There is an average of a 5.23% polling bias against Obama in the Democratic Primaries thus far.

[awaysidetraveler]

I’m looking for a clear-minded discussion here of the polling data and media bias as of yet. I’m sure Edwards supporters and Clinton supporters have their own opinions as to what’s going on in the polls, and I’d really appreciate it if you’d add any information that you can.

From what I’ve seen so far, there’s a significant polling bias against Obama, which is skewing the polling results.

In Iowa, the polls averaged a 7.9% skew in favor of Hillary. It was a skew that not only disfavored Obama, but also Edwards, who won over Clinton.

In New Hampshire, the polls showed a skew disfavoring Hillary by roughly 8% while showing some statistical accuracy about Obama’s support (an average of the polls put him at 38%, while the final results put him at 36% and within the margin of error). Here it looks as if at least 6% of Hillary’s support base came from Edwards voters or undecided voters.

There’s something else that’s unusual about the New Hampshire polls: the earlier polls show Hillary with a vast statistical advantage over Obama--as high as a 20% difference only two weeks prior to the elections. There can be no test of the validity of those polls. Why you ask? Things change in any election, and so the final polls are always the ones checked for validity.

In Nevada, it finally seems as if the pollsters have figured out the correct results. The skew is only slightly in favor of Hillary (4% by this graph), and one of the polls shows a 2% advantage for Obama. All of this is well within the margin of error, so it looks like these pollsters did good work. Notable is that the Zogby poll managed a perfect zero score.

Then in South Carolina we see an average of an astonishing 16.8% skew against Obama! Zogby–the pollster usually credited with favoring Obama–is off by 13% disfavoring Obama.

?

This is the data I've used to check this polling bias as of yet. Underneath you'll find a link to pollster's reportcard on pollsters.

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/02/04/2008-pollster-report-card-through-020408/

If we add up the democratic primary skew so far and average it, we end up with a 5.23% skew against Obama across the board. Obviously, some of the polls are more accurate than others, so the validity of this average to actual results is doubtful. This 5.23% skew could only act as an accurate predictor of the outcome of the race if the cause of this skew turned out to be pollster prejudice–of whatever kind–against Obama. Even then, there are wide variations from one pollster to the next, meaning that applying this average in reverse as an attempt to eliminate the bias would not work (it would not be enough in some cases, and it would be too much in others, depending on the bias).

What this exercise does show is the inaccuracy of the polls, which are biased against Obama.

Any thoughts? More information? Please check my results!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. Some might argue that polls that disfavor the candidate might help them

Particularly if they appear closer. It might motivate supporters of the candidate to get out and the undecideds to break for the challenger/underdog.

[awaysidetraveler]

2. So you agree that we have a problem of polling bias?

It seems pretty clear that Hillary's running start in the polls has done her no harm.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. There's definitely something going on.

When results are so out-of-sync with polls, especially when there were few undecideds, something is screwy.

[awaysidetraveler]

9. I agree. At least half of these polls are waving giant mathematical red flags at us.

What do you think the bias amounts to?

[ginnyinWI]

3. thanks!

I am a regular ABC watcher, so it's great to know that their polling is the most reliable. And good to know that Rasmussen isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[awaysidetraveler]

7. ABC is credited with doing the best job as of yet, however they don't do much polling.

So I'm not sure that I could call them the most reliable.

Let me put it like this: we only know that they're reliable when they make a prediction and it turns out to be accurate.

If their prediction (national polls, for instance) cannot be verified with a result, then their predictions cannot be said to be reliable.

They've made only one prediction in these primaries that we can check against results as of yet, and we need repeat performances
to be certain of how reliable they are.

[samdogmom]

5. My theory (no scientific basis to back it up)--it's young, first-time voters with cell phones.

He really appeals to this group--they are probably not getting polled.

[kirby]

6. Bingo... n/t

[awaysidetraveler]

8. Most of the pollsters have switched off of land lines, and I have major doubts about that reasoning.

The pollsters sometimes point out that cell phone users don't want to use up their minutes.
Still, many polls have worked around this dilemma, and they say it can only account to a
little over 1% of the margin of error. That's not a statistically meaningful deviation.

[samdogmom]

10. Perhaps. But if they weren't registered voters before now....esp.

in the states where you can register on the day you vote--don't you think that makes a difference?

I'm truly convinced that (while they say otherwise) the polling firms are truly not up-to-date on technology! (I'm 50+ and actually did market research for awhile. The present method of "polling" is very old school, given the large number of young, first time voters showing up at the polls.

Trust me, next election cycle, things will be very different.

P.S.--Do you know anyone who got an election survey call on their cell phone?

[awaysidetraveler]

11. I've also worked in market research for a while, and this bias is not benign.

This bias is minor in some cases, but it's huge in other cases.

The bias itself is way outside of the margin of error, and only a few pollsters succeeded in closing the gap.

My guess is that about half of these polls are not legitimate at all, and they amount to an attempt at propaganda.

Meanwhile, much of the media continues to use all these polls as if they were all legitimate, ignoring the margin of error and glossing over the improbability of the results. This bias discredits the media as well as the pollsters.

[samdogmom]

12. Thanks! I see your point!

Enough said from me!

[awaysidetraveler]

13. Here's how the vast conspiracy works, if there is one.

First, candidate A gets a go ahead from a variety of people with
a great deal of money. They're fed to the media, and some--not all
but around half--of the polls come out favoring candidate A.

The validity of those polls never come into question, and the findings
are reported through a small group of media sources.
The media sources aren't necessarily responsible for the poll that they
tell us about; somebody else does the work, and the media source just reports
the findings.

Validity only matters if the public hasn't actually bought candidate A.
It's unnerving for the pollsters, but there's an obvious back up plan:
do new, accurate polls at the last minute; or keep lying about the results,
and claim that it's some statistical anomaly--cell phones, independent voters
and general uncertainty--causing the anomaly.

Moreover, the supporters of candidates of a, b or c won't get upset about reliability
as long as their candidate wins. So as long as the polls show a general reliability
about who the winner is, no scrutiny of the polls will occur.
Meaning this: Hillary supporters don't question New Hampshire; Obama supporters don't question
South Carolina; and Edwards voters believe--rightly--that the media bias
is working against them.