Worst poll since the stick they put William Wallace’s head on.
Suffice it to say that we all need to be wary of polls. Any poll that doesn’t give the reader a direct link to how said poll was conducted… well, it’s probably as reputable as Calcutta street-food in the middle of July. You know, that one cart right next to the raw sewage treatment plant.
But really quick, here’s a few things you need to keep in mind when reading just the results of any given poll;
- What’s the voting status of those polled? From least to most accurate: Americans over the age of 18 (whoever answers the phone); registered voters; likely voters.
- How many were polled? Usually, anything under 1,000 is unreliable.
- What’s the MoE (Margin of Error)? Just me, but the MoE should be at zero. But pollsters add this so they can further manipulate the numbers. After all, if you ask 1,000 people if they want to see either Trump or Harris as president, you can only get three answers: Yes, no, or undecided/ none of your business. How can three sums NOT total to 1,000? But back to the original question – any poll with an MoE higher than 2 percent is worthless.
- Residence/Party affiliation of those polled. Was the poll conducted in an even spread of the nation and party, or just amongst Democrats of Manhattan’s Upper East End?
- Was any given demographic given a heavier or lighter weight than everyone else? Ex: Are the answers of a college educated single black Democrat woman with no children; aged 35-45; making over $150,000 per year, would she be weighed as say, 1.23? While a high school educated married white Republican man with three children still living at home; aged 35-45; household total income under $100,000, are his responses weighed as, say 0.77? Don’t laugh. This happens more often than you may realize.
Bloomberg News, CNN, the New York Times, BBC, MSNBC, Newsweek, the Washington Post, Time, The Guardian, ABC News, etc.
These are just a few that one needs to check the verity and legitimacy of any given poll.
But with all that said, Newsweek is reporting (via MSN.com) that Kamala Harris has a lead in six swing states over Pres. Trump.
Referencing a Bloomberg poll (with no direct link), here’re the specific numbers Newsweek is claiming (emphasis mine);
“Harris holds her largest lead in Nevada, where she is ahead by seven points, with 52 percent to Trump’s 45 percent. In Pennsylvania, she leads by five points, polling at 51 percent compared to Trump’s 46 percent.”
“Harris also leads by three points in Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin, while her smallest advantage is in North Carolina, where she is ahead by two points.”
Like I said, Newsweek offers no direct link to this specific poll. So, I went directly to Bloomberg News. To gain access, I had to go through a paywall. That’s not very transparent, isn’t it?
So, my question is this, just how reliable is Michael Bloomberg’s media empire? Well, not very.
As noted by ColoradoPolitics.com on 16 Sept, 2024 in regard to who and how much Bloomberg donates to political causes (emphasis mine);
“Last week, he gave Coloradans for Reproductive Choice $750,000, his first contribution in 2024.”
“But Bloomberg has been opening his wallet in Colorado for years. He has given more than $6 million to various Democratic candidates and causes in Colorado, most notably to gun safety organizations like Everytown.”
“At the federal level, Bloomberg has contributed over $377 million in the past decade, including $41.5 million this year. That includes $10,000 to the Colorado Democratic Party and $929,600 to the Harris campaign.”