Posted on 04/21/2012 11:47:45 AM PDT by neverdem
Every election brings a raft of complaints about polls. I don't expect this one to be any different -- Republicans will bemoan the overabundance of Democrats in the samples, while Democrats will claim that the polls under-sample minorities.
What make these criticisms more salient this year, however, are signs that "working the refs" is having an effect on polling companies. In 2008, in response to complaints from many observers that minority and young voters were undercounted, Gallup actually produced two models: “traditional” and “expanded.”
The Battleground Poll likewise produced two different results, reflecting the differing assumptions of pollsters Celinda Lake and Lance Tarrance Jr. about the makeup of the electorate. In 2010, Gallup once again produced two separate samples after being continually harangued by Democratic observers.
The results of this “jawboning” of polling companies are mixed at best. In 2010, the criticism of Gallup was correct; in 2008, the traditional model had it right. So it was jarring to see the criticism taken to a higher level when Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod accused a recent Gallup poll of having “serious methodological problems.” He then directed anyone interested to this column from National Journal’s Ron Brownstein to explain why:
“The Gallup track, which is conducted among registered voters, has a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012: only 22 percent of the Gallup survey was non-white, according...
--snip--
Of course, Republicans won 60 percent of the white vote in 2010, probably the highest share of that vote for Congress won by either party since 1822 (assuming an almost entirely white electorate pre-1952). More importantly for our purposes, whites made up 78 percent of the electorate in that year, in excess of Abramowitz’s 76 percent ceiling...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
I see “polls” as the state run “media’s” way of checking to see if the messages in their 20 second soundbites are getting through to the unwashed masses.
They all back slap, hand job each other on their final poll the night before the election and the attention span of the general populous doesn't see that they all tried for the longest time to sway the vote with by using "general population," "registered voters," and/or "likely voters" to skew their results.
Even RCP likes to aggregate likely and registered voter polls. Also, the sample sizes are way too small. Micro-polling is where the real info comes that the campaigns use.
Most polls are designed to get the results they want ,, I haven’t trusted them in the past and I sure as hell don’t trust them now more than ever .
Simply put, a “registered voters” poll is completely worthless. It doesn’t matter whom is doing the polling. If you’re not actually voting, your opinion in a poll on a given political race has zero bearing on the outcome.
Any poll that is not of likely voters is an agenda-driven poll.
Some of the newer polls definitely have problems, but firms like Gallup have a good reputation and know what they’re doing. To me, if your data is accurate, then methodology is working.
When they do a poll of "likely to vote" that is worth watching, but it costs a lot and needs a large sample base to crate any meaningful notations, except in micro-polling which is why the campaigns spend so much on "internal" polling.
When they do a poll of "likely to vote" that is worth watching, but it costs a lot and needs a large sample base to crate any meaningful notations, except in micro-polling which is why the campaigns spend so much on "internal" polling.
was polled by Rasmussen this morning.
I know what you’re saying. I’m more concerned if FReepers get suckered on such polling. We ought not even post polling data on races here unless they are explicitly stated to be “likely voters.”
True, but some are not. Samples with likely voters are more reliable than registered voters which are more reliable than random adults. But when you see them all trending the same way, then you might just have something, especially when the explanation makes sense.
What you said is true, and i remember threads talking about it also, but JR or Mods never did anything about it. Probably too hard to moderate since every freaking “poll” is posted w/o any digging into internals and an analysis given.
“Most polls” is my statement ,, not all perhaps ,, I realize there are credible polling sources but most media polling is as corrupt as the day is long . Even Fox cable has it’s problems with their “fair and Balanced” effort ,, with all the lib bloggers hitting them like a flash mob as soon as they go up . If likely voters in all 3 parties D’s , R’s and I’s are equally represented then you got a shot of a fair resulting poll . How often does that happen ???
At the least, the poster could indicate the make-up of the polling sample. Few things annoy me more than a thread of a couple hundred FReepers waxing outraged over a poll of registered voters that predicts an Obama win.
A poll like that is just not worth commenting on.
Republicans will bemoan the overabundance of Democrats in the samples, while Democrats will claim that the polls under-sample minorities.
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.