In an article, “Did Bernie Sanders really just win the Hispanic vote in Nevada?”
The question should be, did Bernie Sanders really lose in Nevada at all? With a mixture of straight voting and caucus voting, it is a strange mix. Remember in a caucus, you can go in with intent to vote for your candidate and end up voting for another…do polls really allow for this type of voter uncertainty? Is it even fair to the voter?
So while those who own the toys that determine who is going to vote for who, and like Trump recently joked at a rally – they have polls that tell you how many males, females, blacks, whites, Hispanics, how many fat people, skinny people, are going to vote this way or that (he was making fun of course) It has gotten ridiculous. The last thing we need to do is sit and wonder why only 20 percent of the skinny people voted for someone and not the 30 percent that was expected.
I guess they are wanting everyone to believe their polls are correct and even if they poll 400 and the 400 may not tell the truth when polled it is supposed to be as good as the day they vote. Noting that according to those who conduct the polls – people can’t change their minds on the day they go to vote.
They did say one thing correctly – entrance polls are indeed imprecise tools.
“The company that conducts them, Edison Media Research, identifies precincts to question voters about their choices, and weights the results of those interviews against the final results. Cohn notes that they’re imprecise — but so does Joe Lenski, Edison’s president, as he did when we reached him by email over the weekend.”
So let the games begin. An article like the one linked above should raise red flags and more questions. What else can we expect from those who love to rely on data mining and polls?
Entrance polls and other such pundit math games are imprecise and no one can under estimate the human element which always has the choice to change their mind, even at the last minute.