Shocker: Polls Wrong About Michigan, Too
First, a sampling of some of the polls from Real Clear Politics:
Now behold the actual results, via the Detroit Free Press:
Michigan vote
Republicans
5,236 of 5,385 precincts - 97 percent
x-Mitt Romney 334,797 - 39 percent
John McCain 255,103 - 30 percent
Mike Huckabee 138,428 - 16 percent
Ron Paul 54,016 - 6 percent
Fred Thompson 31,750 - 4 percent
Rudy Giuliani 24,475 - 3 percent
Uncommitted 17,749 - 2 percent
Duncan Hunter 2,799 - 0 percent
Tom Tancredo 451 - 0 percent
Sam Brownback 346 - 0 percentDemocrats
5,236 of 5,385 precincts - 97 percent
x-Hillary Clinton 312,540 - 55 percent
Uncommitted 226,474 - 40 percent
Dennis Kucinich 21,259 - 4 percent
Chris Dodd 3,706 - 1 percent
Mike Gravel 2,294 - 0 percent
Let’s see. Mr. Romney won in a nine point blow-out. And the “inevitable” Mrs. Clinton had 45 percent of the voters go against her, even though she was running virtually unopposed.
(Indeed, we are told that 70% of black voters went for “uncommitted,” rather than for Hillary. Of course that information is also based on a CNN exit poll.)
Mind you, these are the same kind of polls that are used endlessly to tell us that we are all expecting a recession. And a thousand other things the media want us to believe.
It kind of makes you wonder what President Bush’s approval ratings really are.
5 Responses to “Shocker: Polls Wrong About Michigan, Too”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.




January 16th, 2008 at 11:49 am
How many “uncommitteds” came out of Dearborn? Figure it out.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Polling is a tricky business. The problem back in 1948 was that pollsters would hit four blocks by going to each of the corners thinking they were getting a diverse, yet random sample. Since these were generally larger, more expensive homes, they tended to vote more Republican, which got us “Dewey Defeats Truman”. Flash forward to the mid 1990s when it turned out that people weren’t actually watching networks nearly as much as advertisers thought. Nielson had to restate all their numbers and networks never recovered. In 2000 in Floida alone we had faulty exist polling, no accounting for absentee ballots or illegal alien ballots, and a result that was called while thousands had yet to vote in the conservative panhandle. (Why wait in line or bother going to the poll?) In 2004 we had President Dean.
Today the problem is that pollsters can’t get a handle on who will vote and how they’ll vote in primaries, which are relatively small elections decided by a very small proportion of the total population. Every vote counts in a primary, which is why a committed, loyal, energized base makes all the difference. Just look at that kook Ron Paul. He actually beat Rudy Giuliani in Michigan! Whether it’s proliferation of cell phones or identifying actual primary voters, you can’t trust these primary polls.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“Just look at that kook Ron Paul. He actually beat Rudy Giuliani in Michigan!”
That has got to be Democrats voting in the GOP primary.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Modern “Polling” is just the new Liberal Mantra of forcing public opinion. The questions are loaded and skewed to the liberal agenda. A sample would be, Do you approve or dissaprove of the US losing the war on terror. Or Do you approve or disapprove of the Congress picking on Bill Clinton for no reason. Polling used to be somewhat accurate but since the psychosis liberalism since they lost the ‘94 elections the polls now are a joke at best and downright lies at worse.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:20 am
go fred? Oh well, wait and see what happens in Carolina. Can’t believe after all the positive things that were said about The Fred! in practically every right leaning blog, the Fred just ain’t making it happen. Or has our country taken a big lean leftwards and can’t support a right leaner? Hope I didn’t blow a wad of money. Supporting a candidate is kinda like gambling. By the way, I have the same luck at gambling.
Any chance Nancy Reagan will let us try to clone THE RON?