Two Polls, Two Very Different Results

[XLFD]

One of the more important things I learned in school without realizing its importance at the time was the use of certain techniques in advertising products and services, which also doubled as techniques used in propaganda.  

Various sources offer a different number of techniques, from five general ways to thirteen more specific means, but the one method found in every list is the concept of the bandwagon appeal.  Advertisers and propaganda ministers know that it is human nature to not want to be the one left out. They know that if they convince you that everyone else is buying their product or using their service, you will want to ‘jump on the bandwagon’ too.

In politics this technique is used quite effectively in political ads, but it has also over the years crept into another sphere of the political field that deceptively distorts what everybody else is thinking at the time and has effectively made what has been a fair and neutral practice in the past into an untrustworthy metric of what people actually believe.  I refer to polling.

Fair, scientific polling tries to get the voice of the people chosen randomly by asking open-ended, unbiased questions without any prompting towards any particular answer.   If done properly and with enough of a sample size, you should be able to get a proper view of popular opinion.  

When you hear something is polling favorably when almost everybody you associate with feels differently about it, you might not trust that the poll was conducted scientifically and properly.  For example, if a far right and a far left media outlet conduct polls among their viewers for presidential candidates, one would expect the Republican would win the former, the Democrat the latter.  A truer result will happen if you get a sample that is close to the demographics of the populace.

So when a fairly neutral source like Business Insider runs an article titled:  "Despite high-profile protests, Michiganders overwhelmingly approve of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's handling of the coronavirus", I wonder what sort of poll might be getting that result.  

Reading further you find:  "A poll released Monday from the Detroit Regional Chamber and the Glengariff Group found that 57% of Michiganders approved of Whitmer's handling of the crisis compared to 37% who disapproved.  About 4 in 7 approved of her handling of the crisis?  She only won governorship with 53% of the vote, while her lackluster Republican opponent got 44%.

Conversely, if we examine a poll conducted on Twitter by WXYZ, a TV station operating out of Michigan's Democratic stronghold in Detroit, a TV station protested by the Tea Party back in 2009 for its liberal bias and not known for being habituated by conservatives in any number, held a poll at the same time asking a fair question and received over 73,000 votes from distinct people (likely more than the Glengariff Group poll sample):

This percentage falls more in line with my contacts, but as noted, the viewers of WXYZ are likely more inclined to vote Democrat, more likely to be viewed by Democrats and independents, so one would expect those numbers to be even lower in approval if all of rural and red Michigan knew of it.

How can one well-paid polling group, who goes out of their way to claim they are non-partisan in their less than two year existence, get over 57% approval rating for Whitmer's handling of the virus crisis, when another sizable poll gets about 1/4 of that number in approval?  Could it be that the pollsters were paid not as pollsters but as propaganda puppets to further Whitmer's political goals?

If the presidential election of 2016 taught anybody anything, it's that most polls are not accurate, and that many pollsters are more concerned with influencing public opinion rather than with the science of having an accurate poll.  The Glengariff Group poll, widely published,  is another example of the governor and her political allies using propaganda to save herself from the mob rallying against her.

[Willy]

Good topic X. I looked at the Business insider poll. The demographics used and results  make no sense what so ever. They must have polled people who are institutionalized for lacking gray matter and common sense. One statistic used is the perception of laid off workers.

 12% said the impact was catastrophic.

 35% said the impact was major.

Did the pollster explain that they were laid off by the Governor.

So how is it possible to have 47% of laid off workers consider this an extreme situation but the polling does not indicate that.  

Another fake poll like the fake news.     

[XLFD]

This Glengariff Group poll has no reason to have any high degree of accuracy, and if they do not find the desired result they simply adjust the results so that the client is happy and will hire them again when a smiley face is needed on the governor's latest executive order.  

It's the same as if Rush Limbaugh conducted a poll for his radio listeners on whether they support the Trump presidency or not, would you believe the results reflect the full population?  Would definitely get different numbers than if Rachel Maddow did the same on her show.  

[Freedom Seeker]

That sounds like Ludington's community polls. Also very much like the no-bid contract which Whitmer is under review for. Similarities.

[shinblind]

BREAKING NEWS.!!!!!!!

[XLFD]

According to CNN, Kim Jong Un is feeling better, so we still got der motherfuhrer.