I predict the three broadcast networks will call the election for Barack Obama at 9:00 am Eastern Time on November 4 and go to special reports on the incoming Obama Administration and reruns of Michelle Obama’s appearances on The View and the Food Network for the rest of the day. MSNBC and CNN will hold off until 5:00 pm to make the call, until at least half of the exit polls have been tabulated.
In 2004, you will recall, all the major media outlets suggested a John Kerry victory before the polls had closed on the east coast, partly because of highly skewed exit poll data. This time around I think they will be much more definitive.
A friend recently opined that “polls are not designed to reflect public opinion but rather to influence it.” What an astute observation.
This is the year the liberal intelligentsia have decided to pull out all the stops, to go all in. They are unabashedly using every means at their disposal to influence the election to ensure Barack Obama is elected president – and their means are formidable.
A frank column by Howard Kurtz today notes the phenomenon:
Barack Obama has a problem: He’s going to sweep so many Democrats into Congress that he will “face high expectations,” as the New York Times put it, to deliver on his promises.
Obama will attempt to fashion a “new New Deal,” most likely with Larry Summers as his Treasury secretary, New York magazine says.
“John McCain’s defeat will be a lonely one,” Newsweek reports, but Sarah Palin could revive the Republican Party for 2012.
So much for the formality of next week’s election. Many pundits and publications seem so certain of a big Democratic win that they’re exploring the intricacies of an Obama administration and whether the party will have a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate.
“If the mainstream media are wrong about Obama and the voters pull a Truman, that is going to be the end of whatever shred of credibility they have left,” says Tobe Berkovitz, associate dean of Boston University’s College of Communication.
A promising notion, that. (If you think it sufficiently inspiring, consider sending some money to these guys so they can run these ads.)
In addition to just flat ass lying, one of the means pollsters and media analysts use to further their desired outcome is to juice the sample and/or neglect to report the sample. Underlying data are not always easy to find. In the recent RCP Virginia reports, for example, only the VCU and SurveyUSA demographics are accessible without paying a fee. Both of those reveal samplings significantly higher in self-reported Democrats than Republicans, and thus a presumed runaway victory by Obama in this state.
Yes, it could be that Virginia is turning blue by a large margin. It is also possible, however, that the pollsters are calculating many more Democrats in the results on the assumption that Democrats have been wildly successful in voter registration, will have a stronger get out the vote effort on November 4, and Republican lack of enthusiasm will depress the GOP turnout. Lots of assumptions can underly the strong projected vote for Obama.
And there is the flat ass lying factor, as well.
We should have learned the lesson in 2004 when the mainstream media was proven so incredibly off base about the result in Ohio, and in 2000 when they declared Al Gore the victor in Florida before the polls had closed in the western panhandle: The media are prone to rig the game. They sponsor many of the polls. And most of the “independent” pollsters are in the tank for Barack Obama such that we have a classic “ends justify the means” scenario.
They will all do anything to get Barack Obama elected. Do not believe the polls.
UPDATE: ABC columnist “embarrassed to admit what I do for a living.”
UPDATE II: In Pennsylvania, Michael Barone discerns an ironic element in Obama’s appeal.
“The Polls Are Misleading And Bogus”
hmm
Guess we will find out soon, eh?
There are some many thoughts that come to mind when viewing this Obama ‘ad’ – actually it is more of a directive from his Highness:
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=206933&comments=1#comments
First thought, take the day off work because you are going to be losing your job anyways under Obama – why not start early?
Second thought, interesting that Obama thinks so little of what American’s do with their lives – can’t make history doing anything BUT helping BO on election day.
Cathymac, I enjoyed the closing portion–”parents, turn off the TV and spend time with your children”–quoted in the Post column.
This from the guy that the same column quotes as having over 150% MORE ads running on TV than McCain.
Anyone see Michele Obama’s slip of the tongue on Leno last night?
In addressing the “proud of country” issue, she had a long and moving account of the hardships her father endured to raise the family and the values he instilled, and wound up with a rousing statement that it is proof the country works, because “here I sit, about to be First Lady of the United States!”
She immediately laid rubber backing up with qualifiers to the effect that it only happens “if the voters choose”.
Sounds a lot like when Gore declared the debate on global warming “over”.
The Obama “brand” marketing strategy has declared the election over.
Suburbanite, she actually said “Here I sit, perhaps to become the next First Lady of the United States if the voters choose.” You left out “perhaps” and there was no pause before “if the voters choose.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szLefHwrwdI
When you guys lie, it just makes you look bad.
I guess I saw a different show last night, zim.
There are a larger number of bearing factors on this year’s results. I cover them at the blog.
What is going to be very important is the effect of the voter fraud. The range of that improper activity is going to ultimately influence the legitimate results.
As before when the media has used exit polls to shore up their reporting, those exit polls are not a concrete indicator this year…due in large part to the Bradley Effect. They’ll pull for McCain, and then report to the exit poll that they pulled for Obama. The two won’t jive.
http://thebulletproofmonk.blogspot.com/2008/10/hell-everybody-else-did-it.html
wow, gilmore is going to get trounced! i remember when ollie north nearly won a senate seat, virginia has changed. joe, they weight people that they sample differently, so if they oversample from heavily dem areas those responses will count less in estimating the percentages (and may increase the sampling error). they aren’t doing anyone a service if they are purprosely biased, they wouldn’t still be reported. i think several biases overestimate obama’s lead, but i don’t think it’s a conspiracy. also, if you look at rcp polls, they almost perfectly called the 04 election, calling ohio for bush.
How close was rcp?? Was it as close as 3/10th of a percent??
Nearly 14% of the Midwest likely voters are still undecided. This might sound off to those of us who made up our mind on day one…but these people live in the midwest….They are not super delegates. They’re normal people busy living life.
What else is weird is the Catholic Vote. They show 18% undecided…almost as if they’re all waiting to see who sticks his foot in his mouth over abortion.
And the final group in today’s IBD…. Independents. Undecided likely voters who consider themselves undecided Independents are at 17% in the polling.
Yessir, this thing is still in play.
they were really close, the only one it looks like they got wrong was wisconsin, which they had in bush’s favor, but actually went to kerry.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/RCP_Electoral_Count_Chart.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=11
But what was the margin of error? Was it in the immediate ballpark of .33 of one percent??
most of the polls are +/- 3%. whats up with a thrid of a percent? you can see from the map that those states that were within this margin of error were noted as “toss ups.” even so, they had all but one state right among those that were within the margin of error. that’s pretty good!