LA Times Added 125 Latino Likely Voters

Belly of the Beast Bulletin ^ | August 24, 2003 | Eric Hogue

[Eric Hogue 1380 KTKZ]

I spoke of this issue today at 5:30AM on my morning show - and the phones blew up with concern! Seems that the LA Times 'supplimented' the weekend poll with 125 Latino 'likely voters'. No wonder Bustamante's numbers were high!

[Eric Hogue 1380 KTKZ]

Where is the news media on this one? Have you read the details surrounding the LA Times Poll that was released over the weekend?

Read the small print. Seems that the LA Times 'added Latino voters' to the poll mix. There is a section from the LA Times Report that states, "How The Poll Was Conducted". They supplemented 125 Latino likely voters to the mix of those polled. What kind of poll is this people? Why aren't we hearing about this fact along side of the poll results?

See the "Belly of the Beast Blog" at www.ktkz.com for further information.

[goldstategop]

More polling fraud. Now we know where the Los Angeles Times got their "special sauce" from to make it look like Large Breasts had the election in the bag. This was the laziest "push poll" I've ever seen.

[hole_n_one]

Turn on the FNC, and it's the only poll result being reported.

[deport]

http://images.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2003-08/9130937.pdf

HOW THE POLL WAS CONDUCTED
The Times Poll contacted 1,351 California registered voters,
including 801 voters deemed likely to vote, by telephone Aug.
16–21. The margin of sampling error for both registered and
likely voters is plus or minus 3 percentage points. To allow for
analysis, the main sample was supplemented to provide a total of
125 Latino likely voters (margin of sampling error +/– 9 percent-age
points) and the samples were weighted to their state propor-tions.

[monkeyshine]

That's just rediculous. The LA Times is so lame!

[monkeyshine]

Ah, it's not quite what you said it was in the intro. They didn't "add" 125 Latinos, they just added enough to make it a total of 125 Latinos out of 800.

It's still a "special sauce", because theoretically the plurality of those polled would already be Latino.

[deport]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970251/posts?
L.A. Times Poll (Is the Poll Skewed?)

[montag813]

This isn't a poll skew, this is what reality will be like under a Don Cruz administration. Bustamante will allow ILLEGALS WITH MATRICULAR CARDS TO VOTE. This is guaranteed, and will be implemented just before the 2004 elections. Democrats will back it to thwart Bush, and it will pave the way to Aztlan anarchy.

The only thing which can stop the Bustamante-Aztlan Dictatorship is for Tom McClintock to withdraw from the race ASAP.

[redheadtoo]

The LA Times wanted to creat the image that Bustamonte was ahead of Arnold so they cooked the numbers. It just goes to show you that polls sponsored by the news media are illegitimate. Newspapers are supposed to report the news, not manufacture it.

Actually this poll exposes that Bustamonte is in trouble. He is the only major democrat running in a largely democrat state. His numbers should be over fifty percent.

One more point of interest. Last week the DNC told Davis that they would not back a loser and if he did not get his poll numbers up in ten days they were going to withdraw their support and give it to Bustamonte. Surprise! The next poll to appear shows that support for the recall is dropping.

[deport]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/970401/posts?page=1

Polls Apart: Schwarzenegger isn't as far behind as he seems

........In a campaign as short as California's recall election, small events can have larger affects on the race. That seems to be happening with Los Angeles Times poll released on Sunday, which shows Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante with a 35% to 22% lead over Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. The internal polls of both candidates have the race much closer, but those haven't been publicly released. ......
end snip

[ambrose]

So as I get it, the Schwarzenegger Poll Jockeys state that McClintock must drop out of the race based on his standing in the polls -- however, they also claim that these same polls, which show Arnie falling behind, are deeply flawed or even corrupt.

Gotcha.

[FITZ]

Maybe they figured with immigration going as fast as it is, they'd need to add in some more latin voters now to have the numbers right for when the election happens.

[First_Salute]

Though I live in Ohio, I expect to vote in the California elections and vote often.

[FreedomCalls]

"...(margin of sampling error +/– 9 percent-age points)..."

That means if they polled Arnold at 22% then his support actually could be ANYWHERE from 13% up to 31%. If Cruz polled at 35% then his support actually could be ANYWHERE from 26% to 44%. Since they overlap, the poll is meaningless as they both are within the margin of error of each other. Arnold could be at 31% and Cruz at 26% given the +/- 9% margin of error. Most polls cite a +/- 3% margin of error. That this one is so big means they knew they were skewing the results.

[okie01]

"They didn't "add" 125 Latinos, they just added enough to make it a total of 125 Latinos out of 800."

Incorrect.

The overall poll results are based on the sample of 800, including whatever Latinos were caught in the "random" net.

In addition, they also did a supplementary sample of 125 Latino "likely voters", which were added to the Latinos within the 800 to create a separate sub-sample of Latino voters for separate analysis.

That is a legit polling practice, as it creates a Latino sample large enough to be sliced and diced for analytical purposes.

[Free Vulcan]

An excellent example of liberal psychological warfare.

[monkeyshine]

they also did a supplementary sample of 125 Latino "likely voters", which were added to the Latinos within the 800

But the link above says "To allow for analysis, the main sample was supplemented to provide a total of 125 Latino likely voters

So, what am I missing?

[okie01]

My mistake. Your expression is correct.

The sub-sample totalled only 125 -- barely sufficient to "split" for analysis. But the additional Latinos to make up the 125 sub-sample would not have been counted in the 800.

Odd, though, that -- in a random sample of 800 -- they didn't find even 125 Latino respondents (15%).

[CyberAnt]

Hmmmm? Interesting - That's exactly what I said about he LATimes poll when I first saw it. Amazing ..??

[Wphile]

I was flipping through the channels and caught some of Chris Matthews. Even Pat Cadell said this poll is not credible. He thought something was fishy as it didn't make sense.