Posted on 09/20/2008 6:05:38 PM PDT by yongin
During the final two months of the election season, we are updating these targets on a weekly basis to stay current with the public mood. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. The intensity of a campaign season may cause subtle changes in the partisan landscape as Election Day draws near.
The targets are not set arbitrarily. Rather, they are established based upon survey interviews with a separate sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding six weeks. A total of 500 nightly interviews are conducted for a total of 21,000 interviews over the six week period.
This week’s adjustment shows a very slight increase in the number of Democrats, primarily offset by a decrease in the number of unaffiliated voters.
Results from this past week showed that the number of people considering themselves to Democrats spiked early in the week as the economic problems on Wall Street became visible. Overall, it was the best week for the Democrats since July. It remains to be seen whether this might lead to a lasting adjustment or be more of a bounce like that resulting from a party’s nominating convention.
For polling data released during the week of September 21-27, 2008, the partisan weighting targets used by Rasmussen Reports will be 39.0% Democratic, 33.5% Republican, and 27.5% unaffiliated. For the preceding week, September 14-20, 2008, the targets were 38.7% Democratic, 33.6% Republican, and 27.7% unaffiliated. For the first thirteen days of September, the targets were 39.7% Democrat, 32.1% Republican, and 28.2% unaffiliated.
This week’s adjustment will have little impact on the daily Presidential Tracking Poll. However, if the partisan trends continue shifting, it could have a significant impact as Election Day draws near.
During Election 2006, there was a notable shift in partisan identification favoring Democrats as Election Day approached. During Election 2004, there was a notable shift in the opposite direction. It is impossible to know which direction this will flow during 2008 (see month-by-month results). These shifts correctly foretold the election outcome in both years.
It should be noted that the current targets are fairly similar to the ratio that existed when Democrats won control of Congress in 2006. They are also fairly close to the make-up of the electorate in the Presidential elections of 2000 and 1996.
Sounds to me like “americans” love this financial crisis and want to see more of it.
If they do a valid random poll there is no need to weight anything. It sounds a though they are substituting their own judgment for the results of their survey.
Rasmussen’s partisan quota for next week is a +5.5 Dem Advantage.
Last week was a +5.1 Dem Advantage. Last month, it was a +7.6 Dem Advantage.
My guess is Gallup uses something like 40% Dem, 30% Repub. It should probably be something more like 36% Dem and 34% Repub.
We are getting hammered over the economy. Hope things turn around soon otherwise we will get Obama. I hate to even think of that guy with a democratic congress.
Kinda makes ya wonder...
“When you meet, you give each other a secret look—’Are you a Republican too?’ It’s the new gay.” From An American Carol.
And the post right above this one shows that “Only 70% of Democrats support Obama”
So 30% of that 5.5% average should be deducted, Rassmussen is assuming that Democrat=Obama Voter and that is not the case.
Hmmm...I wonder what 30% of the total Democrat Voter Registration is?
Wild guess, but I’d say about 12 million voters if the trend holds, “if” Republicans turnout in relationship to our number of registrations and that 30% holds...
Obama isn’t going to win if he’s getting 70% of the democrat vote.
Right. They picked up .4%
Rasmussen was measuring a +10 Dem advantage for June and July. Having Palin as Veep closed the partisan gap. If the Rasmussen partisan gap is under 5% on election day, I am confident we can win. If the partisan gap is more than +6 Dem, then we will be lucky to win.
Gallup doesn’t weight by party. They just call and whoever answers is “in” I suppose until they reach their ideal sample size.
I agree. We need is close to 5% or less. Historically it really needs to be under 5% - however it has been pointed out that Obama isn’t pulling a winner’s share of his own party.
If someone asked me if I was more concerned about George W. winning against Gore or McCain against Obama, given the people and circumstances, I would have picked Gore over Bush, by a landslide. I truly believe Obama has no chance, no matter what the pols say.
Sad isn’t it? Obama isn’t doing or saying anything of note either. Nevertheless it won’t last. No one holds momentum that long.
