Posted on 10/02/2004 3:56:52 PM PDT by jwalsh07
I can't, of course. But this is not the only poll that showed this. Gallup showed a shift in partisan mix when Bush took the lead from Kerry. People may not respond to the question from the perspective of how they are registered. They may respond with how they lean that day.
If so, then it is an explanation. The bottom line here is that party affiliation may not be a relevant demographic. When one says Dems were "overpolled" one cannot know if that is correct because no one knows who will turn out. Also, one cannot say "overpolled" unless the results were forced in that regard.
There is another consideration. It is not clear to me that phone numbers are on registration lists.
Maybe, maybe not. It could be an outlier, it could signal a shift nobody else has picked up or it could be Princeton Research Associates cooking the books.
That's easy! Have 6% less Republicans and 6% more Democrats in this "post debate poll" than the 9/11/04 poll in a partisan race and you will MANUFACTURE a 6% swing. Whether the sampling in the first poll or second poll was correct is NOT the point. The point is the manufactured swing - which they'll call a change in momentum in favor of their candidate, Kerry)
dvwjr...have you done an analysis on the new Newsweak poll?
How does your post demonstrate this?
It shows Newsweek poll agreeing with Time, CNN/Gallop and ABC over the past month when all showed Bush with a solid lead.
Unless we are to really believe that 12% of the people who identified themselves as Republicans before the debate changed their party identification after the debate. Republicans ARE made of stronger stuff than that!
After the GOP convention, Republicans were excited. They were more likely to pick up the phone and talk with a pollster, and so Newsweak included many more of them in the post-GOP convention polls. After the debate on Thursday, it was the RATs who were fired up and willing to respond, and this poll reflects that.
This race has moved back into a tie. Fn's debate performance helped shore up his support in his base and won him more undecided voters than Bush did.
This was likely to happen anyway as election day approached. The debate just hurried it along. Neither side is going to get a blow out.
Not a valid point, the shift to Bush was picked up by almost every poll. Zogby is an exception but he weights.
If so, then it is an explanation. The bottom line here is that party affiliation may not be a relevant demographic. When one says Dems were "overpolled" one cannot know if that is correct because no one knows who will turn out. Also, one cannot say "overpolled" unless the results were forced in that regard.
I think you missed the point, I never said dems were overpolled. Here's my opinion on polling. If a voter is registered, he is registerd with a politcal party or as an independent. That should be the second question asked. First is are you registered? Second should be, in what party? Voters can not shift parties at a whim. If they are registered, they're registered. They can and do cross over but that would show up in the polling, no?
There is another consideration. It is not clear to me that phone numbers are on registration lists.
They are not. Phone numbers are dialed randomly which presents a myriad of problems to todays pollsters.
Not a valid point, the shift to Bush was picked up by almost every poll. Zogby is an exception but he weights.
If so, then it is an explanation. The bottom line here is that party affiliation may not be a relevant demographic. When one says Dems were "overpolled" one cannot know if that is correct because no one knows who will turn out. Also, one cannot say "overpolled" unless the results were forced in that regard.
I think you missed the point, I never said dems were overpolled. Here's my opinion on polling. If a voter is registered, he is registerd with a politcal party or as an independent. That should be the second question asked. First is are you registered? Second should be, in what party? Voters can not shift parties at a whim. If they are registered, they're registered. They can and do cross over but that would show up in the polling, no?
There is another consideration. It is not clear to me that phone numbers are on registration lists.
They are not. Phone numbers are dialed randomly which presents a myriad of problems to todays pollsters.
"Someone should get these internals (linked) to Drudge... This is the type of "Press Advertising" that he likes to hit them on. "
I've sent this link to Drudge...Hannity..and Rush.
I agree with this statement. I covered it above. However, if no other pollsters pick up a movement away from pubbie self ID, I would say the poll is suspect. We'll see.
Actually Newsweak does weight their sample for party affiliation and "adjusts" the numbers to make sure they conform to "census numbers" and "voter turnout model" which most likely is from 2000 and out of date.
Not to look for a silver lining in this "cloud," but we know that if Bush has a fat, comfortable lead, it will keep some of us at home on election day. On the other hand, ...
After all is said and done, it is the "poll" on Nov. 2 that counts.
As for who will handle issues better overall, among registered voters Bush leads Kerry 52 to 40 percent on terrorism and homeland security; the situation in Iraq (49% vs. 44%); the situation involving Israel and the Palestinians (46% vs. 39%) and controlling the spread of nuclear weapons (47% v. 43%). Kerry scores better on the economy (52% vs. 39%); health care, including Medicare (56% to 34%) and American jobs and foreign competition (54% vs. 36%), the poll shows.The debate is the only major event and it was about foreign policy. The above numbers show that after debate Bush leads Kerry in all foreign policy issues. In other words Bush leads in the categories that the debate was about. Kerry could not have gotten an advantage.
So you are saying that we should accept a poll swing based on a whopping 25% voter registration self-identification switch after one debate?
Thanks, here was the thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1233524/posts?page=522#522
I do not claim that the Newsweek/Princeton poll is a fraud, but I claim it to be significantly bogus. The big big Kerry jump can be shown mathmatically to be caused by the big change in Republican/Democrat ratio from the previous Newsweek/Princeton poll
Gallup had Democrats in an uproar when a similar ratio change happened between their polls and Bush had a big increase. In that case however, the Rep/Dem ratio change was nowhere near as big as in the Newsweek poll. In my opinion, their is a serious problem with Princeton's polling methods when they get this much disparity, intentional or not.
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.