Write to CNN and Gannett about their attempt to suppress the Dem vote

[unfrigginreal]

There's no other way to describe their intent after seeing the way they have been trumpeting the Gallup polls. I just sent them both an e-mail with Steve Soto's analysis of the partisan breakdown of the latest National and Florida polls from Gallup. What they are doing is almost criminal.

From Steve Soto's http://www.theleftcoaster.com

Partisan breakdown of latest Gallup Florida Poll

Likely Voter Sample
TOTAL: 768

Rep: 341 (44%)
Dem: 273 (36%)
Ind: 146 (19%)

Registered Voter Sample
TOTAL: 909

Rep: 387 (43%)
Dem: 321 (35%)
Ind: 187 (21%)

Partisan breakdown of latest Gallup National Poll

Likely Voters

Poll of October 22-24, 2004
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-46%

Total Sample = 1195
GOP: 466 (39%)
Dem: 406 (34%)
Ind: 321 (27%)

Registered Voters

Poll of October 22-24
Reflected Bush Winning by 49%-48%

Total Sample: 1461
GOP: 542 (37%)
Dem: 500 (34%)
Ind: 411 (28%)

[Mr_Spock]

1. I do believe somebody must go to jail if Kerry wins - this is CRIMINAL

The Sinclair crap is nothing next to this blatent and singular effort to influence the election - they need to be accountable - this is VERY serious stuff they are messing with here.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Free speech is criminal?

Which particular law are they in violation of? What about the 1st Amendment?

[unfrigginreal]

12. Is it truly free speech when it's controlled by a handful of corporations?

I'm starting to wonder about that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Yes

And you have free speech as well. That is why you are allowed to post on DU with views that are counter to the government.

[unfrigginreal]

31. If it was free, then opposing viewpoints would have as big a megaphone

as the handful of corporation do. Sorry, I don't agree that money equates to free speech even though the Supreme Court agrees with that premise at this point in time.

It's time we get back to affirmative action for free speech in the form of the Fairness Doctrine.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. The fairness doctrine never applied to cable networks

It only applied to the broadcast media (ABC, CBS, ect) because they broadcst over the public airwaves. But would you really want it? Should Ralph Nader get the same amount of coverage as John Kerry gets? I don't think so.

[Mr_Spock]

28. It's called electioneering and it's illegal.

They may be deliberately trying to influence the outcome of an election by rigging what many people believe and trust as fact without question - this may not be legal.

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. So should Al Franken be sent to jail as well?

He is using the airwaves to actively support the election and defeat of candidates.

[Mr_Spock]

33. So an "official" count of voter preference has no requirements under law

OK - fine with me. But comparing talk radio to an election poll is not a very sophisticated argument. These "polls" are widely reported as if they are fact - and highly accurate. Basically there is no reason to go and vote if your guy is not going to win. Talk radio is a free-for-all with no rules and has been dominated by right-wing thugs for years - so what. Talk radio does not represent itself as the electorate itself, it is simply the opinion of the host and it's callers. Even then there are very strict rules as to who can advertise on TV/radio and the format of those adds is well defined. There are NO requirements for polling data and there is nothing to say that the polls are not biased and/or actually run indirectly by one of the political parties (many of them are). The point is, I believe that polls should be treated more like TV advertisers are. Polls have an unusually high amount of influence on the outcome of an election, yet unlike TV advertising, I know of no standard rules for pollsters.

Can you prove to me that there is no political party operative working to "massage" the call list used in a poll? Oh, and just because a polling firm had credibility in the past doesn't mean it is immune to infiltration in the present.

Prove to me that the statistical techniques used by the different polling firms are reliable and accurate. What do you mean they all use different formulas? How can that be? There is only one voting public.

Since it is clearly possible to influence people's vote with polling data, and since there are no "rules" to follow when collecting and "massaging" the data before it is published, how can this not be considered the single biggest possible opportunity for electioneering in this country today?

Since there is a possibility of a paradox in knowing the possible influence of polling data, shouldn't these firms have some accountability to the country they may be manipulating? Let me be clear here - I could care less about their reputation/credibility in the future when it's too late and the fascists have won. These pollsters need to be accountable in the present.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. How would you hold them accountable?

Even if they conduct a poll one day before the election, the level of support may change come election day. Turn-out is another factor that is difficult to gage. And then there is dishonesty ot those being polled. Some people don't want to admit that they don't vote. In college for one of my political science classes we did a voter survey. One of the questions we asked was if the person had voted in the last election. The funny thing was that the percentage of people who claimed to have voted in the last election exceeded the actual voter turn-out. This is similar to the David Duke effect. David Duke usually gets a significantly larger share of the vote than what he polls at. Apperently some of the people who vote for him are not very proud of it.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Sure there is.

