Yet another in a long
line of emails from the Democratic presidential candidate's camp gives us an
inside look at political polling and how it has been corrupted. Polls,
even with their questionable accuracy, can be very persuasive voter motivator
during an election; some voters will choose not to vote because their candidate
looks like a shoe-in while others will choose not to vote because their
candidate is so far behind that they feel as though their vote won't matter.
In among the tens of
thousands of emails, there was a fascinating 37 page document from "The
Atlas Project" dated January 16, 2008, back when Hillary Clinton was
taking her first run at the Oval Office. Here is the title page from the
document:
In this document, the
authors provide us with a roadmap that could be used to skew polling numbers
for Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and
Wisconsin. Note that, according to Politico, Colorado, Iowa, New
Hampshire, Florida, Nevada and Ohio are considered the seven states which are
most likely to be contested in a general election (i.e. they are considered
swing states). In many cases, the outcome in these states will determine
the winner of a presidential election as was found during the 2000 contested
election which boiled down to the outcome in Florida.
In the email to which the Atlas study was
attached, there was the following comment from Tom Matzzie, a former director
of MoveOn, a left-leaning political action committee and policy advocate:
"Hey, when can we meet? I also want to get your Atlas
folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February.
By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of
recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling." (my
bold)
Note the use of the word
"oversample". By oversampling in particular regions or among
particular racial/ethnic groups, the final polling result can be impacted in a
desired direction (i.e. support for the Democrats and support for Hillary
Clinton in this case).
Now, let's look at some
details from the Atlas publication. Here is a screen capture showing the
recommendations for the state of Florida with pertinent passages highlighted:
Note the use of the word
"oversample". As well as oversampling, in Florida, pollsters
were to make certain that the sample was "...not too old and that it has
enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state".
Here is a screen capture
showing the recommendation for the state of Iowa, again, with the pertinent
passages highlighted:
Again, note the use of
the word "oversample".
Lastly, here are the
recommendations for the state of Arizona, a non-swing state:
Again, the authors of the
report recommend oversampling, however, in this case they recommend
oversampling of both Hispanics and Native Americans.
While this example of
poll skewing comes from the Democrat playbook, you can see how political
campaign teams can use various "under-the-table" methods to affect the results of pollsters. It
is these polling results that are picked up by the mainstream media, generally with very
little analysis, and are then broadcast to the voting public who quite often take them at face value. As I noted
above, this can have a significant impact on voters and voter turnout and can also impact one's
political opponents.
Apparently, all is fair
in American politics and the Podesta emails are giving us a fascinating glimpse of what lengths political campaigns are willing to go to to win.
While pondering the sorry state of politics in America as the presidential election draws ever nearer it occurred to me this contest may very well be decided in the last waning days of the process. Several reasons exist as to why voters may pivot at the last moment and even surprise themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom-line is that we should not be surprised if this election is decided it its final days because in our fast-paced world many voters seem to remember only what happened yesterday. More reasons this may go down to the wire in the article below.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2016/08/election-thoughts-and-sorry-sorry-state.html
Well-written piece, but your logic fails from the start in your basic misunderstanding of the term "oversampling". I certainly agree that surveys in general may be skewed in a number of ways, including how the very questions on the survey are constructed (garbage in = garbage out). Oversampling is a way to correct for a bias in the original data set, in other words to "balance" the data set so that the results are NOT skewed. I did not see anything in your highlighted report that indicated that oversampling was being contemplated to produce false polling results. In fact it is the opposite. If you survey 200 people at a boxing match where there are 100 men and 50 women, the data may be biased because your data results will skew towards the opinions of the men. An oversampling technique may correct for the inherent bias in the data set by counting the responses of the women twice, thereby balancing the two demographics. Oversampling may also help reduce the cost of a poll, as in Move-on.org's request to "maximize what [they] get out of [their] media polling." Polling is extremely expensive. MoveOn wants ACCURATE results for the least money, so oversampling techniques will allow for a smaller data set (cheaper) but one that will provide a more accurate and meaningful result.
ReplyDeleteWhile your points are valid and over- and under-sampling can be used to prevent bias, I think that if you read the lines in context, they seem to point to very, very specific types of oversampling (i.e. in Florida, they wanted to oversample in specific regions or with Independents and in Iowa, they wanted to oversample No Party registrants and "soft supporters of Democratic and Republican nominees". That sounds more like introducing bias than reducing bias to me.
DeleteThanks for taking the time to read my blog and make a comment.