The new CIS poll says the PSOE is widening its lead over the PP, I read in ARA. But if I look at the latest voting intention polls, already under Mr. Tezanos's leadership, I see that almost every time (except one) he's conducted a poll, he's "overstated"—to use the appropriate words—the results in favor of the PSOE. Perhaps that's what they call "the manipulation."
I've always had doubts about what it means to read that a party is winning. You imagine, of course, that voters always want a winning team, that if they're undecided and read that their party is going to win, they'll jump on the bandwagon. But what if it were the other way around? If I were undecided or thought I wouldn't vote, I think I'd be more motivated to hear that the party I'm interested in is collapsing. Or that I'm not entirely interested in, but that I might vote for out of spite towards the rivals.
I understand, however, that favorable polls primarily benefit leaders. In a debate, at a rally, it's good to tell those who are convinced we're going to win that the strategy, whatever it may be, is working well. The only thing that surprises me about all these discussions is the idea that this "manipulation" is so meticulous. I mean, the public shouldn't suspect that the polls have been manipulated with a strategy in mind, rather than the truth. A survey would have to be conducted to determine whether manipulating polls helps political parties or not. But perhaps the survey results themselves would also be manipulated.
