So, what are we to make of the vast discrepancies in national polls that allegedly depict public support of Hillary and Bernie? If we look at the relative support that each candidate has received at rallies and in social media Bernie seems to be winning the war hands down. As far back as the summer Bernie was drawing crowds of 19,000 in Portland, Oregon at the Moda Arena, and then he drew 27,500 in Los Angeles the next night at the Sports Arena. And just a couple of days prior he had about 15,000 in Seattle. When and where did Hillary draw crowds like this? The answer is nowhere.
Lest we think this is a West Coast phenomenon we just need to look at the recent success Bernie had in Iowa and the big turnout he got in winning New Hampshire. But Bernie has also enjoyed passionate support in the midwest and even in the supposedly very conservative South Carolina, countering the dominant MSM and HRC camp narrative that this state belongs to Hillary.
And in addition to the passionate and vocal crowds across the country Bernie is enjoying unprecedented support on Facebook, and may very well become the first President elected through the internet and specifically social media !
But despite these indisputable facts, most national polls show Hillary still leading Bernie, some by as many as 10% to 11%, such as this poll from the The Huffington Post. This begs the question, how is it possible that Hillary is leading by that much? My answer would be simple : it’s not!
So in this post I would like to do a couple of things; in addition to examining the general issue of political poll reliability, I’d like to look at a couple of specific instances of polling numbers for Hillary and Bernie that cause us to scratch our heads in amazement, and to some extent to question whether or not we are being lied to in a very serious way. For starters, The Huffington Post poll shown above would have us believe that Hillary is leading Bernie nationally by 50.2 % to 39.1%. We are told that “this chart combines the latest opinion polls” and that it is updated “whenever a new poll is released.”
Well, wait one minute. Does it combine ALL available polls? Is it updated when ANY new poll is released? The answer in both cases would seem to be an obvious “No.” In addition, the Huff Post does not even list the Margin of Error for their poll.
In contrast this Quinnipiac poll from Feb. 5th tells us that “In the Democratic race, nationwide, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has 44 %, with Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 42 % (.)” So, with one poll we have Sanders trailing Hillary by 11% and in another one he trails by only 2%, thus he is essentially tied. This is a big disparity. In the polling world 5% is considered to be a large margin of error, so finding an 11% difference in polls that are measuring the same thing is cause for concern. Another point of interest is that the Huff Post numbers have Hillary with a comfortable lead nationally, while the Quinnipiac poll states that “Sanders has the highest favorability rating among top candidates, while Trump is the lowest.” It is also of note that the Quinnipiac poll states that Sanders was better than Hillary against the GOP.
When we find great disparities in poll numbers there can be many reasons for it. Obviously sample size is very important, with the larger samples generally producing a lower margin of error and thus greater validity. But more importantly the general validity of political polls has been called into question by academia. As Harvard professor of history Jill Lepore tells us that "Where once social scientists avidly defended the polling industry, many have grown alarmed that the media-run-horse race polls may be undermining the public's perception of the usefulness of social science surveys." Further, Lepore quotes Arthur Lupia, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan, who states that the horse-race polls ought to have a warning label that reads “For entertainment purposes only.” Put another way, “good polls drive polls and bad polls drive polls, and when bad polls drive good polls they’re not so good anymore.” (Lenore)
With this in mind we should always question the source/sources of the political polls we are looking at. For example, The Huffington Post poll referenced above combines polls from companies such as Morning Consult, NBC, Ipsos/Reuters, Rasmussen and Quinnipiac. While Quinnipiac is an independent academic institution, the others listed here are not. Rasmussen is owned by Noson Lawen Partners, a private equity firm who primarily invests in media companies, book publishers, newspapers, database companies, and cable tv systems etc. Ipsos is a global market research company that in 2013 had over $2 million in revenue. Thomson Reuters is a major multinational mass media and information firm. Morning Consult describes itself as “a technology and media company at the intersection of policy, politics, business, and Wall Street.” And in the case of NBC, I would assume that most readers would know that there are owned by Comcast , the largest broadcasting and largest cable company in the world by revenue. So, one must ask the question, do these companies have an interest in promoting a particular political agenda over another? If so, would it be reasonable to assume that in the name of self-interest there might be more than a little bit of forced opinion, exclusion bias or other forms of internal control over eventual political polling results?
