The Voters Have Not Been Kind to Pollsters Since 2002

National Review ^ | 11-5-2012 | Jim Geraghty - Commentary

[smoothsailing]

[Mr. K]

Just this weekend I heard (for the first time ever) one pollster admit that the biggest problem this election was the number of people refusing to participate. (>5% in many polls)

When polls were created many decades ago everyone had a landline phone and they always answered.

Now a high percentage have ONLY a cell phone and many people screen their calls to the answering machine

I know when pollsters call me I have told them no, I didnt want to participate.

I think these non-participaters are goign to be for Romney more likely than not.

[estrogen]

I agree with your statement. I have recieved so many calls starting at 8 in the AM and ending at 9PM and not once have I answered the phone (caller ID is wonderful) How many people do the same?

[annieokie]

I think these non-participaters are going to be for Romney more likely than not."""".......,

I think you are right on that point.

ON THIS: "Now a high percentage have ONLY a cell phone""..

Consider how many of those Cell phones belong to very young teenagers and under.

If those kids are answering the calls, they would just be playing with the pollster, but yet counted by the Dems. lol

[annieokie]

I think these non-participaters are going to be for Romney more likely than not."""".......,

I think you are right on that point.

ON THIS: "Now a high percentage have ONLY a cell phone""..

Consider how many of those Cell phones belong to very young teenagers and under.

If those kids are answering the calls, they would just be playing with the pollster, but yet counted by the Dems. lol

[smoothsailing]

It’s been my general theory that Obama voters have time to waste.

Romney voters are busy and value constructive use of limited time.

If my theory is has any merit, then Romney voters are being underpolled.

[Red Badger]

Being in Florida, we get polled over and over and over. We have finally just said ‘no’ and hang up or don’t answer the landline, since we have no caller ID.............

[xzins]

While many talk about the problems of getting demographics right, party affiliation right, etc., presidential polling is far easier than survey research due to their being one and only one question and that question being clearly defined.

Do you support Obama or do you support Romeny or do you support Johnson/Goode/etc?

It is a clearly defined choice, so that means you can get a fairly accurate view of sentiment with a relatively small sample of a large population.

[discostu]

I hang up on all political phonecalls, polls, GOTV, just don’t want to deal with them. I made the mistake of doing a poll once, 20 minutes out of my life then apparently I got flagged as “cooperative” because I got more poll phonecalls every night for weeks. Never again.

[cicero2k]

There’s a linear equation that could define the model.

Something that would involve party affiliation, age, income level, turnout expectation, expectation to respond to polling calls, landline responder, cellphone responder etc.

Pollsters are smart guys. There’s big money to be made. Why can’t they stay ahead of this?

[PapaBear3625]

Being in Florida, we get polled over and over and over. We have finally just said ‘no’ and hang up or don’t answer the landline, since we have no caller ID.............

My answering machine speaks out the caller ID. If I don't recognize the number, I let the machine take it.

I've made a habit of answering polling calls the last few weeks, declaring that I'm a young, black female Democrat who is not voting for Obama.

[momincombatboots]

My husband gets upset... But I can feign obamamania. It’s none of anyone’s business who I vote for. I would tell them I am an independent who voted for Obama. Unfortunately, I never get asked. Why would I ever, ever tell the pollsters the truth. I think I am not alone, based on 2008 exit polling.

[tanknetter]

There are hard demographics like race, sex, age and the like. Then there are soft demographics like party affiliation.

Pollsters will stick to models based on hard demographics because it’s the safe thing to do. Theres a point where the risk of being wrong is outweighed by the risk of other alternatives.

Start adjusting a model based on party ID for instance and you can expect an unpleasant phone call from David Axelrod and an indictment from Attorney General Holder. Better to just stick with the hard variables and eat the loss of rep from a wrong call.

[Randy Larsen]

I do.

