Mad at polls? Blame ?the media

OK, let’s talk early polls in presidential elections. What exactly do they tell us?

They tell us what people are hearing, and sometimes that will matter. While nomination surveys can’t successfully predict what will happen in next year’s primaries and caucuses, let alone the general election next November, they can – interpreted carefully – say something about what’s happened so far.

While some voters will answer a pollster’s questions right now, most people aren’t focused on presidential elections this early. Even fairly attentive voters can’t tell a Marco Rubio from a Scott Walker or, for that matter, from a George Pataki. And they may even be a little confused about which Bush they’re being asked about.

So what are we hearing when voters claim to like one candidate and dislike another (say, Chris Christie, who polls poorly now)?

- Advertisement -

It’s going to be a mix of three things.

One is reaction to opinion leadership. Rush Limbaugh listeners, for example, will adopt Limbaugh’s opinion; liberals may adopt what they’ve heard Nancy Pelosi say.

Second, there’s a general echoing of what has been in the news lately and over time.

And third, some direct reaction from voters about the candidates is less affected by what they’ve been hearing from others, and might hint at how the larger electorate will react once it has more exposure to the candidate.

Alas, it’s impossible to untangle those three factors. And it’s likely that the only one with any real value-added – the third one measuring direct reaction – has the smallest influence, given that hardly anyone watches a lot of C-SPAN,

So, when you read polls saying what voters think, take it as a shorthand for what the media has said so far about a candidate. And while some political actors may take it far too seriously and may even make decisions based on that information, it otherwise isn’t predictive of anything. For that, we have to wait until voters get engaged – in the last few weeks before they are scheduled to vote. •

No posts to display

1 COMMENT

  1. Polls are really useless because they are based on how well each candidate handles “gptcha” questions, on each candidate’s public speaking abilities and on each candidate’s charisma. Polls should be based on each candidate’s achievements. Mitt Romney is the only potential candidate who has the lifetime achievements that prove that he would be a successful president. Romney has proved that he could:
    1. Work with democrats to achieve great goals. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney worked with the Democratic legislature to create the best education system in the United States and the best health care system in the United States (98% of MA residents had health care insurance.).
    2. Create thousands of jobs in the private sector.
    3. Successfully save the 2002 Winter Olympics that involved hundreds of nations, billions of dollars, and over 28 thousand employees & volunteers during a time of a great world crisis shortly after the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers.
    4. Get 47% of the popular vote in the 2012 presidential election.
    5. Correctly analyze foreign policy when he pointed out the Russia was the greatest threat to the United States during the 2012 election debates.
    6. Correctly analyze domestic policy by supporting increased domestic oil production and the Keystone pipeline.