It's "they don't want to make a decision about how to weigh the sample". Makes them look silly, but it's still a big decision to make.

[unfrigginreal]

3. Sorry, that won't cut it for them

they know that their polls have been the outliers, and not just in this election. They have a certain resposibility to accuracy in their reporting otherwise they should be shut down for false advertising as a news unit.

[LoZoccolo]

4. OK, and how would you /force/ them to weigh the sample?

Seeing as polling is somewhat of an art, and four years ago it was Zogby's method of weighing the sample that you want to require them to have or else be shut down that was controversial.

I mean, if you're gonna advocate shutting them down, lets hear your alternate methodology, unfri...is it Dr. unfrigginreal? Let me know.

Besides, they are being accurate in their reporting of the sample weight; otherwise, you wouldn't have a case against them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. They Are Biased

They are biased but their bias is a function of ignorance and not of malice...


Do you really believe the Florida electorate will look like their model?

[LoZoccolo]

6. I'm not defending their accuracy.

It sucks. And people should know it sucks. But it's not a big conspiracy. It's more a function of inertia and ambivalence than anything else.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I Know

Call me naive but I don't think any reputable pollster deliberately cooks the numbers...

As Zogby say they would be drummed out of the business...


There are many assumptions built into all these polls and that's where the bias comes in but imho the bias is mostly passive...

That being said Gallup sucks....

Their little model works well in mid terms where Republicans are more reliable voters however it's utility dramatically decreases in a presidential election where "everybody and their brother" comes out to vote...

What annoys me as a political scientist about Gallup is that their numbers are divorced from any kind of theoretical mooring...

Predicting human behavior is more than throwing a bunch of numbers together...

[unfrigginreal]

8. Well, if you found that it was done intentionally then how would you feel?

Based on your argument they have no responsibility to insure that there is some semblance of reality attached to their methodology. If that's the case, then we are truly fucked. I don't need to offer an alternative methodology, they need to see to it that the one they are using is valid. Sorry, but I don't agree that this is unintentional because of the art involved with the science. Let them get the science right before they start applying the art.

[LoZoccolo]

9. Uh, yes ya do.

It used to be that completely random sampling was considered the most scientific. If you didn't do some variation of that, you were considered fucking with the numbers. Zogby used to be controversial because he would weigh the sample. Now we're seeing that because of technological developments or whatever, it's starting to oversample Republicans. This is a very recent phenemonon, and to correct for it, you have to make conscious decisions as to how to compensate for it. These decisions are still controversial. I would even criticize with Zogby's method of weighing the sample, because it would still only reflect reachable Democrats despite how much he makes up for weighing them into his numbers. The only science involved in it is if you get a random sample of a population you can say within a certain degree of accuracy that the sample reflects the population. No one disagrees with that. The disagreement is how you get a random sample, and that's the art.

Besides, your refusal to submit an alternate methodology is a tacit admission that you don't know enough about polling to make this unfounded definite accusation of intentional bias to supress voter turnout.

[unfrigginreal]

11. Well as a dumbass, let me say this

A fucking idiot could tell based on the wild swings in 2000 that Gallup had a problem. Why then are we still seeing the same type of results. No, I'm not going to STFU when the pharmacist fills my prescriptions wrong for 4 years, even though I don't know how to do it myself.

[LoZoccolo]

18. Bad analogy.

The issue is whether or not it's intentional. You won't even go into how it's wrong - I don't think you have any authority to start saying why.

[unfrigginreal]

20. How it's wrong? You 're saying the wild swings and differential

between Gallup and the rest of the polls don't show that something's wrong? Ok. I guess you got me.

[LoZoccolo]

23. I never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever...

...ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever said there was nothing wrong with Gallup polls.

[unfrigginreal]

24. I was just answering your charge - "You won't even go into how it's wrong"

[LoZoccolo]

25. Right.

You don't know the differences between the methodologies of different pollsters, and then take it upon yourself to just accuse someone of intentionally cooking the polls to supress voter turnout. That's a lot more to prove than that they're simply using an outdated methodology.

[unfrigginreal]

26. Again, what difference does that make? Does a person have to be

an expert to see when something is wrong? I don't get your point unless you are saying that Gallup does not appear to be wrong in your judgement. In that case, perhaps you should be the one that proves your authority.

[LoZoccolo]

27. There is something wrong.

That's not what I'm disputing. I never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever said there was nothing wrong with Gallup's polls.

You're avoiding my real dispute with your original post.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. It's A Passive Bias....

Could more Republicans show up at the polls than Democrats?


Possibly...


However, where, Mr. Gallup is the historical predicate?


That's the problem with Gallup's political polling?

It's a bunch of numbers thrown together ripped from any kind of theoretical mooring...

