Many Americans were shocked by the latest ABC/Washington Post goal seeking report (aka “poll”) that shows Hillary opening up a 12-point lead with likely voters after the latest debate last Wednesday. Ironically, this latest polling farce was “embargoed for release after 9 a.m.” EST which certainly made it a dominant topic of conversation on all the morning talk shows.
Of course, like many of the recent polls from the likes of Reuters, ABC and The Washington Post, something curious emerges when you look just beneath the surface of the headline 12-point lead.
As Zero Hedge pointed out numerous times in the past, in response to Reuters’ efforts to “tweak” their polls, per the The Pew Research Center, at least since 1992, democrats have never enjoyed a 9-point registration gap despite the folks at ABC and The Washington Post somehow convincing themselves it was a reasonable margin.
“METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats – Republicans – Independents.”
Meanwhile, with huge variances in preference across demographics one can easily see how simple it is to “rig” a poll by over indexing to one group vs. another. While the pollsters release the the split of the sample pool by political affiliation, they do not share the split by any of the following demographics which are just as important to determining the outcome of the poll.
Langer Research conducted the poll for ABC/Washington Post, so we thought we’d look into who some of the people listed as analysts on the Langer Research website. Here are a few of the analysts we found:
Julie E. Phelan, Lead Analyst. The Langer Research website mentions several awards Phelan has won for articles she wrote or co-authored. The article listed appear to all be related to women’s rights, more specifically about women in leadership roles. Hmmm…seems Julie has a passion for wanting to see more women in leadership roles in politics.
In Dec. 2015, Phelan was cited for her contribution to a paper that was an initiative for NDI, whose Chairman happens to be one of Hillary’s biggest cheerleaders, Madeline Albright. In that paper, titled “Tackling Violence Against Women“ Phelan and co-author Rudman wrote:
Research in psychology suggests that men and women may ‘punish’ women who behave counter-stereotypically by aspiring to leadership positions (Rudman and Phelan 2008)
Phelan also co-authored “Prejudice Toward Female Leaders” with Rudman.
As a reminder, Madeline Albright told women at a Hillary rally in February, 2016, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t vote for Hillary”
Chad P. Kiewiet de Jonge is a Senior Research Analyst for Langer Research. He graduated from Notre Dame with a PHD in 2013. His dissertation was on “Political Learning and Democratic Commitment in New Democracies.”
Donald Trump’s visit to the U.S.-Mexico border marks the extent to which negative views on immigration fuel his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination – and the limits they may impose.
About half of potential GOP voters in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll oppose a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants, and Trump wins support from 34 percent in this group, a remarkable tally in a 16-candidate race. Among those who favor providing legal status for undocumented immigrants, by contrast, Trump’s support drops sharply, to 13 percent.
Trump soundly defeated every one of his GOP primary race opponents, proving the ABC/Washington Post poll to be utter and complete nonsense.
Geoff Feinberg is a Senior Research Analyst for Langer Research Assoc. From 2012-2016, Feinberg was the research director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication at Yale University, where he oversaw numerous public opinion polls and experiments and lectured on survey methods.
Clinton and Sanders supporters are more likely to understand the scientific consensus on global warming.
A recent review study by Cook and colleagues found that all peer-reviewed studies about the extent of the scientific consensus about global warming have reached similar conclusions: between 90% and 100% of climate experts are convinced that human-caused climate change is happening. The most rigorous of these studies have found that 97% of climate scientists are convinced that human-caused climate change is happening.
Fewer than half of any candidate’s supporters are aware that such a consensus exists. However, supporters of the Democratic candidates are the most likely to think at least 90% of climate scientists are convinced:
- Bernie Sanders: 38%
- Hillary Clinton: 27%Far fewer supporters of the Republican candidates understand the scientific consensus:
- John Kasich: 11%
- Donald Trump: 3%
- Ted Cruz: 2%