Posted on 09/10/2012 1:53:50 PM PDT by tellw
The Gallup seven day tracking poll of the presidential race released today shows Mitt Romney behind President Obama by a 49 percent to 44 margin. The seven day tracking poll of 3050 registered voters, that has a margin of error of 2.0 percent, samples Democrats by about a 8 percent margin based on calculations from the reported data. If the data is properly weighted for the partisan makeup of the electorate, the data from this poll unskewed would show a Romney lead of 49 percent to 44. By skewing the poll, it gives Obama a five point lead instead of showing Romney leading by the same total.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Rasmussen is a three-day poll.
I expect that tomorrow Rasmussen will show a counter-trend as Monday results come in and Friday falls off.
“Unskewed? Something the LGBT community wouldn’t understand?”
hahaha!
—Ohio not only oversampled Dems +4, but also oversampled women +9.
Wow, that’s really some good information. I knew about the party weighting but sex?!?!?! Where would all the men have gone? /s
You are correct. I wouldnt trust the +4 R number until we see it in November.
The other thing, though is that the Gallup is an RV poll not an LV poll. The LV universe is more R than all RVs.
Gallup is not skewing their sample at all, unlike some others.
The ‘Axelrod Factor’ doesn’t impress me.......................
Yeah, but 2010 says its not +4 and who is less pissed off now than then?
There are other ways to build polling structures that allow you to specify how many Republicans and Democrats you want of course.
In general there are always going to be more people reporting themselves to be Democrats than Republicans because, as it turns out, there are not equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats.
We are quite lucky to win the elections we do ~ sometimes we are hopelessly outnumbered.
Like your ID --- "Goodbye Mr.Chips" ---great movie!
One thing is certain... even when we discount the Democrat oversampling in polls like this one, we cannot ignore the more trusted pollsters like Rasmussen (which polls likely voters ). I can’t believe that even Rasmussen is part of the MSM trying to dispirit Republicans.
It REALLY looks like Obama is leading in the polls at this point in time. We have to be realistic. It is what it is.
The main question is not whether or not the economy is bad. The economy IS bad and people know it.
However the huge factor is HOW DEPENDENT ARE AMERICANS BECOMING ON GOVERNMENT?
If the answer to the above question is this — VERY. Then yes, Obama might even win and we have to sadly conclude that we have crossed the tipping point in this country.
I have a very sick feeling that this might be the case (God forbid ). Consider these factors:
1) Nearly HALF of Americans pay no taxes ( 47% last I read ).
2) 1 in 3 Americans are in some sort of government welfare program.
3) 45 Million people on food stamps. Up by over 15 million compared to 4 years ago.
4) Obama promising to “help” those underwater in their mortgages and college students and grads who cannot pay back their college loans.
5) Auto workers in swing states like Michigan and Ohio being brainwashed into believing that it is good to bail out GM because Obama cares and wants to save their jobs.
Those factors CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED.
Once a significant number of our populace suck on the government’s teat.... it becomes like a drug which is very difficult to withdraw from and they will vote accordingly.
Many of these people are not even informed. They are too busy playing with their cell phones and texting.
don’t know if to laugh or shake my head when I see those letter.
It’s a mixed bag of weirdo’s mental sickness and perverts, hell even wild animals know it takes a male and a female to reproduce and they don’t have the alpha of the wolf pack thinking now he’s a she.
That tells us how sick the homostapo/homosexuals and their sipporters are.
Sorry I couldn't resist it was so obvious.
Not to be a nitpicker, but the oversampling of women was 54% to 46%, or 8%. The 2010 census showed women outnumbering men by about 1.6%, so the PPP oversample of women is actually 6.4%, and that should definitely skew results in Obama’s favor since he always seems to poll stronger with women (Rush’s arousal gap).
The question is whether this oversampling of women is deliberate or a side effect of discarding republican responses to reach the desired R/D mix, which are more likely to have come from men.
But, I agree, any time someone has to decide whether to keep or toss a given sample, there is the potential for mischief.
By women, do you mean single women, or married women? Big difference.
What keeps me hopeful is that he couldn’t fill the stadium last week.
Here's a problem for any poll ~ it's called "sample cells". If you want to poll on just one thing ~ do you like A or like B ~ that's two sample cells. A statistically meaningful sample population within a certain confidence interval will have to be polled for each one, and if, for instance, you needed 100 answers for A, you might be getting just 90 answers for B, so you'd have to keep sampling people until you had a minimum of 100 in each cell.
That's for a single characeristic with a 1% confidence interval.
If you need TWO characteristics, you need 4 cells, and the minimum requirement might still be 100, but you'd have to keep sampling until you found a combination of those two characteristics had found at a minimum 100. That could result in a need to sample enough people to give you far higher sample results for the other combinations.
You've probably noticed they ask for about a 3.5% confidence interval ~ then they'll tell you male, female, young, old, black, white, etc. Might be 10 or 15 characteristics in each full poll. If 3.5% is the confidence interval, we take the reciprocal of that times the number of different characteristics to find out what the minimum acceptable number is for the smallest reporting cell ~ and in this one 30 X 6 or 180! You could easily need to survey several thousand people to fill the other cells with statistically reliable numbers ~ or you could just drop off the smallest reporting sample cell ~ which is what they've done if you suddenly find yourself reading a report about old white women, but not old black men! Kind of a clue ~ and a very dangerous one in a political campaign.
Note, the more things you want sampled in a poll, the more costly it gets because the need to fill those minimum sample cells to a statistically significant level can give you a geometric increase in the number of people to be sampled.
If, as one Freeper reported yesterday, the polling company ended up with 1 voluntary respondent for each 13 who refused to participate in the poll, you might find yourself paying for 10,000 phone calls ~ which could easily break the bank.
Heh, you’re right.
This is called an "artifact of the design" and doesn't really reflect opinion ~ just that you are hearing results where they had so many women in that line, but they had too few men in that line to tell you about it.
In short, the guy paying for the poll didn't want to pay enough for a poll that would tell him everything he'd asked about.
A bigger difference is “big women” or “small women” ~ but they won’t give you reliable answers on those two factors so don’t even bother.
Although incorrectly identified as a Conservative, or Republican by the public, that celebrity has definitely HURT REPUBLICANS when it comes to getting those folks to vote Republican or Conservative!
He, on the other hand, is praised for his courage in reporting that information.
To date I'd guess Sean Hannity has encouraged a good 25 million people to NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN simply because that would be to vote for a tax increase.
BTW, that's all based on a lie however. First off, NOBODY in America escapes taxes ~ just can't be done. Secondly, the original claim had only to do with a single tax called the Federal Personal Income Tax ~ and not all taxes.
Third, Ronaldus Magnus himself began the process of relieving the poor and working poor from the harrassment of paying the federal personal income tax.
And, besides, the tax as originally invisioned a century ago was that it would only affect the top 1 or 2% of wage earners!
Please don't continue this one ~ it just hurts us ~ even the rich don't want to pay more taxes ~ what makes you think the poor wish to? That's just crazy talk.
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.