It’s rather odd that CNN claims that their polls are “scientific”. They’ve made the assumption that other websites and online polling are hungry for traffic. CNN mentioned that they received 10 million television viewers for the Presidential Debate. However, they still fail to report that editors and reports help define the subjects of each poll.
Most polling is carried out by sponsored organizations and/or partnerships. In America, media polls have skyrocketed and reference to poll findings have ballooned. Even academic surveys are conducted by interest groups that cater to their expectations and overwhelming results that they’re willing to pay for. These types of payoff polls pedal their own polling organization in order for the media elites to show accountability of a particular candidate they prefer.
If the balance of power shifts against the networks or against their own popular sentiment, then they will ridicule and dismiss the public appeal towards a candidate as a random error. This type of banality of polls has become a consensus towards what the media elites believe is a statistical perspective of who should govern. How can CNN and their partners reduce their bias when their own patterns and media commentaries favor the Democratic Party?
CNN attempts to gauge the opinions of their viewers, sometimes significantly violating the established presets of the questionnaire given to the ones responding to the poll. CNN’s own response will be based on soliciting their own form of political influence and behavior towards the outcome. The polls’ results release a barrage of commanding reporters that networks need for the reinforcement and interpretation of their own self-fulfilling prophecy.
The prominent feature of reporting, especially with CNN, is to exploit the dominant developments and distort the true opinions measured by the voting public. It was interesting that CNN and their partners only took a few minutes with their polls in declaring Hillary Clinton the winner, a feature Trump couldn’t believe. How can it be “scientific” when the political metabolism of the general public operates on a different time-clock?
Perhaps Donald Trump wouldn’t have used exactly the same words because of CNN’s serious investments in “scientific” polling for the achievement of quick results. Mind you, CNN received top billing by showcasing and trumpeting their new poll as a significant victory for Hillary’s campaign.
Trump is cognizant of the fact that the media polls are competitive with shrinking news budgets. As a result, CNN may have polluted their scientific poll by not screening individuals properly, especially the ones who watched the debate wanting to end the night early to be ready for work the following morning.
Political elites can use their own cues and information to translate their own values for the support of a particular candidate. The problem with these particular cues is that American priorities frequently change. When you’re dealing with polls, you’re dealing with emotions rather than opinions. Media elites reaching a consensus with their preoccupation of Trump only gives way to a corrosive system of cynicism towards the voting public. The frenzy against Donald Trump as a perpetrator of evil indirectly activates political alienation and public distain towards the media.
The real problem with polls is that they establish a close relationship with the media. The relationship between the media and polling statistics is the only way to collaborate their expertise in benefitting their desired outcome. As a result, these media polling partnerships gain advertising revenue on a much larger scale.
Remember, the media dismissed Ronald Reagan as being “too right-winged to attract a significant following”. He was labeled a man who confused facts, a man undisciplined for the presidential role, and a racist. However he did accuse journalistic incest in America reflecting the media elites’ prevailing sentiment whereby the mood reinforced other journalists imitating the mood against the candidate.
Internet and news reports demand timely data to quickly get information out to the public. Shouldn’t journalists take a cautious statistical approach in their endeavors reporting news? Reagan understood that the media polls have a harmful effect with false assertions. The reporters were unwilling to go against conventional wisdom, only allowing their mythical ideology to respond to the same patterns that reinforce their bias towards a candidate or outcome.
Sometimes because of competitiveness within the news industry, media polls have little time to omit the specifications and errors that actually do occur. CNN achieved this type of polling speed only as a prominent feature of reporting the outcome rather than the inevitable inaccuracy. CNN decided to conduct an instant poll and label it scientific to throw online polls under the bus by accusing them of seeking traffic on their websites.
The CNN poll did not measure daily fluctuations in the support of a candidate. The host of problems with media polls is simply traced back to the competitive environment of the marketplace. The general feeling of most reporters is that traditional polls have more credibility than online polls. You can argue that traditional telephone polls are actually more scientific. However, any of these theories can only be characterized by identifying the true definition of the word scientific.
Did CNN polls accurately measure the individuals who had landlines or cell-phones? After the debate, did CNN sample the 500 participants who picked up their phones? Did CNN weigh their data with the participants not available for questioning? Remember folks, polling is more of an art than a science. There is no hard evidence that online polls, written surveys, telephone polls, and verbal surveys are accurate. Some Americans may be embarrassed to give an answer.
If you look back into history, you’ll see that Jimmy Carter was ahead 8% against Ronald Reagan in October. Reagan managed to change his personal temperament to complement the national temperament of America that the common American voter was supporting a huge bureaucracy, political hacks, interest groups, and lobbyists that were taking away their hard-earned cash. The first step in paying off the bills that America owes is to get rid of the political hacks reaping all the benefits under the current system. If Reagan was up against Hillary Clinton he would softly say, “You had the taxpayers pay your husband to receive oral sex in the White House.” Hillary would smile calling him a bully, a sexist, and a racist.
The large discrepancy between online polling and the so-called scientific polling calls for one action: To not let the Democrats get away without being held accountable. Their past accounts for sexism, high debt, and George Orwell’s pontification that even the Democrats have a habit of lying. Donald Trump asked the public how to win, we are telling you what to do. Remember Mr. Trump, your past was not on the taxpayer’s payroll.