[Redleg]

13. IF they are using random sampling then why are their samples always

represented by more Republicans than by Democrats? Do Republicans represent a larger portion of the voting population?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Nope....

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

[unfrigginreal]

16. Check this out

Here is the complete history of the Gallup poll this year from the same USA TODAY article & low & behold, in the polls where there are more republicans Bush does better, & in the polls with an equal number of respondents Kerry does better. Does it take Mr. Spock with Vulcan logic explaining that to Gallup for them to figure it out? Also, one other thing I noticed is that it's either a republican margin or even, dems never have a big advantage in the poll...


GREATER NUMBERS
The Gallup Poll asks voters to identify their party affiliation after they tell pollsters whom they would vote for if the election were that day. How the party affiliations compare with poll results among likely voters:
Jan. 9-11
BUSH 55
KERRY 43
Republican respondents 39%
Independent respondents 30%
Democratic respondents 31%
GOP advantage 8%

Jan. 29-Feb. 1
BUSH 46
KERRY 53
Republican respondents 36%
Independent respondents 30%
Democratic respondents 35%
GOP advantage 1%

Feb. 6-8
BUSH 49
KERRY 48
Republican respondents 37%
Independent respondents 31%
Democratic respondents 32%
GOP advantage 5%

Feb. 16-17
BUSH 43
KERRY 55
Republican respondents 32%
Independent respondents 33%
Democratic respondents 36%
GOP advantage -4%

March 5-7
BUSH 44
KERRY 52
Republican respondents 35%
Independent respondents 26%
Democratic respondents 40%
GOP advantage -5%

March 26-28
BUSH 51
KERRY 47
Republican respondents 44%
Independent respondents 23%
Democratic respondents 32%
GOP advantage 12%

April 5-8*
BUSH 48
KERRY 45
Republican respondents 41%
Independent respondents 24%
Democratic respondents 34%
GOP advantage 7%

April 16-18
BUSH 51
KERRY 46
Republican respondents 41%
Independent respondents 25%
Democratic respondents 34%
GOP advantage 7%

May 2-4*
BUSH 48
KERRY 49
Republican respondents 38%
Independent respondents 23%
Democratic respondents 38%
GOP advantage 0%

May 7-9
BUSH 48
KERRY 47
Republican respondents 37%
Independent respondents 30%
Democratic respondents 33%
GOP advantage 4%

May 21-23
BUSH 47
KERRY 49
Republican respondents 38%
Independent respondents 26%
Democratic respondents 34%
GOP advantage 4%

June 3-6*
BUSH 44
KERRY 50
Republican respondents 36%
Independent respondents 27%
Democratic respondents 36%
GOP advantage 0%

June 21-23
BUSH 49
KERRY 48
Republican respondents 36%
Independent respondents 28%
Democratic respondents 37%
GOP advantage -1%

July 8-11
BUSH 46
KERRY 50
Republican respondents 38%
Independent respondents 24%
Democratic respondents 38%
GOP advantage 0%

July 19-21
BUSH 47
KERRY 49
Republican respondents 41%
Independent respondents 23%
Democratic respondents 35%
GOP advantage 6%

July 30-Aug. 1
BUSH 51
KERRY 47
Republican respondents 42%
Independent respondents 23%
Democratic respondents 34%
GOP advantage 8%

Aug. 9-11*
BUSH 50
KERRY 47
Republican respondents 40%
Independent respondents 25%
Democratic respondents 34%
GOP advantage 6%

Aug. 23-25
BUSH 50
KERRY 47
Republican respondents 38%
Independent respondents 29%
Democratic respondents 32%
GOP advantage 6%

Sept. 3-5
BUSH 52
KERRY 45
Republican respondents 40%
Independent respondents 27%
Democratic respondents 33%
GOP advantage 7%

Sept. 13-15*
BUSH 55
KERRY 42
Republican respondents 40%
Independent respondents 27%
Democratic respondents 33%
GOP advantage 7%

Sept. 24-26
BUSH 52
KERRY 44
Republican respondents 43%
Independent respondents 25%
Democratic respondents 31%
GOP advantage 12%

Source: Gallup Polls; those marked with an asterisk were conducted independent of USA TODAY and CNN

[JusticeForAll]

21. These data are unreal...

Any idea what the party split of ACTUAL Y2000 voters was?

[LoZoccolo]

17. Cell phones.

They undersample young people who use their cell phone as their only phone, for one. It's only a random sample of landlines.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Why Would I Assume Political Preference Is A Function Of Cell Phone Use?

Do folks with cell phones and landlines have different political preferences than those who have cell phones only or only landlines?


That's an interesting theory that needs to be subject to the iron test of reality....

[LoZoccolo]

22. Well yeah.

We're all still figuring this stuff out.