This article raises a good point: Why are the pundits' opinions more "scientific" than online polls

[yodermon]

or focus groups?

Firstly, it’s important to point out that online polls, and to a lesser extent focus groups, are obviously not scientific. But it’s also important to point out that the echo chamber musings of establishment liberal pundits is far, far less scientific. It wasn’t that the online polls and focus groups had Sanders winning, it’s that they had him winning by a lot. And it wasn’t just that the pundit class has Clinton winning, it’s that they had her winning by a lot. This gap speaks to a larger gap we’ve seen since the beginning of the Sanders campaign.

http://www.alternet.org/media/bernie-won-all-focus-groups-online-polls-so-why-media-saying-hillary-won-debate

[HassleCat]

1. A good focus group is hard to beat

Assuming the selection process was done correctly, the focus group is a pretty accurate reflection of how things went. My understanding is the focus groups split between Clinton and Sanders, with no clear winner.

[HooptieWagon]

3. The focus groups went to Sanders.

All of them, even the one comprised of primarily Clinton supporters.

[Honeylies]

11. All the focus groups I saw declared Sanders the winner...

 

Do you have a link to one showing Hillary or no clear winner?

[Matariki]

17. Which focus groups were split as you say?

All the ones I've seen definitely went to Sanders, including ones where more than half the folks were Clinton supporters at the start of the debate

[BainsBane]

2. pundits opinions are not at all scientific

No more than online polls are. Both convey the opinions of those participating. That's it. They are not representative samples. Moreover, I would be very surprised if anyone actually called the pundit's assessments scientific. The comparison is between online polls and surveys done by professional polling outfits, whose record of accuracy can be examined in comparison to previous election results.

Professional pollsters follow scientific research models in selecting their samples. That is different from an online poll in which the same person can vote 200 times, where there is no effort to survey those who do not seek out that poll.

[mythology]

4. You can't claim that the online poll was more or less objective

The author clearly doesn't actually understand polling or the concept of objectivity. It's an embarrassingly uninformed article.

I get it. You really really want Sanders to win. But you can't make an argument about who won until scientific polls come out after the debate.

But because I'm stubborn about believing people can do better, here's why you can't claim the pundits are more or less objective than the polls. What was the makeup of the people who took the online poll? You don't know.

But look at this board and how desperate Sanders supporters are to say he won. It's not unreasonable to extrapolate that if people are willing to pretend science doesn't exist, they would be motivated to click a useless online poll.

[WillyT]

5. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Uncle Joe]

6. Pundits have an inherent conflict of interest in that they're paid by their

corporate media owners.

And the corporate media has a direct interest in policy positions of candidates, whether it be "Citizens United," tax policy or other interests that benefit their corporate conglomerate parents.

Thanks for the thread, yoderman.

[FlatBaroque]

7. i have grown to so despise

the punditocracy. Their sole purpose is to misinform. The Ryan Lizza's of the world can seriouly just FO and disappear.

[NorthCarolina]

8. Simple, because they are owned by the establishment.

American corporate media is nothing more than an establishment propaganda outlet that would make Pravda proud.

[JaneyVee]

9. Because people in Russia can vote in the same online polls.

[Marty McGraw]

15. And Iraq even...

[Binkie The Clown]

10. Any person who agrees with me is obviously using more scientific methods.

It follows, therefore, that anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong for any number of reasons which I will think up as I go along to justify my dismissal of their opinions.

[Lordquinton]

13. Good point

I don't think that any of us tried to pass off online polling as anything more than a quick glimpse of what people think. And it's interesting to see that the people claiming that Sanders supporters somehow cheated and stuffed the box, are quietly claiming that the Hillary supporters weren't trying to do the same thing.

We have to ignore the polls that reach the younger crowd, because they are "unscientific" but wait for the "scientific" polls that have the skewed sample recorded.

[Phlem]

12. K&R!!!!

I likes it when people ask questions!

[jtuck004]

14. Because they support preconceived opinions. Science 2015. n/t

[mhatrw]

16. Pundits are more reliable arbiters of opinion because their echo chamber CREATES opinion

among low information voters who do not want to take the take time or initiative to determine things for themselves.

At least that is the conventional model for a conventional political campaign. Muskie cried. Dean screamed. Their campaigns ended on the spot because the media told us so. Sanders called himself a "socialist." The media thinks that is all they have to keep saying. But his candidacy still will not die. And that's because this election is NOT politics as usual, and the corporate media CANNOT control the entire message.