In other words, Obamugabe is now wildly popular in all the battleground states and you conservatives had better get used to it...of course, nothing substantial in the economy has changed to MAKE him popular, but just trust us.
Here is another quote:
Basically, if an observer is concerned about a poll’s results, that observer should skip over the party identification question and just look at the ballot directly. In other words, cut to the chase. Don’t bother with party identification sample numbers. Look directly at the ballot.
For example, we know that in Ohio:
•Obama won by 5 points in 2008
•Bush won by 2 points in 2004
•Bush won by 3 points in 2000
Now if a given poll in Ohio in this election shows Obama with a 10-percentage-point lead, one should just ask, “How likely is it that Obama would be ahead by 10 points if he won by five points in 2008?” — forgetting party identification, which we assume is going to be higher for the Democratic Party if Obama is ahead, anyway. The discussion of the ballot in the context of previous ballots is, in fact, a reasonable discussion. It may be unlikely that Obama will double his margin in 2012 from what occurred in Ohio in 2008. Or maybe not. But the focus should be directly on the ballot, and discussions of reasons why it might be different than one expects should not involve an attempt to explain the results by focusing on changes in party identification — which is basically a tautological argument.
Well, then why have Party Identification at all on the ballot? By the way, this guy is a bit misleading...you CAN know the number of Republicans and Democrats in many states...Florida, for example, has voters register their party or as an Independent.
I think this is a cover-article because people are beginning to smell their love of Obamugabe and aren’t buying into what they’re cooking.
As the lies and propaganda of these left wing rats pile up, we can expect numerous CYA articles using cooked numbers, ridiculous excuses and hilarious pleas to please believe us, for we are not the frauds and crooks we appear to be.
Okey-dokey.
This would be why Gallup is near the bottom in accuracy, I suppose.
The wise pollster would first measure enthusiasm, then translate it to a demographic model which would then be applied to the raw results. Why is this so hard to see?
no mention from Gallup regarding Axelrod & Holder’s threats? hmmmmm....
My theory is that people all across the country are lying their asses off to the pollsters..........................
Gallup is the chicken outfit that caved to Axelrod’s threat of a lawsuit if they didn’t report higher numbers for Obama. They had little credibility before. Now they have none. It would be fantastic to see all these Leftist polls go down in flames on election night.
Have you ever seen more pollsters come out and be so defensive? Only if you are guilty do you get defensive.
It’s statistically bizarre. If this followed Bin Laden’s kill or something similar, or a huge job number or good economic data, I would understand. But nothing. Things are getting worse. Historically, nothing makes sense.
Well now we know why Gallup ranked number 18 in accuracy in 2008. They use a poor polling methodology and they arrogantly refuse to listen to those who point out their flaws.
I remember when in 2004 liberals where whining about polls oversampling republicans, this discussion happens every election
Hey, we tried to be honest and aboveboard with our polling, at least for a while, and then... SLAM-BAM! Axelrod was all over us like white on rice; didn't even let us come up for air before threatening lawsuits. So, yah, we've given the Obama campaign what they wanted. Ran polls with '08 models and then boosted the D's even more (even we laughed over how stupid that was). We know we're full of it but them's the breaks.
Gallup: “We don’t find that party identification is stable enough to be of much use when it comes to comparing sample-to-sample variations, or sample to exit poll differences.”
If Party identification changes constantly, but it tracks with preferences for candidates, etc., how is it that Gallup and most pollsters use guestimates of PARTY IDENTIFICATION to weight their actual poll reponses before declaring the results? His comments make their whole methodology sound as circular and bogus as we all know it is.
So much BS - party identification should be determined independently of the voting breakdown, and can be done dynamically by registration totals kept by the states or separate polls (Rasmussen says party identification for Republicans grew in both July and August and now is at its highest point ever at about 37% percent) - voting samples are then fit to the party identification data as adjusted for the expected turnout - contaminating party makeup with voter preferences is a mistake even a first year statistician would not make, and tells more about the methodolgocal sloppiness of Gallup than the state of the election.......