Posted on 03/27/2008 1:11:47 PM PDT by obamahorror
A pro-Clinton blogger busted the latest NBC/WSJ poll touting no Wright's effect on Obama's popularity. NBC/WSJ oversampled African American voters to shrill for Obama.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27301
TYPICAL.
If you read the methodology of most polls they all over sample African Americans. They do this because they say African Americans vote in a larger percentage in relation to their percentage of the population.
African Americans make up about 12% of the population but most polls sample them at about 22%.
I believe they clarified and stated that they over-sampled African Americans but they weren’t over represented in the results.
How and why should we believe a pro-clinton blogger>
The word is “shill.”
It is “shill” for Obama.
Hillary is shrill.
NBC/Wall Street Journal Embarrassed on Oversampling
AND then: Polls Show Obama Damaged by Reverend Wright
March 25, 2008 12:28 PM ET | Michael Barone | Permanent Link
******************EXCERPT*******************
Before the Wright revelations, Rasmussen in its nightly tracking showed Obama ahead of Clinton nationally 48 percent to 41 percent, a statistically significant 7 percentage point lead. On March 18, the day of Obama's Philadelphia speech, that was reduced to a 45 percent to 44 percent lead. The most recent results, reported March 24, showed Clinton ahead 46 percent to 44 percent. In other words, over two weeks, Obama was down 4 percentage points, Clinton up 5 percentage points—major movement, given the usually glacially show movement in Rasmussen numbers.
You can see something similar in Rasmussen's favorable and unfavorable numbers for the three surviving candidates. The table below shows the appropriate numbers for favorable and unfavorable:
| Obama | Clinton | McCain | |
|---|---|---|---|
| March 13 | 51%-46% | 48%-50% | 51%-45% |
| March 18 | 52%-44% | 47%-50% | 53%-43% |
| March 24 | 46%-52% | 42%-55% | 55%-42% |
Clinton's numbers have become somewhat more unfavorable. But the major difference is that McCain's fav/unfavs have become marginally more favorable, while Obama's have become significantly less favorable.
msnbc disputes this:
The main sample for the survey was a cross section of 700 registered voters nationally. As is the case with all of our usual polls, this sample is statistically representative of voters across the country, accurately reflecting the gender, age, educational, geographical, and racial makeup of the electorate. The column in the topline document labeled “All Voters”, as well as nearly all of the subgroups listed in the survey crosstabs, are among these cross section of 700. Eleven percent (11%) of these interviews — or 77 interviews — were with African Americans, which accurately reflects African Americans’ proportion of the electorate. Thus, African Americans are NOT over-represented in our national sample.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/
fake but accurate?
Yeh, and whitey has the power
Who you gonna believe? Obama, or a pro-Clinton blogger?
Tough choice, huh?
I wonder how her campaign knew to look at the sampling technique? I wonder why no one in the MSM ever questions the sample methods when a Republican is shown to be behind in the polls?
Yep. Skewed but accurate.
are you really expecting us to believe a random pro-clinton blogger?
clintoonites are among us.
African Americans make up 12% of the live population but amount to 20+% of the vote, because being good democrats, they vote several times and continue to do so well after death. Thus a rational basis for oversampling.
"As you know, the sample for the March 24-25 poll on race included an “oversample” of 100 African American voters. There has been some confusion as to exactly how these extra interviews were integrated into the survey; we hope this memorandum will clear up any misconceptions."
"The main sample for the survey was a cross section of 700 registered voters nationally. As is the case with all of our usual polls, this sample is statistically representative of voters across the country, accurately reflecting the gender, age, educational, geographical, and racial makeup of the electorate. The column in the topline document labeled “All Voters”, as well as nearly all of the subgroups listed in the survey crosstabs, are among these cross section of 700. Eleven percent (11%) of these interviews -- or 77 interviews -- were with African Americans, which accurately reflects African Americans’ proportion of the electorate. Thus, African Americans are NOT over-represented in our national sample."
In addition to this national cross section, we interviewed an extra 100 African Americans to analyze the opinions of this group with a greater degree of statistical reliability. We combined these 100 only with the 77 African Americans that naturally fell into our national sample, for a total of 177 interviews with African Americans; these extra interviews were not combined with the full national sample of 700. The column in the topline document labeled “African Americans” shows the responses of these 177 respondents, as do the subgroups in the crosstabs for African Americans, African-American men, and African-American women.
The table below shows the margins of error for the three groups whose responses are shown in the topline document:
National cross section of voters: 700 interviews, +/- 3.7%
White voters: 520 interviews, +/- 4.3%
African-American voters: 177 interviews, +/- 7.4%
They sample them 10% higher than 12% population because ACORN seems to be able to find a few bus loads of them not doing anything on election day!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! Exactly!
Never take ANY “survey” at face value.
Unless a scientist administers it, which almost never happens, then it is biased in favor of what the surveyor wants to believe.
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.