Posted on 11/14/2005 3:27:33 PM PST by new yorker 77
LAST QUESTION in the polling data:
D2. Now I have just a few more questions so we can describe the people who took part in our survey ... Regardless of how you might have voted in recent elections, in politics TODAY, do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or Independent?
27 Republican
37 Democrat
32 Independent
2 No party/Not interested in politics (VOL.)
1 Other party (VOL.)
1 Don't know
100
(Excerpt) Read more at biz.yahoo.com ...
So you can getting GW to lowest favorable by continuing to use more dems in the sample?
In other words, most polls are shite!
Their polls fluctuate because the do not set a parameter for likely voters and party affiliation.
This is why htey had a 30 point range between Bush and Kerry during the 2004 election.
Kerry +14 in the spring, Bush +16 in September.
They were both garbage because both advantages came as a result of oversampling both sides in each given poll.
I am not being childish.
You are defending an MSM and their biased polling data.
I know ZERO conservatives who would do that.
Being right regarding a biased Newsweek poll would only angry a liberal poser.
Rasmussen had Bush's approval rating at 46%.
Tell that to Scott Rasmussen.
He actually gets elections right because he does not misrepresent Republicans.
For years, MSM polling firms have undersampled Republicans.
If you as a 'conservative' feel comfortable defending Newsweek and CNN, go right ahead.
Enjoy being wrong in the face of facts.
You named the game.
Earlier this year, most of the pollsters were weighting their samples according to party affiliation . . . the President's JA ratings remained too high.
What did the MSM pollsters do to remedy this situation? They simply changed their weighting formulae, driving the the percentage of Republicans into the 20s and the percentage of Independents (where Democrats hide) into the high 30s/low 40s. Like magic, the President's JA ratings slipped into the high 30s/low 40s!
In today's highly partisan political/social environment, do you actually believe that party affiliation fluctuates wildly?! Please!
ALL pollsters control for key demographic variables, Gallup included. The fact Gallup, et al, have decided to stop controlling for the one variable that actually subsumes all the rest speaks volumes!
Deb,
I was not a freeper in 2004, but I remember this Gallup poll that had Bush+16.
I said it was garbage at the time because Rasmussen had Bush and Kerry pretty much still tied as he had all year.
Gallup refused to use parameters for party ID that had been consistent over several election cycles.
Newsweek was outright sloppy and biased for a year and a half and then took the CYA approach last minute.
GOP voters did not disappear into thin air.
If you want support for Bush to disappear, make his supporters disappear from your poll with no election cycle data to back up your sample.
As far as I am concerned you get the William F. Buckley award for choosing sides in the bizzaro world.
They control for variables that can compared against the census, this cannot be done in the case of party ID, all we have to go from is flawed exit polls.
If the sample is truly random, the party ID question is nothing more than another question to examine how the political environment is shaped at this point in time.
Realclearpolitics.com does a great job of keeping tabs on the polls -
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/NEW_POLLS/polls-GWB_JA.html
You didn't read my post. Try again. Party ID fluctuates wildly. No, 27% is not the same as 37%, but then the numbers of self-identified "Republicans" and "Democrats" aren't remotely constant.
If you want to defend Newsweek for clearly being biased and caught, then you are as conservative as Hillary.
Your ridiculous ad hominem has been noted. Now grow up.
Nowadays, people may be reluctant to admit that they're Republicans.
Yes I do.
ALL pollsters control for key demographic variables, Gallup included.
Correct. But race, age and gender don't change overnight. Political affiliation can and does.
"Nowadays, people may be reluctant to admit that they're Republicans."
As most polling experts have noted, 'nowadays' Republicans are FAR less likely to respond to polls in the first place.
[Did you ever wonder why Gallup, who at one time boasted a response rate over 60%, now averages less than 30%. Most other pollsters garner a mere 5-15% response rate. Bottomline: The best you can say about these polls is that they MAY reflect the opinions of the 5% who actually bother to speak with a pollster!!]
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.