Gallup sampled 9% more Repukes than Democrats

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Their polling is a joke.

[NMDemDist2]

1. yup n/t

[dolstein]

2. As big a joke as the suggestion that the partisan composition

of the electorate hasn't changed since 2000?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. I've now seen you post this twice...do you have any composites?

[Doosh]

12. I can assure you there hasn't been a 13 point swing

[dolstein]

17. You're a professional pollster? If not, provide a link

Personally, I don't know what the current breakdown of the electorate is between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. But what I do know is that this is not a static figure. And the people who criticize Gallup all appear to be relying on the partisan breakdown of the electorate in the 2000 election. But it strikes me as being well within the realm of fantasy to argue that during the past four years, there has been ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE in the partisan composition of the electorate.

[KittyWampus]

20. Well Dolstein, Democratic Registration Was Up 250% In Ohio

while GOP was only 25%.

Since YOU seem to obsess over negative crap... it'd be nice to see YOU defend an unwarranted supposition... that somehow the GOP is registering MORE voters... OR that Democrats are switching to Republican.

[dolstein]

33. You haven't taken statistics before, have you?

You say that Democratic registration was up 250%. That would mean there are more than twice as many registered Democrats in Ohio are there were before. I'm quite confident that this isn't the case.

You also ignore the fact that partisan IDENTIFICATION isn't the same as partisan REGISTRATION. There are a lot of people, particularly in the South, who now identify themselves as Republicans even if they may still be registered as Democrats. Also, in many states, people don't even register by party.

[MADem]

49. I think what was meant was

250% over registration in the last cycle, not 250% of the total Democrats registered. Can I get a witness?

[Awsi Dooger]

39. That is a phony ass stat that too many DUers are quoting

It was only in a few selected Dem and GOP strongholds in Ohio, not the entire state. And it only counted the period of January thru September 2004. The GOP registration drive was focused MUCH earlier than ours, the last three years and especially this spring.

Ouradvantage among new registrations is absurdly overestimated. In Nevada, where I live, the figures were released yesterday and the GOP maintains a 4000 registration edge statewide. Kerry needs to win this on preference.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I posted this yesterday but you must have missed it...

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95

33% Democrat

29% Republican

[spooky3]

27. thanks, very helpful--and I like the trends!

[diplomats]

28. Don't listen to us

Listen to Zogby.

[atre]

40. Another thing

Party affiliation may shift election to election, but do you honestly believe the shifting is so dramatic as Gallup polls have shown?

After the Democratic Convention, they polled nearly 40% Democrats to 30% Republicans. Now they're doing the opposite. Rationalize that.

[tritsofme]

46. They measure party idenification, not affiliation

Many people identify with the "team" that is seen to be winning at any point in the campaign.

[fujiyama]

43. Few are arguing

there has been NO change in party composition. What people are arguing however is that it is VERY unlikely that 9% more republicans than democrats will vote in this election.

It is true that during the midterm elections in '02, the republicans made a lot of headway in voter registration. I think it was the first time that republicans were nearly on parity with democrats.

However, their advantage since then has fallen. I'll get the stats for IA and NH (I saw them just a few days ago). True that's just two states, but it shows that in IA and NH that democrats have actually made a lot of headway since the '00 elections. I know it's the same case with the two biggest toss ups (OH and FL ) as well. Also the liberal groups have registered many independants that are likely not to vote for Bush.

The worst case scenario is that the parties will be nearly on parity. Democrats had the advantage, but obviously many that call themselves democrats, vote republican...Many of these may have finally switched, but not nearly to give them a 9 point advantage.

[Warpy]

21. Read it and weep, poll believers

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95

Remember, Gallup has admitted weighting their polls at 38% pubbie.

[Doosh]

23. solid 4 point edge

an people were surprised when Gore turned 52-39 to 47-48.

[tritsofme]

36. Gallup doesn't weight their polls at any number

for party idenification.

They use a random sample.

[WMliberal]

35. oh, gallup IS saying it's different from 2000

and that's part of the problem. It's the WAY they say it's different. Suddenly, there's 6-9% less democrats and 10% more republicans.

[AntiCoup2K4]

45. 10% more Republicans, huh?

How many more electro-fraud voting machines are in place this year compared to 2000.

I'm guessing right around "10%"

[troublemaker]

3. Are you psychic of did you read that somewhere? (link? quote?)

[Cha]

4. And that gives a true picture

because?..

All it shows is that the damn repukes are putting party before Country!

[diplomats]

No, if Repukes back Bush heavily

and Dems back Kerry similarly, if they oversample Repukes by 9 percent Bush will, of course, have a solid lead.

[Doosh]

5. 9%!!!! That's so far off the charts, they shouldn't have even released it

Talk about misleading, talk about shoddy work! It's bad enough when the sample 3-4% more repugs, but NINE PERCENT??? To get an accurate sample you need to survey 3-4% more Dems! This is abhorrent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. can i see the link... that's amazing...

see if they supress the vote by discouraging dems with polls like these they will engineer the results they predict...


rat bastards....

[rndmprsn]

7. Corp Polls Suck

just like corp rock!

gallup polls are as real as reality TV...end of story.

[Bush was AWOL]

8. Do you have a link?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. If true then Bush is actually losing by at least 1 point

and probably more. BTW How do you find out this info? link...?

[slinkerwink]

10. lnik?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. link ?

[troublemaker]

14. link?

[AmerDem]

15. what were they thinking

only 9%? Hell, why not 15% or even 20%. Why doesn't anyone on the Dem side ever mention these over samplings of repukes. This shit has to be put out there now. Over the last few days 1 poll after another are throwing out complete lies and getting away with it!

[rjbny62]

16. link?

[Misunderestimator]

18. LINK?

Maybe it needs to be asked louder?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. The Mods Will Pull A Thread If You Cite Actual Numbers Without Proof (nt)

[Doosh]

22. we don't even have a link that the actual figures are 52-44

supposedly somebody just heard it on CNN

[Goldmund]

25. We do

http://www.gallup.com/election2004/

[DuaneBidoux]

42. But check out their poll from 10/12/04

There it is Kerry 49 to Bush 48 and now, one week later it is 52 to 44 for shrub? This is just too weird. Sorry, but something within this organization is just plain dysfunctional.

[Misunderestimator]

26. LINK Here indicating a trend to oversample Repubs:

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

Although the numbers are from September, the article goes on to state that Gallup has used the same sampling throughout the election season.

<snip>
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.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. we know gallup oversamples pukes but we are interested in this poll

nt

[Misunderestimator]

30. And the fact that Gallup admitted that they use the same sampling

throughout the election cycle, doesn't mean jack? :shrug:

Besides which, slavkomae already posted the link to the poll above? Here it is again: http://www.gallup.com/election2004/

Good luck finding the sampling, I couldn't.

[endnote]

31. It means Gallup consistently does that. As they did in 2000.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. i see your point ... i am just curious because they are five points more

pro bush than the rcp average..

www.realclearpolitics.com

[tritsofme]

38. That blogger is wrong

They don't weight their polls for party ID at all.

They simply ask at the end of the poll whether you identify more closely with R/D/I.

[endnote]

44. Fine, but when you look at the results you see that in fact

they have sampled more R than D people (at least people who voted for R on 2000). The result is the same. Something is wrong in the way they sample people because a random sample would come up approx 50/50.

[althecat]

54. HIGHLY RECCOMMENDED READING.. for anyone who finds this stuff tricky

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/index.php

As several posters have pointed out Gallup have so much repuglican shit in their hair that they have absolutely no credibility. Period.

[jefferson_dem]

34. Do we have a LINK that exposes their oversampling of Repukes in this poll?

Maybe it's somewhere in this thread, and i just missed it.

[deadparrot]

37. Yup, that sounds about right.

[Generator]

41. I agree!

But as somebody said, if that gets more people that are Dems out and keeps a few lazy ass Repukes home because they think it's in the bag, so be it.

Also, I recommend anyone in Oregon to vote early as possible. I did. There is no October surprise here. We can vote as soon as we get our ballots and send them in.

[oasis]

47. The lying swine are setting us up for an election theft. But fuggedaboudit

they will not succeed :bounce:.

[Contrary1]

48. Can someone point me to an article

about this subject written by a conservative,
or better yet; a statement made by the Gallup
people themselves? I know the latter is unlikely,
since the CEO is a Bushie, but you never know.

I would like to feed this info to a Repub for dinner.

Thanks!

[tritsofme]

50. Gallup statement on oversampling of republicans:

Steven writes in with a question that reflects misinformation that is boomeranging around the Net. We have posted blogs below that go into some detail outlining the whole issue of party identification in a survey context. Our Gallup samples are rigorously executed and checked and weighted against a number of know U.S. Census Bureau parameters: age, gender, region of country, race, and education. Party ID ("In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent?") is not a variable that is measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, is not fixed, and in fact is to a significant degree a measure that is quite likely to change based on the environment. After 9/11, polls showed many more people identifying with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party because citizens were rallying behind the president. This winter during the primary season, polls showed more people identifying with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party because the news coverage was focused almost exclusively on the Democratic primaries. Analyses shows that polls had more identification with the Democrats than Republicans after the Democratic convention this summer, and then more identification with the Republicans than Democrats after the Republican convention. The measure of partisanship we and other pollsters use is not measuring some lifelong fixed value like gender or race. It is an attitudinal identification with one or the other party at the time of the survey. So, if there are forces at work out in the environment that are favorable to the Democratic Party, for example, they will cause more people to identify with the Democratic Party in the survey, and also cause more people to say they will vote for the Democratic candidate.

Here are links to two recent summaries by other students of polling that go over this same concept.

http://mysterypollster.typepad.com.

