A Message From Lucianne  







S-G1




























ST-GC



        
 

 
Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | RSS | Contribute | Register | Rules & FAQs
Privacy Policy | Search | Post | Contact | Logout | Forgot Password | Search Using Google


  Topic: The Recurring -- and Misleading
-- Focus on Party Identification
Change your user profile.
If you are having trouble posting, please take the time to register.
Your User Name :
Your Password
  I forgot my password
Your Reply  :
Preview Reply     Post Reply
The Recurring -- and Misleading
-- Focus on Party Identification

Gallup, by Frank Newport, Gallup Editor

Original Article

Posted By:michellewsc2, 9/27/2012 5:36:27 PM

The discussion of the party identification composition of poll samples comes up in every presidential election with which I've been involved. Interested observers often opine that when a given poll shows that Candidate X is ahead, it cannot be correct because there is a higher percentage of voters who identify with Candidate X’s party in the sample than there should be, based on comparison to some previous standard.

Comments:
What do you guys think? Just spin? Trying to save face?

      


Post Reply  

Reply 1 - Posted by: MisterDickens, 9/27/2012 5:40:10 PM     (No. 8894582)

I have never believed Gallup polls. They were near the bottom in accuracy in 2008.

Why would I believe any article written by one of the Gallup spinmeisters to justify their inaccurate polling?

I wouldn't.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

   1  person like this.


Reply 2 - Posted by: 500What, 9/27/2012 5:41:56 PM     (No. 8894588)

Anyone who reads this and can think for themselves will realize that what this guy is saying is not only true but also makes all poles irrelevant. If party affiliation varies so much, it is useless and void to use 2008 party identification to measure ones support in 2012.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


   

 

R-G1
  
R-VAR_AD


 
Reply 3 - Posted by: tocsin, 9/27/2012 5:42:48 PM     (No. 8894592)

''Figures never lie, but liars often figure''

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

   1  person like this.


Reply 4 - Posted by: Patchy groundfog, 9/27/2012 5:44:26 PM     (No. 8894596)

Poles irrelevant? Then why are the candidates in Cleveland? *rimshot*

This article is Gallup defending Gallup ie protecting their revenue stream. They've already shown themselves to be corrupt and cowardly. Why believe them now?

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

   1  person like this.


Reply 5 - Posted by: michellewsc2, 9/27/2012 5:48:50 PM     (No. 8894604)

#4 - I thought the same thing, but wanted to see what others thought too.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

   1  person like this.


Reply 6 - Posted by: 4Justice, 9/27/2012 5:59:15 PM     (No. 8894618)

Sorry, but the spin made me dizzy. I think this guy is falsely representing what people have been saying about the polls in the first place. He is using totally fales premises. Then he states some obvious facts about polls and questions that COULD be asked (not that were) to qualify party affiliation. Then he finally concludes that the polls are something that they really are not based on the scenario he spun.

Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, all polls are a joke and when someone puts this much into "explaining" his polls, I know that he is doing even more misleading than he claims others did. Someone needs to tel this guy that nobody is claiming to ask people their party affiliation in 2008. That wasn't what the concern was in the first place. The question is how many democrats overall were polled vs. Republicans and Independents. And if you are using skewed numbers like D+7 or more every time, then something isn't right.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

   1  person like this.


Reply 7 - Posted by: 4Justice, 9/27/2012 6:00:53 PM     (No. 8894621)

Oops, I meant "he is using a totally FALSE premise" -- not fales

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

   1  person like this.


   

 

  


 
Reply 8 - Posted by: amylu, 9/27/2012 6:08:52 PM     (No. 8894634)

The only time I was called in a presidential political poll, I was asked if I had time to answer a few questions. I said "yes". The first question was who would I vote for for president. When I answered, "George Bush", I was told they had enough of that choice, and they wouldn't need to take up any more of my time.

So much for polls -- I don't trust any of them!

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

   1  person like this.


Reply 9 - Posted by: Blackeagle, 9/27/2012 6:12:26 PM     (No. 8894641)

Some polls ask ''who did you vote for in 2008?"

That is often interesting. How many folks have changed sides?

Regardless, only after say the second debate will public opinion finally start to focus on this election.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 10 - Posted by: capt scurvey, 9/27/2012 6:12:48 PM     (No. 8894643)

Sounds like CYA to me...

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

   1  person like this.


Reply 11 - Posted by: veritas, 9/27/2012 6:19:04 PM     (No. 8894650)

OP, agreed, this seems more self-serving than a McDonald's [repulsive, usually] soda bar.

I kept asking myself, "Then why do you ask? Why?" And at the end, we get to FTA: "I don’t personally put a great deal of stock in survey-to-survey variations in party identification. All of our weighting focus is on the effort to bring more solid demographic variables into alignment with census figures -- including in recent years cell phone and landline phone use. We don't find that party identification is stable enough to be of much use when it comes to comparing sample-to-sample variations, or sample to exit poll Newport admits it's not much use.

