When there is a lack of publicly presented MSM polling, generally it’s because the results within their polling is not fitting with the preferred narrative. Such is the case with the absence of polls from December 10th to January 8th.
With that in mind, and accepting that time was of the essence for GOP debate formatting for next week, it was certain that some form of MSM polling, from the major networks, was soon to surface. However, the batch of polls released today might fit for the purpose of MSM debate stage formatting, but beyond that – these are totally useless “agenda polls”.
The full polling results, and their accompanying pdf’s are below. After the data presentation we’ll show how and why the Fox polling can be completely disregarded. The agenda polling has an unintended consequence of being specifically adversarial for Marco Rubio supporters, and is transparently flawed.
Here’s the National Result:
Here’s the New Hampshire Result:
Here’s the Iowa Result:
While these might seem like favorable polls for Trump and/or Cruz, it doesn’t matter when the sample data is intentionally manipulated to produce a desired result.
When looking at any polling methodology two things are first reviewed. #1 The raw numerical data of the sub-sets (men, women – ages, races, etc.) how many are there; #2 and the Margin of Error (MOE) for each category.
Any polling sample that is possibly over/under stated, and therefore requires the polling result to be modified to fit the pollsters “assumptions”, carries a higher margin of error (MOE).
When the MOE is higher in a sub-set that should naturally be low, then the polling sample is generally flawed. It could be intentionally flawed or unintentionally flawed, ex. over/under sample, that depends on the integrity of the pollster.
♦ If you were to put a MOE to the number of humans polled. The polling sample would be 100%. It is only possible to poll humans and so the sub-set is 100%. Regardless of the number of respondents, the MOE is -0- % because the assumption is you can only poll humans.
♦ If you were to poll gender, there are only two possible sub-sets: Men or Women. If you poll 1000 respondents and get 510 women (51%) and 490 men (49%) you would have a perfect sample of the general population. [Which is 51/49 women/men] Again, your MOE would be -0-%
However, if you were polling for a historical assumption of voting: 53% women voting -vs- 47% male voting (which is traditional turnout) with the above data you would have a MOE of +/- 4%. Why, because you are polling 51% female and need 53% female for your assumption – that’s 2%; and the reverse is true for the male sample (polling sample 49, traditional turnout 47). 2% for each sample leads to a combined MOE of +/- 4%
Hopefully that *roughly* explains how it works.
So, with that in mind when you look at the Fox poll data what sticks out? First, the raw number within the sub-sets is hidden, they just don’t show it. That’s a big red flag.
Second, they only polled two age groups: Under 45-years-old, and Over 45-years-old. Only two possible variables, by their own standard, so the MOE should be small. EXCEPT IT’S NOT. The Margin of Error is a whopping 10% ! Whiskey*Tango*Foxtrot. That’s an even bigger red flag.
What that means is they over or under sampled young or old. If you look at the results, and you’ve followed historic polling patterns, you’ll immediately spot they UNDERSAMPLED young voters, those under 45. Who does that benefit? Ted Cruz.
Both Marco Rubio and Donald Trump benefit from higher support among young voters; and 10% is a big effen deal when spread amid only two possible variants (age groups). For example in Iowa that could mean Trump 33 Cruz 17. Or Rubio 25, Cruz 17 quite a difference, eh?
So Fox doesn’t show the raw numbers of who they polled, and they oversampled the older sub-segment (older than 45) people – giving them a whopping 10% margin of error on age. Two flags.
As a result of this basic polling flaw, the down stream results are also skewed. That’s why you see Chris Christie, Marco Rubio and then Donald Trump pulling in the non-Cruz vote (“if Cruz not in” question). Do you really think Cruz voters are the Christie/Rubio crowd? Think about the basic premise.
When the raw data is flawed, over/under sampled, all downstream data is also flawed.
Add the overall Fox agenda to promote Cruz over Trump in Iowa (remember them using the Monmouth poll 24/7 and dismissing/ignoring the larger sample size CNN poll in Iowa – same day)….. and then you add the overall Fox GOPe agenda to promote the GOPe goal:
…. Remove Trump and Cruz becomes Newt Gingrich, Carson becomes Herman Cain and Bush/Rubio take the role of Romney ’12…
Well you can see how that all adds up.
But wait, it gets better….
Additionally, when you combine those two brutally obvious polling red flags, with the two previously known agenda items, and then look at the results – you can’t forget to add in the previously announced main debate stage qualifications:
Top Six Nationally, and/or A Top Six position in Iowa, NH or SC.
Which means we get: Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Bush, Fiorina = Top Six (national) + Kasich (5th in NH) and Christie (6th in NH) and Paul (5th in Iowa).
We’re back to NINE candidates on the main stage…. A debate stage hosted by what network?
*Note* On December 6th the debate line-up was six; the same top six nationally were polling in the top six in each early state. In order to get these specific polling results putting all nine back on a singular debate stage the odds are approximately 450,000:1 +/-