jeb (!) has spent many millions of dollars to no effect at all. I suspect he will end up dead last.
Hillary has literally the biggest war chest in HISTORY -- 2.5 BILLION dollars -- and she is barely able to stay neck & neck with a 75 year old Socialist from Vermont. I suspect in Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary is set to lose. The race is her to lose anyways -- that's the price of being a front runner for as long as she has been....it gives the voters WAYYY too much time to get sick and tired of you, or pick to death anything you may have done wrong in your past.
Eric Cantor lost his seat in Congress, despite Koch millions for his campaign -- to an upstart, who spent $200K.
Jeb (!) has spent many millions of dollars to no effect at all. I suspect he will end up dead last.
Hillary has literally the biggest war chest in HISTORY -- 2.5 BILLION dollars -- and she is barely able to stay neck & neck with a 75 year old Socialist from Vermont. I suspect in Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary is set to lose. The race is her to lose anyways -- that's the price of being a front runner for as long as she has been....it gives the voters WAYYY too much time to get sick and tired of you, or pick to death anything you may have done wrong in your past.
You mention Ralph Reed without giving background? It seems to legitimize him, but he's the disgraced former head of the Christian Coalition, who in 2014 "Compares Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage to Fight Against Slavery."
126
The same Ralph Reed who worked hand in glove with Casino Jack Abramoff defrauding Indian tribes.
114
It's OK, though. Mr. Reed asked his god for forgiveness and it was granted. Rehabilitation happens remarkably quick in Christian circles.
8
Thanks, thought that was the same, err,(being polite here) individual.
3
Though Trump and his ilk caused many of our problems, there is indeed anger. Blaming Obama is like the hens blaming the fox when it gets in their coop. wrobertweller.blogspot.nl
1
In the last week I've received 3 "robo" phone calls asking for my opinion. "If the election were held today would you vote for ........? Press one for yes", and so on. I actually enjoy participating in a survey when it's with a real person. I have the opportunity to tell them how I really feel about a subject or person. (I participated in this last robo call to get them to stop calling) It seems as if, in politics as in other areas of life, we've reduced our personal interactions to the level of "press one for...." and human to human communication has been relegated to the dust bin of history.
12
One of the most disturbing aspects of our addiction to polls is the fact that they are used by TV networks or corporations to determine which candidates are eligible to participate in televised presidential debates. And these networks don't always follow their own rules. There must be a better way lest we become a poll-tocracy.
4
Let's please do more reporting on the candidates' positions -- including critical analysis of them. That's far more important than the typical poll results -- particularly 10 months out from the final election.
121
It seems that in this election cycle the polls have TOTALLY overshadowed reporting on the content of the candidates actual views on issues. It has been a case of the tail wagging the dog.
72
It's not the endless polls, it's the endless election cycle which makes all the polling possible.
It started with Jimmy Carter, the unknown Georgian, who discovered the unknown Iowa caucus. He spent months visiting virtually all of Iowa's 99 counties and shaking the hand of virtually every interested voter in the state.
You know the rest. He won and made Iowa famous for more than just corn.
It's had a distorting effect, especially for Republicans. The minority of Evangelicals and far-right wingers makes candidates tilt rightward and learn to love ethanol.
There is no other country on earth that starts talking about the next President the day after an inauguration and goes into full campaign mode for two years or more, spending billions in the process. How will we end this idiocy?
It started with Jimmy Carter, the unknown Georgian, who discovered the unknown Iowa caucus. He spent months visiting virtually all of Iowa's 99 counties and shaking the hand of virtually every interested voter in the state.
You know the rest. He won and made Iowa famous for more than just corn.
It's had a distorting effect, especially for Republicans. The minority of Evangelicals and far-right wingers makes candidates tilt rightward and learn to love ethanol.
There is no other country on earth that starts talking about the next President the day after an inauguration and goes into full campaign mode for two years or more, spending billions in the process. How will we end this idiocy?
183
Polls seem very unreliable to me. Just who is being polled? Is it the old people with landlines (of which I am one) or are they starting to bother people with cell phones also? We have caller id that shows up on our TV so we dont answer those - we get them from every state it seems and it sure gets old. Only 9 more days of non-stop commercials and those phone calls. Good luck to the next group of states.
3
Unlike land lines, cell phones have to dialed using technology that randomly dials because there's no central clearing database of cell phone users.
I am old, and I have a landline -- the same one, same number for the past 36 years. And I never get called. Never. Not for national political polls.
I have also read convincing articles that pollsters are extremely well aware of cellphone usage and how many households are "cell only" today. In fact, it was an issue as long as the 2004 elections, so they had a lot of time to deal with it.
BTW: the idea that "all young people have only cell phones" and "only old people have landlines" is very dated. All my senior relatives -- folks over 80 -- now have cell phones, and got rid of their landlines to save money. I'm really the lone holdout, and it's more stubbornness than age -- I do have a cell phone also. But it has had no effect on being called for polling purposed. (And folks, I live in a major SWING STATE.)
I have also read convincing articles that pollsters are extremely well aware of cellphone usage and how many households are "cell only" today. In fact, it was an issue as long as the 2004 elections, so they had a lot of time to deal with it.
BTW: the idea that "all young people have only cell phones" and "only old people have landlines" is very dated. All my senior relatives -- folks over 80 -- now have cell phones, and got rid of their landlines to save money. I'm really the lone holdout, and it's more stubbornness than age -- I do have a cell phone also. But it has had no effect on being called for polling purposed. (And folks, I live in a major SWING STATE.)
