PDA

View Full Version : Why You Should Ignore The Gallup Poll This Morning


Infiniti2001
Sep 19th, 2004, 02:11 AM
- And Maybe Other Gallup Polls As Well
This morning we awoke to the startling news that despite a flurry of different polls this week all showing a tied race, the venerable Gallup Poll, as reported widely in the media (USA Today and CNN) today, showed George W. Bush with a huge 55%-42% lead over John Kerry amongst likely voters. The same Gallup Poll showed an 8-point lead for Bush amongst registered voters (52%-44%). Before you get discouraged by these results, you should be more upset that Gallup gets major media outlets to tout these polls and present a false, disappointing account of the actual state of the race. Why?

Because the Gallup Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only 33% will be Democrat. You read that correctly. I asked Gallup, who have been very courteous to my requests, to send me this morning their sample breakdowns by party identification for both their likely and registered voter samples they use in these national and I suspect their state polls. This is what I got back this morning:

Likely Voter Sample Party IDs – Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%

Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)

Registered Voter Sample Party IDs – Same Poll
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%

Total Sample: 1022
GOP: 381 (38%)
Dem: 336 (33%)
Ind: 298 (30%)

In both polls, Gallup oversamples greatly for the GOP, and undersamples for the Democrats. Worse yet, Gallup just confirmed for me that this is the same sampling methodology they have been using this whole election season, for all their national and state polls. Gallup says that "This (the breakdown between Reeps and Dems) was not a constant. It can differ slightly between surveys" in response to my latest email. Slightly? Does that mean that in all of these national and state polls we have seen from Gallup that they have "slightly" varied between 36%-40% GOP and 32%-36% Democrat? I already know from an email I got from Gallup earlier in the week that in their suspicious Wisconsin and Minnesota polls they seemingly oversampled for the GOP and undersampled for the Dems. For example in Wisconsin, in which they show Bush now with a healthy lead, Gallup used a sample comprised of 38% GOP and 32% Democratic likely voters. In Minnesota where Gallup shows Bush gaining a small lead, their sample reflects a composition of 36% GOP and 34% Democrat likely voters. How realistic is either breakdown in those states on Election Day?

According to John Zogby himself:

If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.

So the Democrats have been 39% of the voting populace in both 1996 and 2000, and the GOP has not been higher than 35% in either of those elections. Yet Gallup trumpets a poll that used a sample that shows a GOP bias of 40% amongst likely voters and 38% amongst registered voters, with a Democratic portion of the sample down to levels they haven’t been at since a strong three-way race in 1992?

Folks, unless Karl Rove can discourage the Democratic base into staying home in droves and gets the GOP to come out of the woodwork, there is no way in hell that these or any other Gallup Poll is to be taken seriously.

How likely is it that the Democrats will suffer a seven-point difference against the GOP this November or that the GOP will ever hit 40%?

Not very likely.

The real problem here is that Gallup is spreading a false impression of this race. Through its 1992 partnership with two international media outlets (CNN and USA Today), Gallup is telling voters and other media by using badly-sampled polls that the GOP and its candidates are more popular than they really are. Given that Gallup’s CEO is a GOP donor, this should not be a surprise. But it does require us to remind the media, like Susan Page of USA Today, who wrote the lead story on the poll in the morning paper, and other members of the media who cite this poll today, that it is based on a faulty sample composition of 40% GOP and 33% Democratic.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002806.html

I Love Sharapova
Sep 19th, 2004, 02:41 AM
No offense,but I think the gallup poll is much more reliable than the others mentioned. Besides,being a journalist I know that all polls are slanted and to be quite frank, not very accurate. So, I don't think any of the polls are very representative of what is occurring.I don't really pay any attention to any of them.I especially do not pay any attention to CNN or FOX news polls. One is slanted to the far left,the other is slanted to the right,neither are accurate. :rolleyes:

geojango
Sep 19th, 2004, 02:42 AM
i ignore the gallup poll every morning. :)

Rocketta
Sep 19th, 2004, 02:50 AM
I know when they call my house we all lie...:p

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Sep 19th, 2004, 03:47 AM
No offense,but I think the gallup poll is much more reliable than the others mentioned. Besides,being a journalist I know that all polls are slanted and to be quite frank, not very accurate. So, I don't think any of the polls are very representative of what is occurring.I don't really pay any attention to any of them.I especially do not pay any attention to CNN or FOX news polls. One is slanted to the far left,the other is slanted to the right,neither are accurate. :rolleyes:
How is it much more reliable? What a weak defense!

Gallup is over-polling Republicans, fair and simple.

When Pew and Harris publish polls that are virtually tied, their turnout numbers match those comparable to 1992, 1996, and 2000. There is no way that on Nov 2nd, that republicans will outvote democrats 40-32.

Ridiculous!

Wigglytuff
Sep 19th, 2004, 04:37 AM
How is it much more reliable? What a weak defense!

Gallup is over-polling Republicans, fair and simple.

When Pew and Harris publish polls that are virtually tied, their turnout numbers match those comparable to 1992, 1996, and 2000. There is no way that on Nov 2nd, that republicans will outvote democrats 40-32.

