Do you think the "Hollywood media" skews the public polls for Obama?

[milhouse24]

There's a lot of consternation about inaccurate polls for the 2012 election. 

It is my belief, that because Obama has transcended politics into Pop Culture, and in essence made politics "cool" for the younger media-savvy generation, that Public Polls mistake "pop culture popularity" for "political/governing popularity."

The Hollywood media loves Obama and rarely criticizes him.  He is promoted as a Pop Culture icon among history making figures like Elvis and the Beatles.  He has a lot of adoring fans that support him and his social policies. 

This Hollywood echo chamber and appearances on ET and The View has increased his popularity amongst young, casual voters who are "soft, unreliable, and frontrunners."  They are in essence fairweather fans that only support the team when its winning.  They are not hardcore democratic activists. 

In essence, Obama has received a "Hollywood bump" in polls during his 4 years because Pollsters asked "soft, casual voters" if they supported Obama, and because of the media re-inforcement these casual voters became "hardcore Obama voters in the polls." 

Now that a viable and competent opponent has arrived on the scene and has gained national exposure and credibility, these frontrunning and fairweather swing voters are staying silent, because "politics is boring and for adults." 

Obama's campaign team has successfully managed and maintained a positive Hollywood media image.  But the more important task is the manage the Obama image with everyday people in the small single-traffic light midwest towns. 

[sg0508]

No. I think many people like the way he sounds and they can "connect" with him, especially middle class voters. Unfortunately, he came across as completely lost in debate #1 and for those where their pocketbooks are emptying fast, that may have been enough for them to abandon him.

[Cryptic]

No. I think many people like the way he sounds and they can "connect" with him, especially middle class voters. Unfortunately, he came across as completely lost in debate #1 and for those where their pocketbooks are emptying fast, that may have been enough for them to abandon him.

[The Vorlon]

In 2004 between the convention and the first debate, there were 42 national election polls, and George Bush led by an average of 6.1%, breaking the 50% barrier in 18 out of 41.

In a sample of 100 news stories by the national media, 68% of the time the race was referred to as "a toss up" or similar description.

In 2012, in the 86 national polls between the convention and the first debate, Obama lead by an average of 3.2%, and in a sample of 100 national news stories, 79 referred to Obama as leading.

It is easy to check this for yourself, go back to the 2004 poll archive on RealClearPolitics (or any other site) and verify for yourself.

The media reports what they want to see....  go ahead... check this out for yourself.... I dare you....

[sg0508]

In 2004 between the convention and the first debate, there were 42 national election polls, and George Bush led by an average of 6.1%, breaking the 50% barrier in 18 out of 41.

In a sample of 100 news stories by the national media, 68% of the time the race was referred to as "a toss up" or similar description.

In 2012, in the 86 national polls between the convention and the first debate, Obama lead by an average of 3.2%, and in a sample of 100 national news stories, 79 referred to Obama as leading.

It is easy to check this for yourself, go back to the 2004 poll archive on RealClearPolitics (or any other site) and verify for yourself.

And guess what? It was a tossup that came down to one or two states.  The national polls are useless. We vote by the electoral college if you remember and we all knew it was coming down to OH, FL, PA, etc, the same states we're battling over eight years later.

The media reports what they want to see....  go ahead... check this out for yourself.... I dare you....

[Link]

The media reports what they want to see....  go ahead... check this out for yourself.... I dare you....

This coming for a guy with a graph that shows unemployment over 9%.

Lol.

[Biden 2024]

Shut up, Milhouse. Do you think you're the ONLY person to think this? Do you really think this is original? Like always, shut up Milhouse!

[The Vorlon]

In 2004 between the convention and the first debate, there were 42 national election polls, and George Bush led by an average of 6.1%, breaking the 50% barrier in 18 out of 41.

In a sample of 100 news stories by the national media, 68% of the time the race was referred to as "a toss up" or similar description.

In 2012, in the 86 national polls between the convention and the first debate, Obama lead by an average of 3.2%, and in a sample of 100 national news stories, 79 referred to Obama as leading.

It is easy to check this for yourself, go back to the 2004 poll archive on RealClearPolitics (or any other site) and verify for yourself.

The media reports what they want to see....  go ahead... check this out for yourself.... I dare you....

And guess what? It was a tossup that came down to one or two states.  The national polls are useless. We vote by the electoral college if you remember and we all knew it was coming down to OH, FL, PA, etc, the same states we're battling over eight years later.

My point was not on the actual election, but on how the media reported it...

If Bush is leading by 6.1% is a "tossup", then how is a 3.2% lead "Obama leading".....?