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=97

This whole issue of partisan identification is one that pollsters and survey scientists have been discussing and dealing with for years in publications and scholarly conferences. It's not a new issue.

It's surprising that some people on the Net feel that they have suddenly "discovered" something about polling as if pollsters are not highly aware of the variables like party identification that we measure in each survey.

Gallup has a team of experienced editors who have been conducting polls for decades, and teams of statisticians and methodologists who work on every poll. All of this is not to say that there can't be legitimate scientific debate on this and other issues. There can be, just as heart surgeons have conferences and debate the value of different methods of conducting coronary artery bypass surgery. But I can assure all users of Gallup Poll data that the methods we use in pre-election polls are the results of about 70 years of experience in conducting them (since 1936) and intensive, ongoing study and examination of each element of the survey process.

http://www.gallup.com/election2004/BLOG/default.aspx?a=09012004

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. We Are Getting Into An Arcane Area Of Political Science Research...

Let's make it simple by using two approaches, the static approach and the fluid approach..

Zogby is an advocate of the static approach. He weights for party identification based on the assumption that party identification is essentially static... To accomplish this he apportions party percentages of the vote in his polls based on exit surveys from the previous election...


Gallup is an advocate of the fluid approach. Gallup doesn't weight for party identification because they believe it's fluid...


I read the Pew article and didn't find it particularly helpful or persuasive in the current instance.... It seemed defensive...

Here's my take... I know of no election in the post WW 2 era where more Republicans than Democrats showed up at the polls... Even in landslide Republican years like 72 and 84 their big wins can be attributed to their winning large shares of independents and Democratic defectors... Gallup has polls that suggest 31% Democrats and 40% Republicans will show up at the polls... I will bet my house the actual results will not be anywhere close to that....

[tritsofme]

53. Looking back at old Gallup data from 2000 1996 1992 1988 1984

They seem to see a huge shift in party idenification over to the GOP through the past few years, and these numbers have never been measured any near this hight before, the only comparable election is 1988 when Gallup measured self party idenification at 32% each. And they have asked the exact same question for decades in terms of party idenification.

This is not my experience, this is not what I have seen around, but this is what Gallup has been consistantly measuring over the past few months.

This is latest data I have access to:

September Wave 1
Question: D9 Field Date: 9/24/2004-9/26/2004
In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent?
Mean: N/A Total N: 1006


% N

1 Republican 38.70 389

2 Democrat 31.36 315

3 Independent 26.27 264

4 OTHER PARTY (VOL) 0.18 2

5 DON'T KNOW 1.85 19

6 REFUSED 1.65 17



This is their last poll from 2000:

General Election Tracking Poll Week 9
Question: D7 Field Date: 10/30/2000-11/5/2000
In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent?
Mean: N/A Total N: 8197


% N

1 Republican 28.66 2349

2 Democrat 34.38 2818

3 Independent 28.80 2361

4 OTHER PARTY (vol.) 0.83 68

5 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7.33 601

Last poll from 1996:

General Election Tracking Poll 1996 week 9
Question: D7 Field Date: 10/28/1996-11/3/1996
In politics, as of TODAY, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent?
Mean: N/A Total N: 6114


% N

1 Republican 28.79 1760

2 Democrat 35.80 2189

3 Independent 27.74 1696

4 OTHER PARTY (vol.) 0.86 53

5 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6.80 416

Last poll from 1992:

Presidential Election October Benchmark
Question: D10 Field Date: 10/23/1992-10/25/1992
In politics, as of TODAY, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent?
Mean: N/A Total N: 1602


% N

1 Republican 29.58 474

2 Democrat 36.39 583

3 Independent 31.07 498

4 OTHER PARTY (vol.) 1.13 18

5 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 1.84 29

Last number from 1988:

Voter Perceptions of the Presidential Campaign
Question: qn19 Field Date: 10/20/1988-10/21/1988
In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent?
Mean: N/A Total N: 1641


% N

1 Republican 32.88 539

2 Democrat 32.79 538

3 Independent 31.56 518

4 Other 0.30 5

0 Don't Know 2.48 41


Last numbers from 1984:

The Gallup Poll #244G
Question: qn902 Field Date: 10/26/1984-10/29/1984
In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent?
Mean: N/A Total N: 2711


% N

1 Republican 33.68 913

2 Democrat 37.60 1019

3 Independent 25.84 700

4 Other party 1.63 44

0 Undesignated 1.25 34

[tarheel_voter]

51. Gallup is an independent subsidiary of the Repuke Party !

Gallup does not reflect public opinion, but they do seek to influence it. Their goal is to create the aura of inevitability for * and depress Dem turnout on election day. Didn't work in 2000 (noted above)

The whole question of party id versus party affiliation is simply a smoke screen. The * team is running scared, and I guarantee you they do not use the Gallup methodology in their internal polling.

If the repukes were REALLY 8 pts ahead, they wouldn't be talking about a long protracted election with recounts and court fights. They feel they are losing as of this point and time -- pure and simple ;-)