[peeps36]

“They say that 60% of the time, it works, every time”. When I look at the polls they make me think about the above quote from the Ron Burgandy movie.

[cookcounty]

"Folks like me have been wondering for a while whether folks on the Right ..... are more likely to hang up on the pollster, and/or urge him to do anatomically difficult things to himself, than folks on the Left."

And there are other dynamics: TIME. Dems are more likely to be government workers, students, unemployed, or on welfare. They literally live lives with more leisure time, and therefore are more likely to take the 15-20 minutes that a real poll (as opposed to a manipulative "push-poll") takes. Conservatives, which include a high mix of small business people and larger families are less likely to find the time.

AND, as a long-suffering battleground-stater (Colorado), I literally cannot be polled, because it is my practice to hang up on ALL calls that even HINT they might be political. At our house, I have received well over 400 calls this fall. I don't have time to hear all the robo-call nonsense (and can't imagine that they could possibly sway anyone's vote). Romney ESPECIALLY has been robo-calling, inoculataing many of his supporters from participating.

If a poll does not actively adjust for party affiliation, I don't see how they could be accurate. The two groups simply live very different lives.

[wardaddy]

this article is not really true ...he cherry picked exceptions...shabby for the source really

i do think Dem oversampling could make this the first gross error in polling since 1948

not since then have poll aggregates been off much but then they did not run a fraction of what they do now

talking about POTUS national...

1980...polls were slow to catch Magnus debate trounce

2000 ...late polls missed Bush DUI...not polls fault really

this time...I think Dem samplings based on 2008 is an error

and if you dig you can see the proof otherwise...not to mention where Axlerod is spending the money

but polls are not inaccurate much

the 2004 exit polls...another matter..done on purpose to some degree

and I would caution of alphabet polls or hired college polls

but the top 4-6 respected ones...even Gallup...are not that far off

I predict Romney 300 plus EV

and 5-8% pop vote margin and carries most states in play

come and get me if wrong..if I can log in

i mean really...this is just frigging awful here

[wardaddy]

this article is not really true ...he cherry picked exceptions...shabby for the source really

i do think Dem oversampling could make this the first gross error in polling since 1948

not since then have poll aggregates been off much but then they did not run a fraction of what they do now

talking about POTUS national...

1980...polls were slow to catch Magnus debate trounce

2000 ...late polls missed Bush DUI...not polls fault really

this time...I think Dem samplings based on 2008 is an error

and if you dig you can see the proof otherwise...not to mention where Axlerod is spending the money

but polls are not inaccurate much

the 2004 exit polls...another matter..done on purpose to some degree

and I would caution of alphabet polls or hired college polls

but the top 4-6 respected ones...even Gallup...are not that far off

I predict Romney 300 plus EV

and 5-8% pop vote margin and carries most states in play

come and get me if wrong..if I can log in

i mean really...this is just frigging awful here

[wardaddy]

this article is not really true ...he cherry picked exceptions...shabby for the source really

i do think Dem oversampling could make this the first gross error in polling since 1948

not since then have poll aggregates been off much but then they did not run a fraction of what they do now

talking about POTUS national...

1980...polls were slow to catch Magnus debate trounce

2000 ...late polls missed Bush DUI...not polls fault really

this time...I think Dem samplings based on 2008 is an error

and if you dig you can see the proof otherwise...not to mention where Axlerod is spending the money

but polls are not inaccurate much

the 2004 exit polls...another matter..done on purpose to some degree

and I would caution of alphabet polls or hired college polls

but the top 4-6 respected ones...even Gallup...are not that far off

I predict Romney 300 plus EV

and 5-8% pop vote margin and carries most states in play

come and get me if wrong..if I can log in

i mean really...this is just frigging awful here

[cookcounty]

"Dems are more likely to be government workers,......and live lives with more leisure time"

Case in point, I was at the Social Security office this morning. Approximately 25 full-time people work there. The place is open 32 1/2 hours per week. Figure THAT out.