Polling: How to tell which ones are propaganda and which are "real info"?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

I'm going to start with an assumption.

1. The private polling done for the political parties/campaigns has the goal of deriving the most accurate results possible. Because the campaigns want to have "true" information to properly base decisions on where to allocate resources--where to push harder, where to back off because it's a lost cause, what issues are causing them to win or lose with which voters.

Since the goal is accurate information, these organizations will be rewarded for accurately predicting outcomes consistently by more business from the various campaigns. Conversely, if their information is frequently wrong, whether or not the poll is favorable to their client, they will be punished by losing business. The campaigns need the best possible information on which to base their decisions.

The second assumption:

2. Many of the polling organizations we are hearing about are essentially propaganda organs for their various sponsors. Influencing the outcome, rather than simply reporting information and trends, is their stock in trade. Their job is to provide their sponsors with a poll that will hopefully influence the election in favor of the sponsor. They will be paid and rewarded not for accuracy, but for serving the propaganda function of skewing the election towards the sponsor.

Results showing the sponsor winning, whether true or not, serves the function of providing material for a media story of "sponsor winning" or "close race" instead of letting the story of "why is the sponsor losing" begin taking hold.

These type of organizations will not necessarily be rewarded for accurate polls (unless they show the sponsor in a good light). They will be rewarded for polling that consistently skews towards the sponsor, but maintains a balance of being close enough to the "true" results so that some facade of plausibility remains.

3. Presumably some of these "independent" polling organizations are truly interested in getting accurate results also, for the goal of setting the standard and getting the best reputation for accuracy, so that they will have more credence in future media coverage. Presumably such organizations will be rewarded for accurate polls by the media recognizing their accuracy versus their competitors. Conversely a consistently innacurate poll should get a "bad rep" in the media who should point out their inaccuracy when reporting their results.


Like so many things in life, a lot of figuring it out has to do with "following the money". How do the polls make their money? Who pays them, and what is their incentive to be accurate, or not, as it were?

Any good articles insights on this topic?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. Kick

[depakid]

2. Your 3 assumptions are correct

although beyond campaign internals, Im not certain which polls these days are accurate, because there are so many problems gathering good data. Just because something purports to be "scientific" or isn't driven by an agenda, doesn't make it valid. I think you have to look at them on a case by case basis.

[meisje]

3. Simple - If we are losing then ....

it's propaganda