Trump's relationship with poll numbers is as fickle as the polls themselves. For months now, when things are favorable to him, he's "killing it in the polls;" when he's not on top, the source is biased against him, or is a dying paper, or some-such. The biggest danger is not that polls are inaccurate, or change over time, but that they become self-fulfilling prophecies and hype builds on itself. Not hearing daily about calls to Iowa and New Hampshire would take some steam out of Trump's campaign - and mouth.
1
This obsession fits very well into the other obsession ruling the day . . . Instant gratification. Nobody wants to wait for anything these days - we all are conditioned and deluded into believing we can have it "now!". Patience and waiting are for suckers and losers, and since those who fleece our pockets have tricked us all into really believing we're all to important to wait so we go out and buy their crap right this second - and more than we need - like we need there crap at all to begin with.
Our Insane Addiction to Polls . . . you've got the "Insane" part right, Frank.
Our Insane Addiction to Polls . . . you've got the "Insane" part right, Frank.
5
Among Republicans who think Trump is the answer, I’d be surprised if the pollees understood the pollers’ questions.
99
It is a key point how many voters haven't made up their minds, which is too often subsumed for a shock headline.
As well, there is increasing evidence that those being polled either change their minds, or lie to pollsters - perhaps trying to drive the news cycle ?
Shortly though, polls will be utterly obsolete, done in by their new unreliability, and as the real-time Twitter feed from various regions will be the more predictable indicator as to who's ahead when and where; there's prob'ly already a Beta app.
As well, there is increasing evidence that those being polled either change their minds, or lie to pollsters - perhaps trying to drive the news cycle ?
Shortly though, polls will be utterly obsolete, done in by their new unreliability, and as the real-time Twitter feed from various regions will be the more predictable indicator as to who's ahead when and where; there's prob'ly already a Beta app.
4
It's hard to cite one specific aspect of Trump's campaign I find the most nauseating, but Donald's obsession with the latest poll numbers ranks near the top.
8
Polls show Sanders ahead of Clinton in Iowa/New Hampshire and Bruni decides it is time to write a column about their unreliability. Coincidence? While polls are often incorrect, I read nothing about the subject when Clinton was 40 points ahead, other than pundits stating she was 40 points ahead, so Sanders could never win. Polls were used by pundits to justify not writing about Sanders or his policies.
What scares the mainstream pundits and press, along with Hillary, is the more people get to know Bernie, the more they like him. The media, including yourself, are doing their best to cover every aspect of politics, other than Sanders' policy proposals. Tump, Cruz, Rubio, crazy Republicans, anything but Sanders seems to be editorial policy.
Krugman wrote about Sanders last week--telling Sanders' followers they need to give up the "happy dream" (Krugman's phrase) of single payer for the reality of Obamacare for the rest of . . . Well he never did say how long, but my guess is until special interest money is out of politics, which if Krugman has his way, will never happen.
We don't need polls to understand that money buys influence. Most people understand most laws Congress passes enrich the rich.
Sanders is the only candidate financed by the people he intends to help with his proposals. And you don't need any stinking poll to reach that conclusion.
What scares the mainstream pundits and press, along with Hillary, is the more people get to know Bernie, the more they like him. The media, including yourself, are doing their best to cover every aspect of politics, other than Sanders' policy proposals. Tump, Cruz, Rubio, crazy Republicans, anything but Sanders seems to be editorial policy.
Krugman wrote about Sanders last week--telling Sanders' followers they need to give up the "happy dream" (Krugman's phrase) of single payer for the reality of Obamacare for the rest of . . . Well he never did say how long, but my guess is until special interest money is out of politics, which if Krugman has his way, will never happen.
We don't need polls to understand that money buys influence. Most people understand most laws Congress passes enrich the rich.
Sanders is the only candidate financed by the people he intends to help with his proposals. And you don't need any stinking poll to reach that conclusion.
236
When I've raised the issue of over-reliance in news coverage on polling, I've never gotten much agreement, as far as I can remember. So I was thrilled that someone (Frank Bruni) was finally taking a more critical look at their use, but it did sound to me a little bit too good to be true that someone with a platform had finally seen the light. Thanks for the points you've made.
6
I've read that the Selzer Iowa Poll is the gold standard for that state. In the last Selzer poll, which showed Clinton barely ahead of Sanders, it also found that 46% of all those planning to participate in the Iowa Democratic caucus were self-identified Socialists (yes, with a capital "S"). Is there anyone who believes that 46% of Iowa Democrats are self-proclaimed Socialists? The Selzer poll also said that a potential problem for Sanders (actually, potential problem for the poll!) was that his support was concentrated in three (Yes, three, as in 1, 2, 3) college towns. Now maybe these factors are truly consistent with a Sanders victory in the caucus. But, it would have been just a bit useful if some purveyor of the news might have actually followed up on these seemingly incongruous results and done some reporting, to find out what's going on, if anything. You know, reporting, talking to people-- as newspapers like the Times used to do. My gut feeling that it's cheaper for newspapers to report on polls than it is to do old fashioned shoe leather reporting. You know, report on people.
48
He's writing about it now because, with Iowa very close & N.H. right behind, the number of polls is accelerating. If he had written this when Clinton was scalping Sanders in the polls, you would have accused him of trying to undermine the Sanders campaign by using the column to trumpet the numbers.
Really, can we just bury this "media ignores Sanders/media has it in for Sanders/media is in the tank for Clinton" bleating from Sanders' supporters already? It's gotten tired.
Really, can we just bury this "media ignores Sanders/media has it in for Sanders/media is in the tank for Clinton" bleating from Sanders' supporters already? It's gotten tired.
1
Talking to political operatives about polls is not helpful; they excel at putting spin on spin. You need Nate Silver to put into perspective the methodologies, biases, and reliabilities of multiple polls.
7