Pollster.com: Gallup's poll "shocking", "Implausible" and "wildly impossible" in favor of Reps

[grantcart]

The Polls are showing terrible results for the Democrats.


What has gone unreported is that there is a very significant controversy in the polling community about the polls this year.


The controversy concerns who is going to show up to vote and who is a "likely voter".


Generic and race specific polls continue to show Democrats with wide margins with 'registered voters' but close or behind with 'likely voters".


For example Sharon Angle is shown as winning in Nevada with only 32% of 'registered voters' which seems unlikely.


The normally polite fraternity of pollsters has become a donnybrook as polling experts are taking off the gloves and questiioning the premise that these polls are based on. Here is the latest offering from the respected Pollster.com editor

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-abramowitz/gallups-implausible-likel_b_764345.html

It's a shocking result. According to the Gallup Poll, a generic Republican candidate currently leads a generic Democratic candidate by 17 points among likely voters in a hypothetical House matchup. A margin of that magnitude on Election Day would almost certainly result in a Republican gain of at least 80 seats in the House of Representatives and the largest GOP majority since the 1920's. But how plausible are Gallup's results?

An examination of some of the internals from the latest Gallup survey of likely voters leads to the conclusion that these results are wildly implausible. First, Gallup shows a much larger percentage of Republicans (55% Republican identifiers and leaners vs. 40% Democratic identifiers and leaners) and conservatives (51% conservative vs. 28% moderates and 18% liberals) than we've ever seen in a modern election. They also show a smaller percentage of voters under the age of 30 (7%) and a larger percentage of voters over the age of 65 (27%) than we've seen in any modern election. But that's not all. The candidate preference results for some subgroups of voters are just wildly implausible.

Gallup's latest likely voter survey shows a generic Republican leading a generic Democrat by a whopping 28 points among whites, 62% to 34%. To put those numbers in perspective, in 1994, according to national exit poll data, Republicans only won the white vote by 16 points, 58% to 42%, and that was their best showing since the advent of exit polling. Gallup is telling us that right now the Republican lead among whites who are likely to vote is 12 points larger than the GOP margin among whites in 1994.

But that's not the most implausible result in the latest Gallup likely voter survey. Among nonwhites other than blacks, a group that comprises about 13% of likely voters, a generic Republican is leading a generic Democrat by 10 points, 52% to 42%. That's a group that voted Democratic by a 2-1 margin in the 2006 midterm election. Moreover, it's a group that has never given a majority of its vote to Republican candidates for Congress in any election since the advent of exit polling. According to the 2006 exit poll results, about two-thirds of these "other nonwhite" voters are Latinos. How plausible is it that at a time when the Republican Party is closely associated with stridently anti-immigrant policies that Latino voters are moving in droves toward Republican candidates? Not plausible at all, especially when Gallup's results are directly contradicted by other recent polls of Latino voters.

In other articles over the last few weeks Abromowitz has challenged basically all of the 'likely voter' scenarios and basically said that with such an unknown on turn out all close polls should have an asterisk.

We have two weeks to get people to turn out, especially young voters. Those voters are usually under reported in polls anyway. It will be interesting to see what impact the last two weeks will have on GOTV, including Stewart's rally on the weekend before the election.

Given that there is NO working consensus among pollsters on 'likely voters' we are a lot closer to the 1948 election than people realize:

[Beetwasher]

1. People Who Voted For The First Time In 2008 Are NOT Considered "Likely" Voters

If even a third of them show up this year, the Repubs will be in trouble. That's really all you need to know.

[grantcart]

4. Most polling companies are not using past voting as a criteria but

simply a response to the question "if the election was held today would you vote".

[Beetwasher]

5. Not True, They Have A Screen That Determines If You Are "Likely" To Vote

And part of that screen is if you voted in the last X number of elections. And in most of them, including Gallup I believe, if the last election was your first time, you are NOT considered a "likely" voter.

[grantcart]

9. You are probably right that most are not using the "Pew" model of simply asking and more

are using Gallup's 7 question screen: http://www.gallup.com/poll/143372/Understanding-Gallup-Likely-Voter-Models.aspx


Pollsters are using widely varried models on 'likely voters' this year, and they all cannot be correct:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/05/likely-voters-how-pollsters-choose-them_n_751560.html

We have seen the "likely voter" polling problem rear its head several times in recent weeks, but few examples have been as vivid as three national surveys released in the last 24 hours.

