Quinnipiac Polling's Peter Brown Tries To Defend Oversampling Democrats In New State Polls

The Hugh Hewitt Show ^ | Aug. 2, 2012 | Hugh Hewitt (transcript)

[StAnDeliver]

Hewitt destroys Peter Brown on what amounts to polling fraud by Quinnipiac.

[Candor7]

PB: But we didn’t set out to oversample Democrats.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Buahahahahahahaa! He said it just “happened!” This is the kind of crap that should make national news, the now institutionalized deception of the US public.

[SoFloFreeper]

Hewitt did a good job....this Quinnipiac guy is spinning like a truck stuck in the mud.

What an idiot.

[Steely Tom]

Oh good grief. Like I need to hear another left-wingers BS excuses.

[Brookhaven]

What Quinnipac is saying is that, when it comes to the people they are able to contact for the poll there is an overwhelming number of Democrats. The question should be: what is wrong with their polling method that causes them to end up contacting too many Democrats?

[AU72]

The question should be: what is wrong with their polling method that causes them to end up contacting too many Democrats?

Calling at 2PM on a week day and catching mostly democrats watching soaps at home?

[Gaffer]

The question should be: what is wrong with their polling method that causes them to end up contacting too many Democrats?

Obama gave them a list of the OBAMAPHONE users.

[BluH2o]

The question should be: what is wrong with their polling method that causes them to end up contacting too many Democrats?

They happen to be home the most ... they're not working.

[N. Theknow]

Wonder how many times Quinnipiac has published a poll whrre Republicans have been oversampled?

[crosslink]

This is classic:

HH: And so if, in fact, you had gotten a hundred Democrats out of a hundred respondents that answered, would you think that poll was reliable?

PB: Probably not at 100 out of 100.

HH: Okay, so if it was 75 out of 100…

PB: Well, I mean…

HH: I mean, when does it become unreliable? You know you’ve just put your foot on the slope, so I’m going to push you down it. When does it become unreliable?

PB: Like the Supreme Court and pornography, you know it when you see it.

HH: Well, a lot of us look at a nine point advantage in Florida, and we say we know that to be the polling equivalent of pornography. Why am I wrong?

[RoseofTexas]

Thank You Jesus!! And the truth shall set you free!! Now for all of the worried folk here...GO OUT and celebrate the unmasking of these idiot pollster's who think they can pull the wool over our eyes. They honestly think we are SOOOOOOO FREAKIN stupid!! Because of their blind hatred towards anything conservative they have no idea what's going to hit them come this election. Anger can't not be gauged or polled correctly without lying in their methodological numbers. So go out and have yourselves a cold one, or a glass of wine or whatever, BUT COME NOV. we are going to destroy the communist gay lover OBOZO and his socialist butt kissing RATS, ANNNNNNNND the mediaWHORES!! Americans are angry and there will be a price to pay come NOVEMBER!! PTL and thank you Hewitt!

[Sooth2222]

"The question should be: what is wrong with their polling method that causes them to end up contacting too many Democrats? "

Polling in July and August, and not correcting for party affiliation? WHO is away on vacation or at the beach in July and August, and WHO is staying at home behind closed blinds and barred doors? (Rasmussen -- I think -- corrects for this somewhat, but not completely.)

[SW6906]

That was awesome! He never saw it coming. Backed himself right into the corner and couldn’t get out. Don’t mess with a brilliant lawyer like Hugh!

[M Kehoe]

In the fwiw department, and since this post is anecdotal, I don't care what any of the polls say. Although, I'd really like to see the White House's internal polling. Methinks, from the advertising I'm seeing, they are scared sh!tless.

This election for president is the definition of conundrum: a liberal vs a marxist. Should I hang myself, or shoot myself. No upside to this decision.

5.56mm

[KMG365]

PB: What I believe is what we found.

Sounds like a Freudian slip there, like he had a predetermined outcome in mind. What he should have said is what we found is what I believe.

[BookmanTheJanitor]

But we didn’t set out to oversample Democrats.

and, yet, it always turns out that way. Hmmmmm.....

[InterceptPoint]

The polling guy seems to be inferring that he is getting his turnout model from the D vs. R responses from this specific poll. I really don’t think this is the the standard polling methology.

The normal.scheme is to poll the R’s and D’s and I’s and determine the best estimate of how each of these 3 groups will split their vote between Obama and Romney. Then they prorate this result based on their independently developed turnout model.

Am I right about this?

[Arm_Bears]

Fake. But accurate.

[CanuckYank]

AU72 gives you one parameter. Another poster recently pointed out that VERY FEW small biz owners get home before 7 or 8 PM and one of the main polling time blocks is 5:30pm to 7pm.

And then, ultimately, you have the same vulnerability with the polling data tabulation as we have with vote counting - when done by machines, and in particular computers, any result desired can be generated by tweaking the counting algorithms in the software. In the case of pollsters, there’s also the issue of the software that drives the “random” dialers.

[Sioux-san]

You got that right - same reason Vietnam Vet John Kerry was so upset in 2004 because the Exit Polls gave him the clear edge...cuz they were polling people in the middle of the afternoon when most working people were, well, working. Working people are not the typical constituency of the Libs.