In his landmark book “The Media Monopoly” (later republished as “The New Media Monopoly”) author Ben Bagdikian describes “The Big Five” as huge multi-national corporations that control the majority of major media outlets. Of them he wrote
“No imperial ruler in past history had multiple media channels that included television and satellite channels that can permeate entire societies with controlled sights and sounds.” (Bagdikian, 2004). And later in the same book we read that “The Big Five have become major players in altering the politics of the country. They have been able to promote new laws that increase their corporate domination and that permit them to abolish regulations that inhibit their control. Their major accomplishment is the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In the process, power of media firms, along with all corporate power in general has diminished the place of individual citizens. In the history of the United States and in its Constitution, citizens are presumed to have the sole right to determine the shape of their democracy. But concentrated media power in news and commentary, together with corporate political contributions in general, have diminished the influence of voters over which issues, and candidates will be offered on Election Day.” (Bagdikian, pg. 10)
If it is not clear to people how this quote relates to the Bernie vs. Hillary debate, it should be.
Even though the contributors to the previously mentioned Huffpost poll may not belong to “The Big Five” most of them are part of the same economic system that controls and limits political discourse in this country. It therefore could be argued that the aforementioned Huffpost poll (and obviously many others) reflects a distinct corporate bias. It is believed by this writer that this bias is not neccessarily consciously and insidiously exercised, but as Chomsky has pointed out in “Manufacturing Consent” and other places, is the function of a system that has been created with certain parameters in which debate/discussion can occur. The types of individuals who are employed by large corporations such as NBC, or power pollsters such as Ipsos would be carefully chosen by the corporate gate-keepers primarily because they will be inclined to uphold the unspoken rules of the dominant socio-political culture of these firms. Thus, once constructed the system almost runs itself. There is no need (or only rarely the need) to exert, explicit verbal influence over the foot-soldiers who make decisions on a local level. Those working and acting within the system would be sabotaging their own careers, their own interests if they disregarded the unspoken rules of the system. Occasionally a courageous, rebellious soul manages to penetrate the establishment media and once within exercises influence through the relatively independent expression of an alternative agenda. Many here would probably agree that Rachel Maddow is such a person. But she and those other few like her would be the exception to the rule. Typically, those who wish to present information that falls outside the bounds of acceptable discourse are forced to the margins, though through consistent struggle they may succeed in reaching a good number of people (Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now”” could be considered such a person).
But as a whole the global media landscape is dominated by the agenda that is espoused by “The Big Five” (or those who would aspire to their place and position in the media landscape). This agenda might best be described using the terminology of Dr. Cornel West, who refers to “Free Market Fundamentalism,” or more specifically, the broader agenda would be the trio of “Free Market Fundamentalism,” “Aggressive Militarism”, and “Advancing Authoritarianism.” Not surprisingly, the neo-liberal record of Hillary falls in line with all three of these principles/pillars.
So, back to the polls : while the Margin of Error in the Quinnipiac poll is listed as being +/- 2.9 % which is good (generally speaking you need a Margin of Error less than 5% for the poll to be considered valid), the HuffPost poll does not list a Margin of Error. While this is not necessarily a sign of dishonesty, it is worth noting. Again, all of this begs the question, can polls in themselves be trusted as a reliable source of information? This writer believes the answer would be at best, a very cautious “maybe.”
It is peculiar that many in the progressive community are hyper-sensitive to spin and propaganda and even outright deceit within the various mainstream media tentacles of cable and network tv, but do not exercise the same kind of caution when it comes to printed material (magazines, books etc) or even online articles. There seems to be a kind of inherent trust in the written word that most of us are slaves to. I believe for most of us who are of the pre-millenial era/s that this has to do with our indoctrination/socialization and education in public schooling systems, in which textbooks and other written material were presented as being sacrosanct. Very few teachers either past or present have the audacity to instill in their students the kind of critical thinking skills that would question fundamental tenets of American history or accepted claims of our political system. After all, how many teachers will tell their grade school students that Christopher Columbus did not in fact discover America?
So, I am calling for us to exercise the same kind of discernment and judgment with the written word, and especially with online polls etc., that we generally do when we either passively or intently watch the nightly news on cable or local tv. Ask yourself, “Does this poll make sense?” And if it doesn’t don’t be afraid to say so. Just as the words of Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzer are not sacrosanct, the written word and reportedly scientific polls may also not be so.
We need to be vigilant and we need to be alert. After all, Wall Street, the 1% and their adherents will not simply roll over for us who are joining Bernie in this political revolution. We are going to have a fight on our hands. And those that wield the levers of power (particularly those who control global print and electronic media) represent the front lines of the establishment’s defenses.