And these guys are touted as the Gold Standard? This is "scientific"?

Waiter? Please get me a break, an extra-large one, if you would. Thanks.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 12 - Posted by: BruisedOrange, 9/27/2012 6:21:32 PM     (No. 8894654)

In polling, a sample is a sample. What would skew the sample would be any unaccounted for variables in access or response--i.e., which people answer the phone, which people take the time to respond to questions.

Is it possible that more self-labeled Democrats make up a larger portion of Ohio voters today? Is it possible (or just self-servingly snotty) to wonder if more of the un- & under-employed who are willing to find work have left Ohio for the opportunities "red" states offer? Did they thus leave an increased percentage of those who are attached to the federal or union teat?

Or, is it possible that more conservatives are working several part-time jobs and therefore less willing to give time to the pollsters?

IMHO, Newport is making a sound (if limited) point about polling methodology. There are lots of other ways to end up with a skewed poll.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

   1  person like this.


   

 

B-G1


 
Reply 13 - Posted by: mamafrog, 9/27/2012 6:25:54 PM     (No. 8894661)

If it were just one poll complaining about the sample might make sense. But it is virtually every poll. Even if you look at the Rasmussen state by state Obama is far ahead.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

   1  person like this.


Reply 14 - Posted by: andyboy, 9/27/2012 8:23:28 PM     (No. 8894834)

#13, Obama and Romney are tied overall in Rasmussen, and if you look at Rasmussen's state by state polls, there are far too many even-up battleground states to declare anyone the winner at this point.

Frank Newport does not explain why Obama is tied with Romney in Rasmussen (the most accurate poll over the past several national elections), but has a big lead in all the polls conducted by left-leaning news organizations and universities. And yet the explanation is obvious -- those organizations are deliberately oversampling Democrats in order to publish news stories that Obama is winning.

D+8? D+11? Surely you jest.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment


Reply 15 - Posted by: beancounter, 9/28/2012 1:25:14 AM     (No. 8895201)

I really doubt that party identification is as fluid as he claims.

What is fluid is turnout. What are the chances that turnout for Obama will be as high as it was in 2008? If the answer is "not likely" then why are polls assuming turnout for Obama even higher than 2008?

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

   1  person like this.


Reply 16 - Posted by: jglas, 9/28/2012 12:27:56 PM     (No. 8896146)

If party identification is just a will-of-the-wist, here today gone tomorrow, ephemeral sort of thing, why do you guys weight your poll results with such a dicey statistic as party identification four years ago? Isn't that likely to yield dicey results?

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

   1  person like this.



Post Reply   Close thread 703814




Below, you will find ...

Most Recent Articles posted by "michellewsc2"

and

Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)




Most Recent Articles posted by "michellewsc2"



State ‘concerned’ about St. Lucie
County results in West-Murphy
race, sending staff to assess
Palm Beach Post, by George Bennett    Original Article
Posted By: michellewsc2- 11/13/2012 5:17:38 PM     Post Reply
The Florida Division of Elections is sending three employees to St. Lucie County on Wednesday to try to figure out how 799 votes disappeared in Sunday’s partial recount of the close, nationally watched congressional race between U.S. Rep. Allen West and Democrat Patrick Murphy.
Please post more than one long sentence. Source corrected to site style.

Romney’s Strong Debate
Performance Erases Obama’s Lead
Pew Research Center, by Staff    Original Article
Posted By: michellewsc2- 10/8/2012 5:05:37 PM     Post Reply
Mitt Romney no longer trails Barack Obama in the Pew Research Center’s presidential election polling. By about three-to-one, voters say Romney did a better job than Obama in the Oct. 3 debate, and the Republican is now better regarded on most personal dimensions and on most issues than he was in September. Romney is seen as the candidate who has new ideas and is viewed as better able than Obama to improve the jobs situation and reduce the budget deficit. Fully 66% of registered voters say Romney did the better job in last Wednesday’s debate, compared with just 20% who say Obama

The Recurring -- and Misleading
-- Focus on Party Identification
Gallup, by Frank Newport, Gallup Editor    Original Article
Posted By: michellewsc2- 9/27/2012 5:36:27 PM     Post Reply
The discussion of the party identification composition of poll samples comes up in every presidential election with which I've been involved. Interested observers often opine that when a given poll shows that Candidate X is ahead, it cannot be correct because there is a higher percentage of voters who identify with Candidate X’s party in the sample than there should be, based on comparison to some previous standard.



Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)



´America´s royal baby´: How Chelsea´s first
child could give Hillary Clinton a boost in
the polls if she runs for president in 2016

42 replie(s)
Daily Mail (U.K.), by Jessica Jerreat    Original Article
Posted By: Desert Fox- 4/19/2014 7:12:10 PM     Post Reply
For Hillary Clinton, having her own baby grandchild to kiss on the campaign trail, could be one of the biggest boosts to her possible presidential election campaign. Although the former Secretary of State and First Lady has not said if she will run in 2016, the arrival of her first grandchild will soften her image, analysts have said. While Chelsea only revealed her pregnancy on Thursday, supporters of her mother have already started cooing over a possible baby in the White House. With the Clintons having a near-royal status in the U.S., the announcement of a new arrival due this fall has sent

Living in the New York Times World
39 replie(s)
American Thinker, by J. Paul Masko    Original Article
Posted By: magnante- 4/19/2014 7:48:36 AM     Post Reply
I began reading the entirety of the first section of the New York Times at nine years old, and continued that practice, more or less, for decades.(snip) ...the power of reverence, intrinsic to what I call the “cascade” of The Times: the near avalanche-like flow and distribution of information through electronic and print networks: through like-minded network newscasts, magazines, local newspaper s, blogs, daytime talk TV, late-night entertainment, statements at media award ceremonies, the celebrity Twitterverse, etc. The cascade rolls through Saturday Night Live, Jon Stewart, The New Yorker, the mouths of third-grade teachers, Elmo, Madonna and Susan Sarandon …through

   

 



 
Barack Obama and the politics of lies
35 replie(s)
Washington Examiner [DC], by Editorial    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/20/2014 5:45:25 AM     Post Reply
That was quite a victory dance President Obama did Thursday while claiming Obamacare is “working” because eight million people have now supposedly signed up for the health care program. He even indulged in some less-than-subtle mockery of Republicans - and by extension the majority of Americans who have disapproved of Obamacare since before it became law. "The repeal debate is and should be over,” Obama said, taking a dig at Republicans who are “going through, you know, the stages of grief … anger and denial and all that stuff …” But a president who is viewed by most Americans as less

In a Hole, Golf Considers
Digging a Wider One

32 replie(s)
New York Times, by Bill Pennington    Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect- 4/19/2014 10:48:33 AM     Post Reply
GREENSBORO, Ga. — Golf holes the size of pizzas. Soccer balls on the back nine. A mulligan on every hole. These are some of the measures — some would say gimmicks — that golf courses across the country have experimented with to stop people from quitting the game. Golf has always reveled in its standards and rich tradition. But increasingly a victim of its own image and hidebound ways, golf has lost five million players in the last decade, according to the National Golf Foundation, with 20 percent of the existing 25 million golfers apt to quit in the next few years. People under 35 have especially spurned the game, saying it takes too

White House asks American parents to
monitor their children for signs of terrorism

31 replie(s)
Daily Caller, by Eric Owens    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/19/2014 5:50:04 PM     Post Reply
In a speech earlier this week, Lisa O. Monaco, President Barack Obama’s assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism, insisted that American parents must be vigilant because their “confrontational” children could be on the verge of becoming terrorists. Monaco’s full, prepared text is available here. She presented the speech, entitled “Countering Violent Extremism and the Power of Community,” at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government on April 15. Monaco began her remarks by eloquently describing the lives tragically lost last year during the Boston Marathon bombings. Interestingly, the Harvard grad failed to mention the religion or the motive of brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan

Obama: ´For me, Easter is a story of hope,
a belief in a better day to come´

30 replie(s)
Investor´s Business Daily, by Andrew Malcolm    Original Article
Posted By: SurferLad- 4/19/2014 9:16:36 AM     Post Reply
Hi, everybody. For millions of Americans, this time of year holds great meaning. Earlier this week, we hosted a Passover Seder at the White House, and joined Jewish families around the world in their re-tellings of the story of the Exodus and the victory of faith over oppression. And this Sunday, Michelle, Malia, Sasha, and I will join our fellow Christians around the world in celebrating the Resurrection of Christ, the salvation he offered the world, and the hope that comes with the Easter season. These holy days have their roots in miracles that took place long ago. And yet, they still inspire us, guide us, and strengthen us today. They remind us of our

Harry Reid calls dissident Nevada ranchers
´domestic terrorists´ following show of
force against the federal government

30 replie(s)
Daily Mail [UK], by David Martosko    Original Article
Posted By: Attercliffe- 4/19/2014 9:29:17 AM     Post Reply
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday that a family of dissident ranchers and their supporters in his home state of Nevada are ´domestic terrorists,´ citing this week´s standoff with the federal government´s Bureau of Land Management. Cliven Bundy has refused to pay grazing fees for land where his hundreds of cattle roam every day. The land is owned by the federal government, which says he owes more than $1 million. Bundy, however, insists that since his family has been using the land since the 1870s, Uncle Sam can´t collect the grazing fees. A tense standoff developed this week after

   

Post Reply   Close thread 703814





Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | RSS | Contribute | Register | Rules & FAQs
Privacy Policy | Search | Post | Contact | Logout | Forgot Password | Search Using Google


© 2014 Lucianne.com Media Inc.

~~~c~~~