I’m terribly sorry to break it to you, but straw polls mean nothing

By David McElroy · September 19, 2011

Ron Paul won 45 percent of the vote in a straw poll in California over the weekend, and his supporters are beside themselves with joy. What I can’t figure out is why such bright people are so fooled about something so meaningless.

There are three kinds of political polls. (Well, four, if you want to count election day voting.) Let’s talk about what they are and which ones matter, because many very bright people don’t understand which ones are potentially worth getting excited about.

The first of the three is the opinion poll with a statistically valid, randomly selected sample of the likely voting population — and this is the only one that matters. These are the polls done by the big polling organizations such as Gallup and Pew and various others done for major media outlets. These are expensive to conduct, but they tend to be very useful and reasonably accurate. The results can be skewed slightly one way or another by the wording of questions or by the selection of the random sample. Various pollsters make slightly different assumptions and calculations about who likely voters are going to be, but their results tend to be reasonably accurate — especially if you average all the polls.

For instance, take a look at these five recent polls as reported by Real Clear Politics. Ron Paul has results ranging from 5 percent to 12 percent. If you average the five numbers, though, you get 10.2 percent, which is right in line with what I suspect his true support is. You can do the same thing with the other candidates and get a pretty honest snapshot of where they stand with the voters right now. The further someone is in the lead, the more confident a pollster can be that his poll is accurate, because there’s more room for error.

Because I’ve had to deal with polls in my work over the last 20 years, I’m pretty familiar with the subject, so I could tell you way more than you want to know about it. I also studied statistical survey research methods in college, so it’s a subject that fascinates me.

Now, let’s move on to the straw poll. Typically, straw polls are held by political organizations having conventions of some sort, such as state parties. Pretty much anybody can vote in a straw poll, so there’s no validity at all to the results. If a campaign is organized, has rabid supporters and has the money to pull it off, it can bus in huge numbers of people to take part. But since the results have nothing to do with the sentiments of the larger voting population, the results don’t reflect reality in the least.

Here’s another dirty little secret of straw polls. The organizations having their conventions — the ones who are sponsoring the straw polls — love to foster the impression that the things matter, because they charge an entrance fee to everyone who comes to take part. It’s not going to make anybody rich, but if a campaign buses in 1,000 people just to vote, that’s $30,000 in “free money” for the organization at $30 a head — for doing pretty much nothing.

The only thing a straw poll shows is that a campaign can come up with a certain number of people to show up and that it can afford to pay the entrance fees for those people. (Who pays can vary.) It doesn’t have anything to do with reflecting reality of the voting public’s sentiments.

The last kind of “poll” doesn’t even deserve the name. It’s not really a poll. It’s just a marketing gimmick for websites, but pretty much every news organization does it in order to get people to keep clicking on its pages and driving up ad views. I’m speaking of the “online poll” about something such as who won a debate. Because it’s self-selecting — and it’s typically promoted heavily by supporters of online-savvy campaigns — its results mean less than nothing. But campaigns brag about it and the websites get to see their hit numbers go up.

We all know that libertarians are greatly overrepresented online. If the election were held among the most rabid online users, Paul would actually stand a chance, because his supporters tend to be younger and much more online-savvy than the supporters of the candidates who actually win elections. Because of this, Ron Paul is going to win pretty much all of these “online polls.” It doesn’t mean a thing, because it doesn’t reflect reality among the people who will actually go to the polls that really count.

So that’s the three types of polls. Please understand the difference and quit pretending that the ones that don’t represent reality mean anything. They don’t. You can win all the straw polls and “online polls” in the world, but if the makeup on the people voting in those isn’t similar to the makeup of the actual voting population, it tells you nothing.

If you support Ron Paul, please quit telling people that he is “ahead in the polls” or that he “wins the polls.” When it comes to actual, random opinion polls, he’s going to get somewhere around 10 percent. The only “polls” he wins are the ones that don’t make any difference and that don’t reflect reality.

If you want to talk people into supporting your candidate, go right ahead and try, but don’t point to meaningless things such as these and then whine that your candidate isn’t getting media attention. He’s not getting media attention because reporters know the same thing that I know — which is that Paul doesn’t have any support beyond our narrow slice of the public. That slice isn’t going to grow substantially.

I’m sorry to break this news about polls to you, but I can assure you it’s the truth.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts