Interesting polling data from GOP firm (and very encouraging)

[Bucky]

Bob Dole's '96 polling firm, the old line Republican outfit Fabrizio-McLaughlin, has an interesting poll in PDF format out. Their main polling (the type you see reflected in most national polls that still show Bush ahead by 1-3 points) has the election at 47.3% for Kerry and 47.1% for Bush as of October 25.

But... (and this is the big but) firm principal Fabrizio adds on this welcome comment;

However, as the data below illustrates, when the data is weighted to reflect minority turnout based on the 2000 exit polls, Sen. Kerry leads by 3.5% and if minority turnout is weighted to census levels Sen. Kerry’s lead expands to 5.2%

Weighted to 2000 Exit Polls Kerry-49.2% Bush-45.7% Nader-1.5%

Weighted to Census for 2004 Kerry-49.9% Bush-44.7% Nader-1.6%

Let's think about this for a second. If ethnically weighting to actual voter turn-out rates moves Kerry from a statistical tie up to a 5% point lead... does this mean that ALL the polls are undercounting the minority vote? In the past we've seen the meme passed around that black voters are somehow not real Southerners, but now it seems that a lot of national polls are being conducted on the assumption that minorities don't really turn out to vote in the numbers that they, um, historically turn out to vote in.

From working in market research I know that different ethnic groups can be harder to sample, based on the type of methodology being used and the hiring profile of the interviewing staff. But I would think that, after 50 years of professional polling being in existance, a few firms would have figured out how to accurately measure the actual vote projection without the somewhat risky practice of "weighting" their samples.

Apparently not.

[Birthmark]

1. This is why Kerry will win easily.

And by that, I don't mean that a lot of people haven't worked extraordinarily hard. I just mean that the final vote tallies will NOT be close at all.

[ciaobox]

2. I have been saying for weeks

to add 5%-10% for Kerry to any poll (mostly instinctual). Now I know why I am right. Thanks!

[Mr_Spock]

3. Never underestimate bigotry. This nation is full of 'em

Discourage 'em, insult 'em, take them off the voting rolls - there is little the white fascist party wouldn't do to preserve their evil power structure.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Thanks for posting this, and for your encouraging interpretation --

[Awsi Dooger]

5. They are projecting blacks and hispanics using a very tiny sample

Among 800 respondents, they admit to 89.5% white, 4.3% black and 1.9% hispanic. That breaks down to 714 whites, 34 blacks and 15 hispanics.

So we're estimating the entire black and hispanic vote throughout the swing states via a total of 49 people. Okay.

The weighting to reflect 2000 minority vote levels is an idea I utilize within my own Excel election model. It accounts for Kerry's projected small lead at this time in many states. But you need a much more robust and better balanced sample. The hispanic population of New Mexico, for example, is not exactly equivalent to that of Pennsylvania.

IMO, the underestimated minority vote is much more responsible for the polls being skewed toward Republicans in 2000 and 2004 than any intentional polling bias, or stuff like underestmated cell phone usage or new Dem registrations. However, I think this firm is stretching it when trying to project all the way toward the 2004 census levels. I considered that six months ago but rejected it, since I doubt those groups will turn out in full percentage of their numbers. Especially since many of them are young and low income, the groups least likely to vote.