Let's not use Fox News polls except as examples of bias (remember the Romney victory/landslide)?

[ericson00]

Last edited Sun Aug 16, 2015, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)

I understand the temptation to jump on every new poll out there these days. One thing I hope we avoid is the temptation to mention, or even cite Fox News polls as "proof" or "evidence" of anything, unless its the obvious outliers and flaws their polls produce. Take a look at their latest GE and primary polls. The other GE polls all have Hillary with bigger margins, and have had it consistently. Fox wants to convince themselves of otherwise. Now they have her only beating Trump and Fiorina. I doubt that result will be repeated by REPUTABLE sources soon Also, note how they don't poll Sanders, because they'd rather an out-of-the-mainstream candidate to be nominated by the Dems. In the primaries, its also obvious what they're doing with Clinton. Its gonna be "now she's under 50%, she has to be done..."

I don't think anyone here ought to be citing Fox News polls ever. Remember their track record in 2012? Using Fox News polls to do anything other than to point out bias is pure Republicanism.

[Iliyah]

1. K & R

[Purveyor]

2. Let's not start with the "let's not" lists... eom

[FarPoint]

3. The line in the sand needs drawn at least..

Fox is pure right wing propaganda..... I support setting boundaries.

[Purveyor]

4. I don't. I would like to think our forum is comprised of members who can sort out fact from fiction

hence no need for censorship.

Of course this is coming from a OPer that will present articles from RT and Sputnik and numerous other sites that immediately are labeled as 'propaganda'.

Personally, I want to read/hear it all.

[FarPoint]

5. I myself am surrounded by Fox noise corporate media control ...

In Dayton, Ohio...the AM radio is Fox noise now...lots of Joe the Plumber types and those who scream Obama's going to take your guns away and he's a Muslim... So, I prefer boundaries here at DU....I need a rest or a sense of normalcy.

[sabrina 1]

27. What do you mean by 'I prefer boundaries'?? We all would prefer to have our

candidate look good and use only polls that do that. But most of us would never suggest such a thing.

Btw, did you just recently decide that Fox polls should be banned, or whatever?

Hillary was way ahead in Fox Polls and I don't recall anyone asking to place 'boundaries' on Fox polls.

I saw a chart of Fox Polls going back to May. Apparently this request coincides with the most recent poll showing Bernie at approx 30% I believe. That same poll had him way behind Hillary for weeks and no calls for boundaries then that I recall.

I, eg, do not trust Gallup. I'm sure I am not alone. Should we start placing boundaries on one poll, then you can be sure many people are going to do that with other polls.

We are all adults here and I believe we can sort these things out for ourselves.

[malokvale77]

6. I absolutely deplore censorship.

It's a shame "critical thinking" was removed from our education system.

I'll never understand the mentality of those that insist everyone else comply with "my way". That sounds a bit too conservative RW to me.

I wonder why they are posting in a thread they declare they have no interest in.

[ericson00]

9. Fox=/=critical thinking

unless you're thinking of "being critical" of any non-conservative.

[malokvale77]

12. I think you may be confused...

and lack in critical thinking.

You certainly don't know me at all.

[ericson00]

10. especially after the Romney landslide

that shows that they're not serious about polling. Listen, I don't mind, as long as their shit isn't taken seriously on progressive sites. But Clinton haters will say and do ANYTHING.

[TSIAS]

7. Which polls are we allowed to use?

I know pollsters like Rasmussen and Gravis are not reliable.

What about NBC/Wall Street Journal? The WSJ is owned by Murdoch.

[ericson00]

8. NBC and WSJ are examples of real D and real R

not fake examples like Fox and "Robbins and Shaw" or "Opinion Dynamics" both which as "counterweights" only appear aside Fox News. NBC has proven its progressive credentials as serious non-R. Anderson-Robbins, even tho Fox bills it as "D," is a show act.


Also, notice how Fox polls (whoever the D/R pollsters are in their polls) always have Obama's net approval substantially lower than real firms?

This is a constant trend. Quinnipiac used to be reputable, but even if its skewed this cycle, it doesn't have a big track record of it like Fox does. How about the Romney landslide??

[totodeinhere]

13. NBC has proven its progressive credentials? Are you kidding me?

You mean that Comcast owned outlet, the home of Tweety, Chuckie Todd and Joe Scarborough? You mean the one that fired Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann and Phil Donahue?

