NationStates Jolt Archive

Not likely, no matter what Gallup says. But there's a reason Gallup is getting the results they're getting. They're oversampling Republicans. (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002806.html)
...the Gallup Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only 33% will be Democrat. You read that correctly. I asked Gallup, who have been very courteous to my requests, to send me this morning their sample breakdowns by party identification for both their likely and registered voter samples they use in these national and I suspect their state polls. This is what I got back this morning:

Likely Voter Sample Party IDs – Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%

Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)

Registered Voter Sample Party IDs – Same Poll
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%

Total Sample: 1022
GOP: 381 (38%)
Dem: 336 (33%)
Ind: 298 (30%)

In both polls, Gallup oversamples greatly for the GOP, and undersamples for the Democrats. Worse yet, Gallup just confirmed for me that this is the same sampling methodology they have been using this whole election season, for all their national and state polls.

According to John Zogby himself:

If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.

So the Democrats have been 39% of the voting populace in both 1996 and 2000, and the GOP has not been higher than 35% in either of those elections. Yet Gallup trumpets a poll that has consistently used a sample that shows a GOP bias of 40% amongst likely voters and 38% amongst registered voters, and depresses the Democratic portion of the sample down to levels they haven’t been at since a strong three-way race in 1992?

That's why the race looks like a blowout according to Gallup. It's ridiculous to assume that in a year where the Democratic party is motivated like never before that they're going to have their lowest turnout sine 1992. It's even more ridiculous to assume that the Republican party, which is suffering from some dissension in their ranks over both fiscal responsibility and the situation in Iraq, is going to have higher levels of turnout than they've ever had before.

So if you're thinking that this race is all but over because of the latest big-name poll, think again--no matter who you're supporting.

Well, if you're supporting Nader or Badnarik, I guess you can assume it's all over for your candidate.

An you rather them over sample liberals. (notice i said liberals not democrats)

An you rather them over sample liberals. (notice i said liberals not democrats)

i noticed you spewing verbal diarreah is about it

How about wanting them to take a fair sample?

I always suspected there was something up with Gallup's polling...

Gallup's got a good reputation too, which is what makes this even more disturbing. I mean, it's no secret that Gallup's CEO, James Clifton, is a Republican--that information is available from the FEC--but it's disturbing to think that potentially, he's willing to sacrifice his companies good reputation in order to advance the political fortunes of a candidate he supports personally.

An you rather them over sample liberals. (notice i said liberals not democrats)
Huh?

To paraphrase a Kerry Campaign spokesman, all this bickering about the number of people polled from a particular party is a bunch of sour grapes by people who don't like the results of the poll.

Seriously, a similar phenomena was observed earlier this year in polling and complained about by Republicans when a poll showed 38% of the people polled as democrats and only 25% republicans. Party identification is notoriously fluid in political polls - there is no reason to suspect foul play in this poll simply because at the time this poll was taken 40% of the US population called themselves republicans versus 33% calling themselves democrats, less so then there was in the earlier LATimes poll (last june if interested google LA Times poll party identification or try this post I dredged up by googling :http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040615-111040-3254r.htm)

Funny. I just read in the paper this morning that Kerry is in the lead, be it only with 1% or less.

Too much contradiction. Too much bias. Good luck finding an objective source nowadays.


Which means I won't believe anything these polls say until I see the results myself.

Too much contradiction. Too much bias.Polls cost money...a lot of money....and for the next 3 years...Polling companies survival is heavily dependent on Big-corporations money...ENRON(or whoever took their palce), Halliburton , etc

Well couldnt overstating the support for Republicans help demoocrats chances.

If independants thought that Bush would iwn and they didnt want him to it could draw support away from the minor contenders to the democrats.

Polls showing one person is winning doesnt help that person as much as it disheartens his opponents.

Funny, I always thought Republicans (old, white, and men) voted more than Democrats (young, minority, and women).

I honestly didnt know Dems had a higher turnout than Repubs.

That said, polls are inherently flawed due to this...when they pick by party to poll, that skews it. When they just do a random poll, and by coincidence end up with more of one party, that skews it.


All in all, its hard to determine anything except that Bush has regained ground, and the race is still tight.

Funny, I always thought Republicans (old, white, and men) voted more than Democrats (young, minority, and women).

I honestly didnt know Dems had a higher turnout than Repubs.





Democrats on average are more idealistic and have a higher drive to change things than most Republicans. That's why they get out and vote more.

An you rather them over sample liberals. (notice i said liberals not democrats)
Why not? According to the article, Dems and Liberals ARE over-represented in voter turn-out in elections. Surely accurate polls need to reflect these sort of statistical differences.
There doesn't seem to be any basis for over-representing Repub voter turn-out.
These stats could go either way. You might get some GOP's not voting, 'secure' in the knowledge that Bush will win comfortably;
or
You get some Dem's not voting, 'certain' there's no point, as Bush will win comfortably.

Gallup are going to look very foolish and this could hurt their credibility if they're proved massively wrong here.

The problem here is the assumption that there are equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals in the US. If the Gallup poll has more conservatives in its poll, it simply means that the random people it has called are more conservative than liberal. Polls are by no means a completely accurate portrayal of everyone's opinions, but to declare that they are biased because there were more Republicans in the sample is just stupid.