Yesterday I saw a poll out of New Hampshire, that was so unbelievable no incredible in its results that I thought it impossible that a TV station or a college would report it.
With one month remaining before the November 6 election, Barack Obama has opened up a statistically significant lead over Mitt Romney in the battleground state of New Hampshire. In the most recent Granite State Poll, 52% of likely New Hampshire voters plan to vote for Obama, 37% say they will support Romney,
There were so incredible that WMUR the TV station that commissioned the poll led their analysis thus:
The latest WMUR Granite State Poll is either wildly off or we will look back five weeks from now on Election Day and point to this date as the moment we knew Mitt Romney lost New Hampshire.
They are hedging on their own poll. My first thought was bad party splits, I was rather shocked to see an equal party metric in this poll. As this so greatly contradicts what I’ve seen on the ground I continued to look at the numbers and found these figures on the 2008 election within the sample:
215 McCain Palin Voters
309 Obama Biden Voters
38 Did not vote 2008
That totals up to 576 people in the sample. How does that split? Here is the math
215/576 = 37.3% McCain Palin
309/576 = 53.6% Obama Biden
14/576 = 2.4% Other
38/576 = 6.5% Did not vote
Difference 53.6- 37.3= 16.3
So you have a sample with a bias of 16.3 points in terms of 2008 voters that is now +15, that would indicate a slight loss of support, but strangely enough they didn’t include a question on their votes in 2010. Just to remind you here is what happened in the state house that year:
Maybe it’s just me but I think this poll might be a tad more informative if it included how the respondents voted in 2010
It’s worth noting that a previous poll from the same group in Aug had a much different sample
McCain Palin 220/529 = 41.5
Obama Biden 259/529= 48.9%
Other 21/529 = 3.9%
Did not vote 29/529= 5.4%
Do you see the magic trick, you play with a sample and suddenly you have a trend. As I predicted after the booing God debacle:
Do not be surprised if there is a negative bounce from this convention or a poll released with a Dem +6-12 in order to hide just how bad things are.
And that’s what we’ve seen, polls so skewed that we have a convention bounce supposedly from a Clinton Speech that nobody watched because it was opposite a football game.
But even such BS can’t go on for long, particularly when people are finally catching on with the poll manipulation.
So what is the Liberal media et/al to do?
Well if it’s harder to see Romney behind everywhere put out a national poll that is close (+3 Obama with a +8 Obama 2008 sample & +6 D sample) to show our bona fides then as it’s harder to sell Romney behind everywhere in Florida suddenly usa a D+2 sample instead of the +9, in Virgina go D+5 instead of D + ungodly while in Ohio the state we’ve been saying Romney HAS to win we show Romney down 11 with a sample that is 50% dem and 39% +11.D and violá we have exactly what we need to be credible:
A more “balanced” poll showing a slight Romney trend without losing the “Mitt in Trouble” narrative.
The best part of it for the MSM? The media can by playing the sample game can generate the trend they want and will do so as long as they believe they can affect the results. The moment they decide it can’t be pulled off will be the dawn of Media Credibility day when the mission changes as it did the day before the 2010 elections:
So instead their new mission is to be perceived as actually reporting news rather than spinning it. Thus comes media credibility day, the day the press decides to act like actual reporters instead of liberal advocates, it will last long enough for them to claim that they called the election correctly…
And the moment the election is over
…then it will be back to the MSM that we all know and…well that we all know.
That will be the tell.
Update: Ann Althouse got there before me: