Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mfcorey1

(11,001 posts)
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:27 AM Sep 2012

Analysis: Polling criticism unfounded

snip

Washington (CNN) – It's a conspiracy theory of the highest level: media organizations allegedly manipulating data in public opinion polls to try and help President Barack Obama win a second term. Democracy crushed.

The accusations are predicated on the idea that some media organizations are interviewing too many Democrats in their surveys, which skew the results in way to benefit Obama over Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/28/analysis-polling-criticism-unfounded/?hpt=hp_t2

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Analysis: Polling criticism unfounded (Original Post) mfcorey1 Sep 2012 OP
Maybe they can't find enough Republicans that will admit it? eom Frustratedlady Sep 2012 #1
Here is the best explanation from Gallup.. DCBob Sep 2012 #2

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
2. Here is the best explanation from Gallup..
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:25 AM
Sep 2012

<snip>

Party identification is basically an attitudinal variable, not a stable population parameter. It is designed to vary. This is distinct from demographic variables such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education, which are, generally speaking, stable indicators measured by the U.S. Census Bureau. The only issues relating to demographic variables are measurement concerns -- e.g., how the census, which creates the targets, measures ethnicity versus how individual pollsters measure it. But, generally speaking, these are fairly stable targets.

<snip>

Here is how Gallup asks party identification: “In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent?”

Note that this question does not ask, “What was your party identification in November 2008?” Nor does it ask, “Are you registered with one party or the other in your state?” Our question uses the words "as of today" and "consider." It is designed to measure fluidity in political self-identification.

We know that party identification moves over time -- sometimes in very short periods of time, just like other political variables. Generally, if there is a political tide toward either of the two major parties, all questions we ask that are of a political nature will move in that direction. This includes the ballot, job approval, party identification, among others.

So, it would not be surprising to find that if Barack Obama is enjoying a surge in popularity in any given state, that surge will show up on the ballot question, on his job approval measure, and on the measure of party identification. So, data showing that Obama is ahead on the ballot in a specific state poll and that Democrats have a higher-than-expected representation on the party identification question, are basically just reflecting two measures of the same underlying phenomenon.

more: http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/09/the-recurring-and-misleading-focus-on.html

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Analysis: Polling critici...