[ericson00]

15. Maddow, Kornacki, Sharpton, oh but no Amy Goodman so it MUST be con.

and this isn't Fox, so they will have some opposing voices like JS you know.

Olbermann was not professional in his latter career and made an embarassment of progressives in the media.

[sabrina 1]

28. Will you say that when Bernie starts moving ahead of Hillary on Murdoch's WSJ poll?

I didn't notice any calls to ban Fox when Hillary was way ahead in Fox polls.

So, one poll says one thing, another says another, which only goes to show people should ignore ALL of them.

You can't pick and choose the polls that say what you want to hear. If polling was accurate at this stage in the game, they would all be pretty much the same.

[totodeinhere]

11. Were you trashing the Fox News poll when they had Clinton up by 46 in June.

Or only now that it's shrunk to 19 points?

[ericson00]

14. Broken clock is right twice a day. Most of their stuff is outlier, and this one is just

noise, is obviously an outlier.

[totodeinhere]

16. Too early to say it's an outlier. Wait for the next round of polls from other sources to

come out. BTW, why aren't you willing to at least consider the possibility that Bernie really is surging? Do I sense an agenda here?

According to Nate Silver's analysis of the accuracy of 2012 presidential election polls, the Fox News Poll was in the middle of the pack with an average error of 3.1%. The range of errors among all polls was from .1% to 15.7%. Among all polls that Silver studied, Fox was number 51 out of ninety, beating such notable polls as Gallup, NPR, Rasmussen and the Field Poll. That's certainly not a stellar performance but it does not validate your claim that Fox polls are outliers.

If you have other data that contradicts this please post it.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0

[artislife]

20. All I know is

that Hillary supporters are huge on telling the rest of the board what is good or bad in regards to news outlets and now polls.



I am going to put their suggestions to the side.

[sabrina 1]

29. But was this raised when Hillary was over 60%?

[DanTex]

17. Let's not descend into poll trutherism because one poll came out that we don't like.

There's no evidence at all that FOX is cooking their polls. FOX polls did not predict a Romney landslide. Karl Rove did, but the FOX polls didn't. In fact, on election night, the FOX polling people shot down Rove's poll trutherism.

There might be some small house effect, sure, but in the end this is a scientific poll like any other. It's just one poll, and as always polls should be taken in totality, rather than just picking one poll out of the whole group. There will be more polls soon, and we'll know whether the 50-30 was an outlier, or whether this is where the race is now. But for now, the FOX poll is a legit poll that shows the race closer than it was before.

[ericson00]

18. Many (not just Rove) of Fox's analyst 2012 predictions were WILDLY off

as you can see and their national numbers were off base most of the time.

As yea if you look at RCP polls, you'll see Fox consistently has biases that other polls don't have, and for 2016 this time.

[DanTex]

19. Yes, their pundits did. But not their polls. This is a poll, not a pundit.

[totodeinhere]

21. Please document with a link to a legitimate source your claim that

"Fox consistently has biases that other polls don't have." Thank you.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Here

Fox is ranked pretty low compared to other prominent pollsters when it comes to accuracy.

The evidence also shows that their poll leans Republican.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

[totodeinhere]

25. If you read the entire thread you would see that I already linked to Nate Silver

and that same information upthread. Fox Polls are in the middle of the pack and do rank lower than some and higher than others as I said in my other cmment. Your link gives then a C+, not an F. The other poster was trying to maintain that Fox is biased and therefore this poll much be an outlier. But according the information you and I both linked to it is an average poll, nothing more or less than that. It leans slightly conservative, but less so than some others polls and some polls also lean the other way.

[ericson00]

26. precisely. Thats why anything Fox says, we should wait till better polls come out

and then bother caring.

[phleshdef]

30. Their analysts and their polls are 2 entirely different things.

Nate Silver gives Fox a B for accuracy.

[PatrickforO]

22. LOL. You know, your headline DOES remind me of that heartwarming scene

where Karl Rove on Fox News actually went in the back to question the numbers people. That was SO funny - he thought he had it ALL FIXED, all UNDER CONTROL, and he didn't!

I still chuckle.

[restorefreedom]

23. so the hillary is ahead polls are reliable

all others are to be dismissed.

got it.