Media Poll Bias Factor

[GOP Congress]

What is the REAL "margin of error" when it comes to poll data?

I've noticed that in the past decade or so, various polls have skewed heavily in favor of the Democrat compared to the final results. In other words, if a Dem was favored by 20%, he wins by 10%; etc. It seems that if the Dem is favored by 5-9%, it's actually a toss-up (REAL "margin-of-error"), and when the Dem has 5% or less of a lead (or the GOP has the lead), then the republican usually wins. Notwithstanding the fact that I don't give a rats patootie in many circumstances whether RINO's or Dems win a seat (if no conservative/libertarian is in the race as a republican), I would like to see if this is something that anyone else has noticed, and frankly, I'd like to quantify the "actual" poll difference.

In my opinion, I see the republicans picking up 70 CONSERVATIVE seats, and potentially 100 republican seats in the house, and taking over the senate as well.

[formerlurker]

Links to support your theory?   

[formerlurker]

I think that Rasmussen is probably the most credible pollster -- he does a nice recap after the elections also to gage the accuracy of his polling.   

[GOP Congress]

Links to support your theory?  

A valid question, but I can't quantify the theory; hence, I have no real links to show. I am going by past history (1994) when the GOP picked up over 50 seats in a situation that was a situation that had 10 times less the urgency they do now. Of course, many of those seats were RINO's (even if they ran as conservative), but there was a decided turn to the right that lasted a few years, at least keeping the socialists at bay for awhile.

In addition, I talked to over 410 campaigns, including virtually every tea party campaign, in the house and senate races alone (as well as close to 800 various state races) in the past year and a half. I get a sense that most of these individuals know their turf, and know their commitment, and most importantly, know that this is not politics as usual.

So if you want to put it up as BS, that's fine. I just know three things:

1. Like Ordell Robbie in Jackie Brown, I "don't trust the media, BUT...I TRUST the media BEING the media." This sounds like a convoluted piece of crap, so let me explain: The mainstream media is so much in the tank for the democrats, that they are actually a valid metric; the trick is to find the DEGREE of "BS Factor" that can be assigned to the metric. In general, the more vapid the media, the more advantage for the GOP exists. That, frankly, is the basis for me originating the thread: How much can we trust the (socialist) media to be the (socialist) media?

2. I was around in 1994, and followed every race I could with the new invention, the Internet. I think I spent close to 100 bucks a month in Internet charges; remember, this was back when we were being charged by the hour. But it was worth it to get all the political stories of that era.

3. It is not a degree of IF the democrats lie; it is scientifically more challenging to find out HOW MUCH they are lying. Not just in black/white statements, but also gauging their reporting by the amount of superlatives, and lack of rational discourse they inject into their arguments. THIS is where the answers are currently subjective, but I am developing an internal instinct to their thinking processes in an OBJECTIVE manner. Unfortunately, just like fractals or quantum mechanics, it cannot be explained as easily as 2+2, but the mathematics are starting to coalesce.

We'll see on Nov 2.