To: finnigan2
I can understand the concern about over sampling by some pollsters as a hidden attempt to provide a basis for a future claim that Bush's lead is eroding, but isn't that a bit of a risky propostion?
1. Time and Newsweek risk being over shadowed by more reputable polling. Especially if other polls settle in at a 7-8% lead.
2. They risk discouraging Kerry's base as there are some who will throw their hands in the air and simply give up.
I wouldn't put anything past these rags, just don't know how effective this is.
47 posted on
09/05/2004 7:18:02 AM PDT by
ShandaLear
(Swifties v. MoveOn.org: David slays Goliath)
To: ShandaLear
"Time and Newsweek risk being over shadowed by more reputable polling. Especially if other polls settle in at a 7-8% lead. "
- I'm no statistician, but the over-weighting seemed to be producing about a 3% increase in the spread between Bush and Kerry. In other words Time and Newsweek were showing about a 11% spread when in fact it was closer to 8%. This 3% difference is within the margin of error for such polls so even if a more reputable poll came in at a 8 or 9% spread, they wouldn't be too embarrassed - the difference could be explained away as merely a sampling deviation.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson