Forums | MacLife

Something else to think about....

In a year in which Democrats have a lead of 11 million registered-voters over Republicans, and have been adding to that advantage through a robust field operation, are pollsters over-sampling Republicans?

Despite a raft of advantages in the electorate for Democrats, in September's first Gallup Tracking poll, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats were surveyed (including "leaners") from Sept. 3-5, compared to a 10-point Democratic identification advantage two weeks ago. That partisan makeup of the polling pool resulted in a 5-point lead for McCain in Sept. 5 tracking poll. Meanwhile, the new CBS poll features a 6-point swing in partisan composition toward Republicans, which plays some role in the poll's two-point lead for McCain. Finally, the latest USA Today poll, which claims a four-point edge for McCain, was arrived at after a 10-point swing in partisan makeup toward GOP respondents.

Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz is highly skeptical of the new Gallup, USA Today and CBS polls. About the latter, which showed a statistically insignificant two point lead for McCain, Abramowitz said: "One reason for the dramatic difference between the two recent CBS polls is that the two samples differed fairly dramatically in terms of partisan composition. The first sample was 35.2% Democratic, 26.2 percent Republicans, and 38.6 percent independent. The second sample was 34.9% Democratic, 31.1% Republican, and 34.0% independent. That's a change from a 9 point Democratic advantage to a 3.8 point Democratic advantage. That alone would probably explain about half of the difference in candidate preferences between the two [CBS] polls."

However

Despite that, Abramowitz simply doesn't think the overall spike in Republican sampling among all three polling firms is an accurate reflection of the electorate. "It's just not likely," he says. Given how important polls can be in the coverage of the race, even a slight assist to McCain during a period in which he is exciting the Republican base could help him solidify a new narrative in the race, regardless of the partisan facts on the ground.

More here.

The interesting thing about all of those newly registered Democratic voter is that I saw a breakdown of the numbers and a LOT of them were in places like CA and NY during the primaries, which isn't really where we need them.  The exceptions were Iowa and Nevada unless I'm reading this incorrectly.

The worst thing about this recent bit of polling is not the expected McCain bounce, or even the defection of so many white women (as I stated previously I'd need to know what they said in previous polls, as in were they in the Obama column or undecided), but that his edge on the economic issue has been chipped down to 5% -- someone PLEASE explain that one for me (other than that Obama has been spending too much time being on the defensive and not controlling the debate).

Last edited by bedstuy (2008-09-09 5:57 pm)

Why not just poll people randomly ?  If they increase the sample size (aren't the sizes actually fairly small in these polls ? ), couldn't they ignore the party affiliation ?

JakeTheTall wrote:

Why not just poll people randomly ?  If they increase the sample size (aren't the sizes actually fairly small in these polls ? ), couldn't they ignore the party affiliation ?

1) According to Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain), there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. You can setup a poll that will say anything you want. Hell, with enough effort, you could have a poll that indicated Bush should be nominated for MENSA.

2) Ironically, in reference to #1, you can get accurate results with a small sample size - if the samples are appropriately chosen. In industry, is not uncommon for only one or two samples, in a pallet of thousands, to be checked for defects.

IOW, when it comes to statistical sampling, it's not the size that matters; but the quality.

bedstuy wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

The worst thing about this recent bit of polling is not the expected McCain bounce, or even the defection of so many white women (as I stated previously I'd need to know what they said in previous polls, as in were they in the Obama column or undecided), but that his edge on the economic issue has been chipped down to 5% -- someone PLEASE explain that one for me (other than that Obama has been spending too much time being on the defensive and not controlling the debate).

Maybe resedit is correct and this so-called "recession" isn't so bad.

Or maybe the economic turmoil hasn't fully hit middle America yet (other than gasoline prices).

Your logic, or lack of it, isn't making sense to me.  If what you said is the case then Obama's numbers on this issue wouldn't have been so high to begin with.  You can't rationalize away a quick erosion on a number that voters were indicating as OMG ISSUE #1!!! until last week, and to be honest you can't even lay it on a sudden lack in campaigning tactics for Obama, though he won't recover in the long-term if what I said is really true.

What we're seeing is nothing more than irrational, emotion-based voting even if it's against one's common sense and economic interests as expressed for the entire past year, based on the selection of a VP with a certain type of genitalia.

My bolding.  You mean polling.  There's two months for people to change their minds a few more times.

Yeah, sorry, I'm mixing my sarcasm with seriousness with not hints that I'm doing so (in the above case sarcasm, then serious).  I'm just fed up with the electorate.

And now that I've re-read the original post: wow, McCain is 5% behind Obama on economic issues ?  Would McCain be ahead if it wasn't for the "don't know how many houses I own" gaffe ?

If Mexico or Canada had the same kind of influence on the world as we do, I can assure you that we would be watching their elections much closer than we do.

Chickenhawk wrote:

If Mexico or Canada had the same kind of influence on the world as we do, I can assure you that we would be watching their elections much closer than we do.

They both have a huge influence on the US though and you still don't hear about polls saying who we want.

bratboy wrote:

Hmmm, I wonder why that is......

Because the rest of the world hates and despises us. If they had their way everyone else in the world would get to vote for our President and we wouldn't have a vote at all. Bastards. Damn foreign bastards, all of 'em.

tee hee

The US has become like a Big Brother house, amazing that people are still watching this crap

The the world wants isn't necessarily in the best interests of the United States.

"World Wants Obama'---One of the best reasons to be against Obama.