Ridiculous!

lol i was thinking the same thing

I Love Sharapova
Sep 19th, 2004, 06:34 AM
How is it much more reliable? What a weak defense!

Gallup is over-polling Republicans, fair and simple.

When Pew and Harris publish polls that are virtually tied, their turnout numbers match those comparable to 1992, 1996, and 2000. There is no way that on Nov 2nd, that republicans will outvote democrats 40-32.

Ridiculous!
Really? What makes you think ALL Democrats are going to vote for Kerry or that ALL republicans are going to vote for Bush? Ridiculous!!!!!! :rolleyes:Besides,you conveniently missed my entire point. I do not pay attention to ANY OF THE POLLS!!! THEY ARE SHIT IN GUESSING THE OUTCOME.

Bacardi
Sep 19th, 2004, 07:56 AM
What else can you expect, he's commander and chief... do you think he can't convice a little puny thing like the media to lie and put him ahead. But hey, if W sleeps better at night knowing these lies.... I hope he wakes up to a harsh reality on Nov 3rd. :clap2:

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Sep 19th, 2004, 01:11 PM
Really? What makes you think ALL Democrats are going to vote for Kerry or that ALL republicans are going to vote for Bush? Ridiculous!!!!!! :rolleyes:Besides,you conveniently missed my entire point. I do not pay attention to ANY OF THE POLLS!!! THEY ARE SHIT IN GUESSING THE OUTCOME.
You said Gallup was much more reliable than the rest - that's why I'm picking apart your defense, because it simply isn't true.

Sure, not all Dems are gonna vote for Kerry, but if you look at the polls

Republicans favor Bush like 85-15
Democrats favor Kerry like 80-20

INDEPENDENTS favor Kerry by 55-45


So how is Bush up by 13 points?

Wigglytuff
Sep 19th, 2004, 02:17 PM
Really? What makes you think ALL Democrats are going to vote for Kerry or that ALL republicans are going to vote for Bush? Ridiculous!!!!!! :rolleyes:Besides,you conveniently missed my entire point. I do not pay attention to ANY OF THE POLLS!!! THEY ARE SHIT IN GUESSING THE OUTCOME.

its NOT that ridiculous. most people who register with a certain party vote that way. not even most, the vast majority. if they dont support the candidates, they switch parties. if they support another, or dont like either for the two parties they register as indy. now there are times when this is not the case, but in this election and most others this is the case, not everyone does this, but most people do, in part because that is how the system is supposed to work. but again not everyone does.

so if you wanna make someone look like they are winning when they are not, you poll more from one group than another.


now i have a question, WHY the fuck are they doing this? wont they "get caught, when the actual election happens? and they see the poll numbers dont reflect the voting results? unless....unless.... someone has something up thier sleeve?.... but they wouldnt do that again would they?.... :confused: :confused: :confused:

CC
Sep 19th, 2004, 04:17 PM
I am disheartened ... I think Bush will win. :sad:

spartanfan
Sep 19th, 2004, 06:04 PM
Thanks for the knowledge Infinite..., I thought that it was really strange that this poll had GB so out front and all other polls were saying that its still all tied up.

CC _ I too am worried, but what can you do besides vote (and hope they count it correctly) and encourage like minded people to make sure they get out and vote also.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Sep 19th, 2004, 10:59 PM
I am disheartened ... I think Bush will win. :sad:
What's your reasoning?

CC
Sep 19th, 2004, 11:51 PM
What's your reasoning?
A combination of intuition and pessimism. Hardly logical I know.

Barrie_Dude
Sep 20th, 2004, 02:27 AM
George
W.
Bush
For
President!

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Sep 20th, 2004, 12:44 PM
Hurray! Four more years of gay bashing, record deficits, loss of innocent lives, injured soldiers, overburdened teachers, cuts in overtime pay, tax burden increases on the poor and MORE! HOORAY!

Hulet
Sep 20th, 2004, 02:05 PM
Tbh, I ignore all polls or atleast those ones during a politically charged election. Case and point, here in Canada, in the last election, the polls, especially by Ipsos-Reid, were showing a probable majority or at the very least a minority government for the Conservatives for much of the election. After the election though, not only did the Liberals won but they were pretty close to forming a majority government. When the pollsters were asked why their polls were so inaccurate, they blamed the electorate for changing their mind at the last minute, which is a pretty poor excuse.

Another possible reason why polls in the present stuffy U.S. political atmosphere are not reliable is that probably most people don't want to admit that they don't approve of the President in public, because for some outrageous reason that is still seen as anti-patriotic and even anti-American. Even if some Americans might not support the war in Iraq, they still paradoxically support it in public because they want to support their troops. But, when it comes to voting in secret, may be their true feelings will surface.

So, it's not a done deal that Kerry will lose yet, especially given the fact that he was so far behind in polls in the Democratic primaries but still overtook his opponent. But, I still think the Democrats made a big mistake in not nominating Howard Dean to run for the presidency.