A lot of us here have bitched and ranted about this, but I, myself, forgot to explain that there’s a reason this is done, and it’s not as nefarious as you would believe, kind of, wink, nod.
Voting trends used by polling companies for presidential elections are, for the most part, based upon the last presidential election, in this case, 2008. But by using the voter turnout data from 2008, which pollsters use, it assumes that everything has basically remained static, or unchanged, four years later.
In most elections this is usually true.
In 2008 though, Republican turnout declined by a little over 1% to 28.7% , while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6% from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3% in 2008.
All of the increase in dumocrat voters can be explained by Obama’s appeal to many blacks and young people who had never voted before, and bought into his hope and change B.S., and the many independents who voted Republican in 2000 and 2004, but switched in 2008 because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seemed unwinnable, and Obama promised he’d set a date to get us out, regardless of whether or not it was a good idea.
So, looking back at the election in 2008, and not taking into consideration the mess Obama and the dumocrats have caused our country since then, after promising to “fix” the mess, yes, the dumocrats should maybe be oversampled, but by about 3.5%, and even that is a stretch, considering the economy and unemployment rate.
But nowhere near 6-10%, which is what the polling companies usually do. By the way, most polls you hear or read about are paid for by left-leaning sources. Go figure…
Also, a lot of polling companies poll only registered votes, because it’s much cheaper than polling likely voters, but registered voters are always unreliable to actually show up and vote.
This why the reputable companies like Rasmussen Reports are much more reliable, because they only poll likely voters, because they’re much more likely and reliable to actually get off their asses and go out and vote.
