As IF Times

Source: Trump wants to dump the Paris climate deal, but 71 percent of Americans support it, survey finds – The Washington Post

One of the unforeseen benefits of the last election is the enormous favor conferred upon people by the outing of most of the popular media outlets. The already stretched credibility of the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, among others, visibly snapped as their blatantly partisan reportage blew up in their faces like a prank cigar.

The great favor to which I refer is the time that will be saved by the public totally ignoring any articles with their bylines.  When you visit the most popular news aggregator, Google News, the majority of the linked articles are from the above mentioned sources. Once you bypass all of the detritus, spurious spin and manufactured hysteria concocted by these media outlets, taking in the day’s real news should only take 5 minutes.

Now that the initial shell shock of the loss by their favored candidate has subsided, their focus is now on the devastating effect that an incoming Voldemort administration will have on a naïve public.  Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The surprising shock (to them) of  electoral defeat is mainly attributed to favorable polls, which up until decision day, were convincingly pointing to a Clinton victory.  You can imagine the outraged customers of the pollsters demanding refunds as if they were at Macy’s on the day after Christmas.

Pollsters haven’t had a good time of it over the past while, with the failure to predict the Brexit vote another recent yuuge failure.  Legitimate sampling is an effective statistical analysis tool and properly employed is the basis for many decisions in all industries.  In the case of recent political polling, I suspect that samples were taken from homogenous groups which were likely skewed towards a given response.   I also suspect that the same people were tired of the same pollsters asking the same questions.  After the 10th time, none of your damn business would be the box ticked.

It’s amusing then that in the linked story, a survey of 2000 people, from Chicago, was offered as proof that Americans ‘favored’ the Paris climate deal even as Trump was skeptical of it.

Chicago.  To ask a question of that type to that pool of respondents is like asking frat boys on their opinion of bikinis vs burkas.  The article is essentially worthless.  But rather than having to read the entire story, people can make more efficient use of their time by noticing the source of the story, which in this case is, surprise, The Washington Post.  As noted earlier, they can simply ignore the story and go directly to the football scores.

link More than half of U.S. Latinos favor same-sex marriage: survey | Reuters.

Seems that everything is done by polls these days, especially when it comes to election time.  Everyone wants to slice off a bit of demographic to imply significance from some bit of esoterica.  The standard technique is to isolate some segment of society and then make conclusions about their preferences as it pertains to the larger group.   This kind of segmentation has a lot to do with the messages being conveyed by the various political groups who would pander to whomever is likely to give the most votes.

An Internet search fails to find even an estimate of the number of polling firms operating in the U.S., but we are all familiar with the big name ones: Gallup, Rasmussen, etc.  There are also the newspaper  related polls such as the New York Times, Washington Post and Reuters to name a few.  Suffice to say though, if you want an opinion about something, someone will provide it for a fee.

The ubiquity of polling has created a political environment in which factions are pitted against each other in order to secure votes, which of course encourages polling to measure the temperature of any identified demographic, which brings us into a vicious cycle.  If you are catering to left handed people, the right handed people get disenfranchised and resentment between the two factions will escalate.   When people bemoan the polarization of the political process, this is ground zero of the cause.   Instead of saying anything substantive, politicians will employ strategies to rope in the desired demo as articulated by poll results.

The particular sample in the link above purports to show the proclivities of 26 million people via a sample of 1760.  The conclusion is that more than half of U.S. Latinos favor same-sex marriage.  I don’t know about you, but I think that this is not only a leap of logic, it’s a 3 day train ride of logic based on a sample of 1760 Latinos.  I would treat this conclusion with as much skepticism as if a sample of college men in San Francisco implied that 60% of college guys everywhere harbored homo-erotic fantasies involving Brad Pitt.   Angelina maybe.  To imply that all persons of an ethnic slice are likely to hold homogeneous opinions is naive at best, racist at worst.  I’m not convinced that all Chinese, all Germans or all Italians can be pegged by a sample of 1760 of them.

The real danger here is that in today’s attention deficit society, nobody reads the body of the polls.  They read the headline and ka-bing, it’s now a fact.  This is reminiscent of the early days of television advertising when marketers could say pretty much anything they wanted.  It was not uncommon to hear that “4 out of 5 doctors preferred Parliament cigarettes” or that “4 out of 5 Dentists choose Crest”.  Bottom line is, polling is as much marketing as science.  My poll of 5 people confirms this.