First, Rasmussen Reports released their latest weekly automated survey of likely voters, which shows Republicans leading by a narrow 3-point margin (45% to 42%) on the question of which party's House candidate voters prefer in their own district. A few hours later, Gallup published two sets of results, each based on slightly different applications of its classic likely voter model. These showed Republicans winning the generic by huge margins of either 13 points (53% to 40%) or 18 points (56% to 38%), depending on the assumptions they made about the level of turnout. Meanwhile, a new survey out this morning from ABC News and The Washington Post put the Republican margin on the generic House ballot question at 6 points (49% to 43%).

Needless to say, those numbers can't all be right. The enormous variation has left a lot of reporters and readers emailing to ask, just how do pollsters identify a likely voter? More important, does anyone know what the heck a likely voter is anymore?

The one thing that all the polls agree upon is that when polled registered voters favor Democrats by a significant number.

[fasttense]

2. Seems polls are used in the US more for propaganda than for accurately counting possible votes.

And if the RepubliCONS yet again rig the vote count, then they can point to the polls.

[polichick]

3. That's exactly right - polls are meant to sway voters to go for the "winning" team nt

[Qutzupalotl]

10. Yet it could backfire...

Look at the nuttiness of the Tea Party candidates. Combine that with the possibility that the inmates might be running the asylum, and you have a real motivation for huge numbers Democrats to get to the polls. Many are not "enthusiastic" about having to vote in a midterm, but they'll vote nonetheless.

There's also the undersampling of cell-phone-only users, which by some accounts is 2%-6%. That could make the difference in a lot of races.

[polichick]

11. I agree, on both points. Good for us! :)

[stranger81]

23. Or to provide cover for the fact that the "winner" is predetermined. [n/t]

[Tippy]

6. Polls today can not be relied on

Simply because they don't make cell phone calls. Likely voter is a vague discription at best, the only votes that count are (registered voters) and that is only if all the votes are counted.

[The Wielding Truth]

7. It's mass media brainwashing. It's even hard to point this out because

it is perceived as crazy to actually state this. They have any logical rational thinkers hitting their heads and trying to solve the insanity. There is always hope, but if we can't break this creeping mass susceptibility, this country and our democracy will need saving.

[bleever]

8. The "likely voter" imbroglio is discussed in detail here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9339469

[old mark]

12. Simply put...'publican paid whore MSM bullshit. WE WILL WIN!!!...nt

[Blue_In_AK]

13. Polls are voter suppression tools.

Ignore them.

[David Zephyr]

14. I like your attitude and I agree with your perspective. K&R

Thanks for your thoughtful OP. I know that you already know that I have not bought into the "propagana" that the Democrats will be slaughtered in early November.

People paying attention to the candidates is not good for the minority party known as the GOP.

When people turn out and vote, the GOP loses.

This election will not be the catastrophe against the Democrats, which is what we are being told 24/7.

Your photos are not only timely, but they are beautiful, too.

:)

[Vinnie From Indy]

15. Silly Rabbits ! This Gallup Poll is simply the "ground work" for another stolen election

As sure as the Sun rises in the East, this poll will be used to sell the wildly implausible election results. One can almost hear Rush Limbaugh and his ilk using these poll results as validation for the stolen election. Or, it could simply be a bad poll by Gallup.

[mopinko]

21. +1

the tea party was created for this very reason, imho. just like the 'values voters' that didn't exist.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. This Should Be An Interesting Election

Although I question Gallup's methodology I respectfully submit the suggestion that we will see a repeat of 48 is highly implsusible.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

17. If Dems can GOTV like they do so well it'll be alot more competitive then most think.

[JohnWxy]

18. recommended!

[Jennicut]

19. In other words Gallup is full of crap. Dems may lose but they may also keep the House.

I think a lot of races will be very, very close. Gallup is essentially prediction an 80 seat pickup blowout by the Rethugs. Not plausible at all, therefore we have no idea what the "real" #'s are. They just cannot be trusted.

[LatteLibertine]

20. Unfortunately

the infotainment we consume has been reduced to being owned by about six large corporations since 1983.

In addition, polls are often used to influence public opinion rather than report it.

Fuck the narrative. Get out and vote Democrat Nov 2.

[cliffordu]

22. K&R!!!!

good news gets recced mofo.