Why You Should Ignore The Gallup Poll

[G_j]

This has probably been posted, but I couldn't find it, so here ya go.
It is certainly worth a read.
-------------


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

Friday :: Sep 17, 2004

Why You Should Ignore The Gallup Poll This Morning - 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. ......more..

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I might add this flies in the face of history

Democrats typically get out the vote better than Republicans and we have far more registered Democrats than Republicans.

[G_j]

2. good point

which no doubt further adds to the inaccuracy of these polls.

[Anaxamander]

5. Oh, but haven't you heard?

The repugs get out the vote FAR better than we do. It's a fact because I heard it on TV. /sarc

[NJCher]

3. this is an outrage

For precisely the reason stated--about allowing the media to tout bush's "lead."

Such faulty assumptions.

It reminds me of all the smarmy and misleading statements the newspapers made to cover up the fact that Gore won more votes than bush.


Cher

[G_j]

4. hoping that people read the entire article

more..

"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?"


There is no better way to describe this than to call it a complete sham.

On the brighter side, it may backfire in that the more people that are scared by these polls, the greater the incentive may be for them to get their asses to the polls and vote.

[G_j]

6. ~kICk~