It is very similar to the 2000 exit polls where states won by Bush and/or Gore by essentially identical margins would be called for Gore in minutes, while states won by Bush would often take hours, even though the actual margins and data were very similar....

Seriously, do think Florida getting called for Gore before the polls even closed in the Panhandle was an accident?

[The Vorlon]

The media reports what they want to see....  go ahead... check this out for yourself.... I dare you....

This coming for a guy with a graph that shows unemployment over 9%.

Lol.

It means I haven't updated the graph since early 2011.....

I will be sure to update it to show how the current unemployment is below 5.6%, just as predicted by Mr. Obama....

[milhouse24]

When I mean "Hollywood media" - I'm referring to People magazine and US Weekly.  The Celebrity Hollywood media that covers gossip and pop culture stuff. 

People read and see how great Obama is from People Magazine and from Celebrity supporters and TV Shows, that they believe Obama is invincible and epicly popular.  Its almost like a "2008 campaign movie" that keeps getting replayed and never ends. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I certainly wouldn't believe any polls commissioned by TMZ, if that's what you mean.

[dadge]

I don't see the point of the question. If the media puts a gloss on the president, which it probably does, that doesn't skew the polls, it skews the election. But I'm sure Obama* doesn't care that much why people vote for him, as long as they do.

*ditto Romney

[milhouse24]

I don't see the point of the question. If the media puts a gloss on the president, which it probably does, that doesn't skew the polls, it skews the election. But I'm sure Obama* doesn't care that much why people vote for him, as long as they do.

*ditto Romney

I can see your point.  But I believe that Obama has "soft voters" that "subconsciously lie to pollsters about their interest in politics and their enthusiastic committment to voting" 

Pollsters mistake these fairweather-frontrunning Obama voters as hardline, voting-in-the-rain voters.

That's why these polls are wrong, and so easily flipped to Romney.  Because the "front-running Hollywood gossip voters" tune out the pollsters when Obama fails at something. 

It is very telling that Obama campaign officials admit "that they negate 2-3% of all polls favoring Obama" - They wanted to sound confident, yet motivational to volunteers.  But I think the Campaign officials also knew that the reality of the polls was "a soft 2-3% bump for Obama"

[Stranger in a strange land]

I don't see the point of the question. If the media puts a gloss on the president, which it probably does, that doesn't skew the polls, it skews the election. But I'm sure Obama* doesn't care that much why people vote for him, as long as they do.

*ditto Romney

I can see your point.  But I believe that Obama has "soft voters" that "subconsciously lie to pollsters about their interest in politics and their enthusiastic committment to voting" 

Pollsters mistake these fairweather-frontrunning Obama voters as hardline, voting-in-the-rain voters.

That's why these polls are wrong, and so easily flipped to Romney.  Because the "front-running Hollywood gossip voters" tune out the pollsters when Obama fails at something. 

It is very telling that Obama campaign officials admit "that they negate 2-3% of all polls favoring Obama" - They wanted to sound confident, yet motivational to volunteers.  But I think the Campaign officials also knew that the reality of the polls was "a soft 2-3% bump for Obama"

These people are unlikely to have voted before, to show up to vote, to know where their polling place is, or even to be registered. Very few of them make it through the "likely voter" screen. They are, OTOH, a big part of the reason why Obama has such a commanding lead with "unlikely voters."

[Nym90]

The media reports what they want to see....  go ahead... check this out for yourself.... I dare you....

This coming for a guy with a graph that shows unemployment over 9%.

Lol.

It means I haven't updated the graph since early 2011.....

I will be sure to update it to show how the current unemployment is below 5.6%, just as predicted by Mr. Obama....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/11/paul-ryan/ryan-obama-promised-unemployment-would-not-exceed-/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 2004 between the convention and the first debate, there were 42 national election polls, and George Bush led by an average of 6.1%, breaking the 50% barrier in 18 out of 41.

In a sample of 100 news stories by the national media, 68% of the time the race was referred to as "a toss up" or similar description.

In 2012, in the 86 national polls between the convention and the first debate, Obama lead by an average of 3.2%, and in a sample of 100 national news stories, 79 referred to Obama as leading.

It is easy to check this for yourself, go back to the 2004 poll archive on RealClearPolitics (or any other site) and verify for yourself.

The media reports what they want to see....  go ahead... check this out for yourself.... I dare you....

Umm, these graphs do look different. Before Kerry got swift boated at the end of August, it was clearly a tossup race. And if the media was in the tank for Kerry, they wouldn't have played a part in his swift boating.

[Nym90]

In 2004 between the convention and the first debate, there were 42 national election polls, and George Bush led by an average of 6.1%, breaking the 50% barrier in 18 out of 41.

In a sample of 100 news stories by the national media, 68% of the time the race was referred to as "a toss up" or similar description.

