Posted on 09/11/2005 7:51:28 AM PDT by new yorker 77
Final Topline Results (9/10/05)
N = 1,009 national adults, 18 and over
Margin of error: plus or minus 4
Interviewing dates: September 8-9, 2005
SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR REGISTERED VOTERS/
SUBGROUPS:
901 Registered voters (plus or minus 4)
SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR KEY SUBGROUPS:
300 Republicans (plus or minus 7)
334 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
331 Independents (plus or minus 6)
------------------------------------
793 Whites (plus or minus 4)
195 Non-whites (plus or minus 8)
If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart.
If you are still a liberal when you are older, you have no brain.
I was just like you back then.
I thought I knew it all and I leaned left.
But taxes and family and taxes and bills and taxes and car insurance and taxes and deadlines and did I mention taxes will change you.
Or it might be that only 29% are willing to admit they are Republicans. 5 years of failed immigration policy, etc., takes its toll.
You'll get them if you look up and stop staring at your shoes.
Not true.
Any pollster worth the time to review know that the public is polarized.
Democrats believe that David Kay, Richard Clarke, Abu Gharib, Farhenheit 9-11, Bill Burkett, Missing Ammo - NYTimes, would all destroy Bush in 2004.
Their polls showed that much.
They were wrong.
Scott Rasmussen was 24 for 24 in state election results.
He called the Election within tenths of a percent.
How?
He sampled 37% Republican, 37% Democrat and 26% Independent, where Independents Lean Democrat and Republican in a 50/50 spread.
He also polled 'likely voters'. Which edged Bush 2 to 3 points higher.
Today Bush has a 47.5% job approval among 'national adults' according to Rasmussen.
Add 2.5% to 27.5%, you get 50% approval among 'likely voters'.
That's a fact.
Newsweek undersamples Republicans because they favor Bush in the highest percentage. They replace those voters with Democrats and those who lean Democrat in order to get their result.
In 2004 Newsweek had Bush as low as 42% among 'likely voters'.
If that 2004 poll where of 'national adults', deduct 3 points, you get 39% approval.
That's last year.
That's Newsweek.
It was a is FAKE then as it is FAKE now.
Light has been shed on their numbers.
Newsweek contradicts legitimate and accurate polling.
Case closed.
Pray for W, NO, MS and Our Freedom Fighters
NEWSWEAK FLASHBACK: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4986882
May 15, 2004 - As his administration grapples with the fallout from the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, President George W. Bush’s approval ratings have dropped to 42 percent, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, a low for his presidency. Fifty-seven percent say they disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq. And 62 percent say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States, a number that has been steadily increasing since April, 2003, when it was 41 percent.
Jets Game is on.
Adios.
Hi, DrDeb. Pinging you FYI to this thread about a warped Newsweek poll that way oversampled Dems.
These "polls" do not take into consideration the number of "DemocRATS" who identify themselves to the "media" as being a "veteran" and/or a "Republican who voted for Bush." The DNC has instructed it's useful idiots on how to play this game. Republicans who are called to participate in these "polls" should start identifying themselves as "Democrats" who didn't vote for Bush but are totally in awe of the job he is doing.
The poll does NOT purport to be a poll of voters. It's a poll of public opinion (i.e., national adults 18 and over). Just because someone doesnt vote doesnt mean they dont have an opinion. If they were predicing a Kerry victory based on this poll, then yeah the political composition of voters matters but the poll is not about voters and who they are going to vote for, its about what the people of the country believe/feel about an issue. I guess your point is if someone doesnt know how to organize effectively to get their vote counted, their opinion is worth shit.
And how do you know that some portion of voters who are normally Republican havent changed thier perception of themselves to independent based upon any number of factors: Katrina, the war, immigration and borders, etc. Shit happens you know. Maybe Republicans are not so proud to be Republicans these days?
This is a secret my friend. Dont tell anyone. The poll doesnt purport to predict any election. It has NOTHING to do with elections. It's polling public opinion. The public is not limited to those who vote. In this case, Newsweek is defining their sample as adults 18 and older. Apparently you dont feel they have a right to poll non-voters because they dont vote. I thought non-voters were citizens too. Silly me. I actualy believed what they taught in Civics class.
The fact that Republicans vote disproportionaly more often than non Republicans doesnt mean that a poll of public opinion is biased its not based on previous election returns. If I wanted to know what percent of Americans use Colgate Toothpaste, I could care less whether they were Republicans, Democrats, or Independents because I was polling public opinion, not attempting to predict the results of an election. You also seem to forget that Bush isnt running for anything but his legacy.
Count yourself lucky. I get called at least four or five times each political year and a few times in between on non political polls.
There are approximately 290,000,000 people in the US. The accuracy of any poll drops dramatically if the sample is less than 10% of the population for which you are applying the results. Unless Newsweek polled 29,000,000 people, the poll is garbage, as are all polls.
ping
If a pollster is GENUINELY trying to gauge 'public opinion', said pollster must generate a polling sample REPRESENTATIVE OF THE US PUBLIC. Accordingly, said pollster MUST concern themselves with issues of gender, geography, party affiliation, and so on.
FYI: Not only are today's pollsters using UNREPRESENTATIVE samples, they are also producing results based on ridiculously low response rates (ranging from 5% - 25%) -- at it's most relevant, Gallup was getting response rates above 60%!
For these pollsters to hide behind the facade of 'random sampling' is beyond bogus! Why do you think they were SHOCKED by the election outcomes in 2002 and 2004 (and many special elections in between)? Why do you think they were SHOCKED by the inaccuracy of the exit polls in 2004 (and in MANY state/local races in 2002 and 2004)? Why indeed!
BOTTOMLINE: IT'S THE SAMPLE STUPID!
BTW: With 4 RED STATES essentially 'off line' (AL, LA, MS, and TX) where do you think these pollsters are getting their 'replacement' respondents?! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?!
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.