OPINION:
Beware of pollsters bearing pro-Biden or pro-DeSantis gifts. I base this conclusion on two recent polls that (once again) reveal a deeply biased and partisan pollster swamp.
The first poll out in May from Public Opinion Strategies — the abbreviation POS says it all — had Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis beating President Biden in the key battleground states of Arizona and Georgia in a hypothetical matchup while former President Donald Trump allegedly lost to Mr. Biden.
This pro-DeSantis poll was tactically released in advance of Mr. DeSantis’ candidate for president announcement, and its results were eagerly embraced by both “woke” leftist media outlets as well as Rupert Murdoch’s Never-Trump Fox News empire.
Probing beneath the POS waters, I quickly discovered this POS was not a “neutral” polling firm but rather a political consulting operation. As it boasts on its website, the firm has a “proven record of research that shapes outcomes.” That’s right: Shapes outcomes!
In a review of POS’ client list, I also found two of the biggest RINO Trump-hater politicians in the Republican diaspora: former Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.
POS also partners with NBC and CNBC on presidential polls. Would you be surprised to learn the hopelessly “woke” NBC and CNBC were among the worst polls in terms of bias against Mr. Trump of any of the major outfits in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections?
This observation leads me to the second poll that caught my eye, one released by Quinnipiac and “given legs” by Mr. Murdoch’s Never-Trump Fox News. In sharp contrast to the Real Clear Politics average showing Mr. Trump beating Mr. Biden by 2.4 points, Quinnipiac had Mr. Biden winning by 4 — a massive 6-point swing well outside the range of plausibility.
In a “Truth” on Truth Social, Mr. Trump ripped both Quinnipiac for its “BAD poll” and Fox News for broadcasting “negatives on MAGA and Trump.” Even a cursory review of its performance reveals a polling industry in clear partisan disarray.
Consider, for example, the postmortems of the polling results for the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections conducted by Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos. In each November election, the IBD/TIPP Tracking poll got the results exactly right. Good for it!
Yet the vast majority of the remaining pollsters showed varying degrees of Democratic bias — 10 of the 14 featured in 2016 by Mr. Panagopoulos skewed left, and that number was 11 of 14 in 2020.
Would you be surprised to learn the worst offender in 2020 was Quinnipiac, while Fox News finished in the middle of the Democratic bias pack in both cycles:
Here’s the obvious takeaway: Today’s polling industry simply cannot be trusted to deliver an accurate and unbiased result.
Here’s a more subtle takeaway: Reject the advice of polling aggregator Nate Silver, who recommends we “take all the polls and trust the process” and accept the poll average as the best estimate.
Statistically, if the polling cohort is heavily skewed against the Republican Party in general and Mr. Trump specifically, as it was in both 2016 and 2020, a simple average is not going to eliminate that bias. Ergo, there is no basis for trust.
Those defending the industry can cite a litany of hurdles today’s pollsters must jump. As one key problem, so-called shy Trump voters underreport their Trumpian support for fear of cancellation or retribution. True, but it can be adjusted.
A second key problem focuses on voter fatigue, which has led to phone response rates below 10%. This is far too low for statistically valid measurements.
There is also this online polling Achilles’ heel: There is simply no scientifically correct way (yet) to draw an accurate probability sample of online voters.
Finally, there are well-known sampling and assumption problems. Should the sample be all citizens, only registered voters or frequent voters? What is the assumed turnout across partisan and demographic segments of the sample?
Even small changes in such assumptions can skew the results of a putatively honest pollster. Yet jiggering the assumptions can also allow an unscrupulous pollster to put two full thumbs on the scale.
Like Gresham’s law, which holds that bad money drives out good, today’s bad shyster pollsters are driving out good pollsters for partisan and pecuniary reasons.
Here, when partisan or profit-motivated pollsters are able to place skewed results in putatively “respectable” media outlets, that’s a huge win for their bottom line and client relations.
My advice leading into the 2024 election cycle? Carefully watch the polling results the media tries to spoon-feed you. Through such skepticism and attention, you may be able to separate the TIPP/IBD wheat from the Fox News/Quinnipiac chaff.
The end result will be a more informed electorate and a stronger American democracy.
• Peter Navarro served as manufacturing czar and chief China strategist in the Trump White House. This column originally appeared at www.peternavarro.substack.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.