In 2012, in the 86 national polls between the convention and the first debate, Obama lead by an average of 3.2%, and in a sample of 100 national news stories, 79 referred to Obama as leading.

It is easy to check this for yourself, go back to the 2004 poll archive on RealClearPolitics (or any other site) and verify for yourself.

The media reports what they want to see....  go ahead... check this out for yourself.... I dare you....

And guess what? It was a tossup that came down to one or two states.  The national polls are useless. We vote by the electoral college if you remember and we all knew it was coming down to OH, FL, PA, etc, the same states we're battling over eight years later.

My point was not on the actual election, but on how the media reported it...

If Bush is leading by 6.1% is a "tossup", then how is a 3.2% lead "Obama leading".....?

It is very similar to the 2000 exit polls where states won by Bush and/or Gore by essentially identical margins would be called for Gore in minutes, while states won by Bush would often take hours, even though the actual margins and data were very similar....

Seriously, do think Florida getting called for Gore before the polls even closed in the Panhandle was an accident?

No, it wasn't an accident at all. It was based on accepted procedures at the time for calling states. If you are saying that it was wrong to call a state before all of the polls have closed in that state, I would agree with you, and the networks changed the procedure which up to that time only required 75% of the polls to be closed in a state in order for it to be called.

The data in the states called for Bush and Gore was not "very similar". Does that mean that exit polls are flawed as a method of calling states? I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, though the overall track record of such calls is excellent, the multiple mistakes in Florida with it being called for both candidates before it should have been notwithstanding. I would point out that the mistaken call for Bush was far more damaging to Gore in the subsequent recount since it added to the public perception of Bush as the "rightful" winner of the election, given how many people went to bed on election night believing Bush to be the winner.

I would be interested in seeing a link to the study you mentioned. Did they take into consideration the timing of each of the stories throughout the time period listed, and the timing of the polls conducted during that time period? Simply looking at an average isn't necessarily a valid way to study the issue. Also, why only a "sample" of 100 stories? Why not study all stories? It's not as though it would be that difficult, using Google, to study more than a random sample of 100 stories (giving the study the benefit of the doubt and assuming the stories and their sources were chosen randomly).

In addition, "leading" and "tossup" are not necessarily mutually exclusive terms. I would be interested in seeing if the study controlled for this factor.

[BaldEagle1991]

No. Obama is the youngest President we've had in recent years, so he is more open to today's pop culture and today's ways of communicating (which is why you often see him on late-night shows and daytime talk as a sitting President). I know people who have were pollsters (one of them is my cousin) and they usually try to get rid of bias by having someone from both sides to check who was being polled and if any answers were discarded. If they were any flaws they'd have to restart and that takes a lot of money and time away.

[milhouse24]

I'm implying that there is a similar "Bradley effect" which was when "white guilt and racism" skewed polls because white people lied to pollsters about their commitment to an African American politician, when in reality they chose to vote for the white candidate. 

With Obama, there is still the fear of being labeled a "white racist" by publicly supporting Romney, so white people lie to pollsters.  These white people aren't actually "racists" but may be voting for Romney based on economic or other factors; but they don't want to publicly tell anyone their vote.  Along with the racism label, there is a lot of public peer pressure to support the sitting President and a "popular Hollywood-friendly and media-friendly president." 

No one is going to tell a pollster they aren't going to buy a movie ticket from a popular celebrity like "Tom Hanks" even if that person has no interest in seeing that movie.  They just know the "Hollywood media" and their "Liberal friends" are telling them they have to publicly support Obama, even though they privately support Romney. 

So in essence, some fake-Obama supporters are lying to pollsters because of "Pop Culture Pressure"

[BaldEagle1991]

I'm implying that there is a similar "Bradley effect" which was when "white guilt and racism" skewed polls because white people lied to pollsters about their commitment to an African American politician, when in reality they chose to vote for the white candidate. 

With Obama, there is still the fear of being labeled a "white racist" by publicly supporting Romney, so white people lie to pollsters.  These white people aren't actually "racists" but may be voting for Romney based on economic or other factors; but they don't want to publicly tell anyone their vote.  Along with the racism label, there is a lot of public peer pressure to support the sitting President and a "popular Hollywood-friendly and media-friendly president." 

No one is going to tell a pollster they aren't going to buy a movie ticket from a popular celebrity like "Tom Hanks" even if that person has no interest in seeing that movie.  They just know the "Hollywood media" and their "Liberal friends" are telling them they have to publicly support Obama, even though they privately support Romney. 

So in essence, some fake-Obama supporters are lying to pollsters because of "Pop Culture Pressure"

And how did all of this turned out in 2008?