Welcome back to The Decision 2024! In this special episode, Tom Ellsworth and Amy Dangerfield are joined by “The Resistance,” a panel of independent pollsters including Mark Mitchell from Rasmussen Reports, “The People’s Pundit” Rich Baris, and Lester Tellez from On Point Politics.
This episode is packed with in-depth analysis as they tackle the complexities of polling, discussing everything from the manipulation and suppression of data to spotting biased or spun results.
The panelists hold nothing back in this firey episode, calling out 538, Nate Silver, and other mainstream pollsters, shedding light on the real forces shaping public opinion. It’s a no-holds-barred breakdown of how modern polling works and what’s really going on behind the scenes.
Subscribe to Valuetainment for more Decision 2024 insights and insider info!
Key Takeaways:
- Polling Inconsistencies: The panel critiques how polling data is often skewed, with biases influencing both the collection and presentation of results. For instance, they argue that mainstream polls frequently favor Democratic candidates or fail to accurately capture voter sentiment due to improper sampling methods or data manipulation.
- Transparency and Bias: Rich Baris emphasizes that polling should be as transparent as food labeling, where all ingredients—such as how the poll is conducted—should be disclosed. He notes that the lack of transparency in polling can lead to misleading public perceptions, particularly when key data such as sampling dates or cross-tabs are omitted.
- Election Forecasting Models: Lester Telles, a student at the University of Central Florida, presents his findings based on models he created for the 2020 election. He argues that many pollsters are repeating past mistakes by ignoring critical data, which can lead to skewed results. He suggests that Donald Trump may hold a significant lead in certain states, contrary to what mainstream polls show.
- Media and Poll Suppression: The discussion also touches on the media’s role in shaping public opinion through selective polling. The panel mentions cases where poll results that favored Republican candidates, like Trump, were either delayed or downplayed. They criticize major polling organizations like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times for engaging in what they believe is biased polling, citing examples where pollsters were punished or sidelined for presenting results unfavorable to Democratic candidates.
- Critical Evaluation of Polls: The panel advises voters to scrutinize polls more closely, especially by examining survey dates, sample sizes, and demographic breakdowns. They point out that many polls released to the public are based on outdated data or use small sample sizes, leading to misleading conclusions. Furthermore, they caution against “statistical herding,” where multiple polls show similar results, not because of accuracy, but because pollsters adjust their methods to align with each other.
- Rising Bias in Polling: The episode discusses how pollsters who are seen as more accurate, like Rasmussen, face backlash and suppression from platforms like 538. According to the panel, this reflects a broader issue where certain polling companies are favored despite their lower accuracy, while more accurate pollsters are sidelined.
As the members of “the Resistance” suggest, Americans should remain skeptical of mainstream polling, particularly regarding Kamala Harris’s perceived popularity. Biases and manipulations are rampant in election forecasting and urge voters to look deeper into the data behind the headlines.
Add comment