“Gallup doesn’t weight by party. They just call and whoever answers is “in” I suppose until they reach their ideal sample size.”
Really? This is what I read:
“Gallup weights data to census estimates for gender, race, age, education attainment, and region.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=uqqp-sDCjo4C&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=gallup+poll+weightings&source=web&ots=CPzu47birw&sig=GvZERn8HtSiJAkHfmm2hnHbASHw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result
Demographics are just a proxy for party or party is just a proxy for demographics. Either way, Gallup manipulates their polls. Nothing wrong with that, it is just a best guess, but it proves that these polls are not truly random. There is a much larger margin of error than the sample sizes on a truly random sample would find.
“If they do a valid random poll there is no need to weight anything. It sounds a though they are substituting their own judgment for the results of their survey.”
Technically, the way Rasmussen does it is more stable. Otherwise, you can wind up with polling samples that wind up with 40% Dems, 23% Reps and the rest Indies, or vice-versa. And then we see people complaining about the oversampling od Democrats (which I’ve seen a lot). Gauging true moods is always very tough, especially when you get to the national level. A typical poll of 1,000 respondents will only mean an average of 20 people polled per state. State and local polls tend to be more reflective on trends (and are usually not heavily influenced by set standards), so I would pay more attention to those rather than “national” polls.
Fortunately, the first debate will be on foreign policy, so hopefully that will take away from the momentum of the present media narrative.
In 2006, Rasmussen had the Dem Advantage at a little over +5. Because of that gap, we lose 3 close Senate races - Jim Talent, Conrad Burns, and George Allen. If the gap had been under +4 Dem, then we would have still controlled the Senate.
Right we are in uncharted waters. Mac seems to have found his voice again and hitting back at Obama. The debates are really going to be important.
They assume that the RATS have the backing and the balls to pull that turnout with a 9% congressional rating?
They are also fairly close to the make-up of the electorate in the Presidential elections of 2000 and 1996.
IIRC the 2000 election was swamped by Evangelical voters? Guess they are the independents in this poll? Bad news for nObie.
Sometimes, in my more cynical moods, I think the pools are kept tight merely to keep us glued to the MSM feed. The polls are always tight, but the outcomes of presidential elections have been anything from squeakers, such as 2000, to landslides, like 1980.
Given the excitement surrounding Sarah Palin as veep it would seem his assessment that there are more self identified dems as so much bull-oney.
Odumbos free ride has ended, look at the articles starting to come out drip drip drip
[Gallup doesn’t weight by party. They just call and whoever answers is “in” I suppose until they reach their ideal sample size.]
So they make sure they poll in NY, CA, WI and IL.
We are going to lose it all . B.O. has an enormous grassroots ground game that was put into place during the primaries and he has campaign offices everywhere . That’s how Bush won the past 2 elections .
The lack of support for McCain until 3 weeks ago has hurt us badly in campaign infrastructure and now we are playing catch up .
Our side can’t even get stickers and signs distributed in a timely manner . It might be too late in the game to make a comeback . I so hope I am wrong .
Here is the issue. 83% of counties in the US are Republican. Democrats haven’t received more then 50% of the vote in any election since 1964.
How can any pollster give Democrats a larger share of the votes?
Simply because they accurately assess by the overall population, not by geography.
True, but it's also hard to use only 500 data points and get anything statistically valid without the weighing "fudge factors". It's imperfect but Rasmussen has a good track record in the last 3 major elections.
The biggest question is who thinks Marxism can save us from ourselves? The transfer of wealth will appease the illiteral and illegal, but who ends up not caring, the elites and who pays, the middle class...as their job is being sent to India or eliminated.
“Simply because they accurately assess by the overall population, not by geography. “
I don’t buy it. We go by electoral college maps. Shouldn’t these things be weighted by that?
The sample is decided by it.
I think most polling groups use voter registration percentages in their sampling . There are more registered Dims than Republicans .
I just hope that all of this hype about record numbers of newly registered Dims is just in reality party switch-overs resulting from Operation Chaos .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.