Gallup just annhilated the "Poll Trutherism" argument

[smorkingapple]

Damn, this was the last straw R's were hanging onto:

The discussion of the party identification composition of poll samples comes up in every presidential election with which I've been involved. Interested observers often opine that when a given poll shows that Candidate X is ahead, it cannot be correct because there is a higher percentage of voters who identify with Candidate X’s party in the sample than there should be, based on comparison to some previous standard.

There are several reasons why this is a faulty approach to evaluating a poll's results.

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

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

http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/


Republicans just got fisted to the elbow...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. The unneeded obscene comment notwithstanding, here's a chart that reinforces the explanation above:

[progressoid]

2. Oh baloney.

I heard on AM radio that Amurica is a conservative country!

It was on the radio, so it's true!!11!

[murphyj87]

9. As opposed to ......

A poll of both Canadians and Americans showed:

Americans:

Very conservative: 11 per cent
Conservative: 50 per cent
Liberal: 32 per cent
Very liberal: 7 per cent


Canadians:

Very conservative: 3 per cent
Conservative: 41 per cent
Liberal: 42 per cent
Very liberal: 14 per cent

In the May 2011 election, Conservatives (centrist in US terms) won with 39% of the vote (163 seats), the New Democratic Party (Bernie Sanders style social democrats - centre left in Canadian terms) finished second with 31% of the vote (103 seats). Liberals (centrist in Canadian terms) finished 3rd with 14% of the vote (40 seats). The leftist Bloc Quebecois (4 seats) and leftist Green Party (1 seat) and a bunch of minor parties which elected no one made up the rest of the vote.

Also:

When it came to health care, 45 per cent of Americans felt Canada had a superior system, while 42 per cent of Americans thought the United States should stick with its own. while 13% of Americans thought both were equal..

Meanwhile, the vast majority of Canadians, 91 per cent, felt that Canada's health care system was better than that of the United States, 3 per cent of Canadians thought the American system was better, and 6 per cent of Canadians thought both were equal.

In a recent poll of Canadians asked, if they could vote in the US election, 68% of Canadians would vote for Barack Obama, 12% of Canadian would vote for Mitt Romney, but 20% of Canadians thought that both Mitt Romney AND Barack Obama were too far to the right to deserve a vote and would rather vote for the US Green Party or Bernie Sanders .

[progressoid]

10. "would rather vote for the US Green Party or Bernie Sanders."

Heh heh heh.

[demwing]

4. Right? Dirty words are unnecessary

never, ever say use the fucking term "Republicans" again...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. :)

I didn't know they could, but I suppose they reproduce by some other means than artificial insemination.

Lay back, dear, and think of Texas?

[demwing]

12. Don't mess with Texas

takes on a whole new meaning

[JNelson6563]

3. That last bit sort of ruins

an otherwise excellent post.

Julie

[Firebrand Gary]

5. I thought the obscene comment was rather hysterical! Nt

[libodem]

8. (me too)

[JBoy]

13. I was loving the tsunami strength od statistical science

And then that last sentence made me literally lol.

[calimary]

7. Thank you for posting this! republi-CONS should get everything they deserve,

from losing this and every other election in the future until they dwindle into oblivion - to, yes, getting fisted to the elbow.

And btw, smorkingapple, Welcome to DU! It's kinda hard to object to an obscenity when it's been so well-earned and so greatly deserved. You won't hear any objections from me!

[smorkingapple]

11. Sorry guys, I know that's a graphic visual...

and definitely not for the faint of heart... I hope you got the point tho

[NCLefty]

14. If a theory is disproven but the intended audience is busy watching Fox, is it really disproven?

Those pushing the theory already know it's crap. Those its intended to fool are prepared to make great mental leaps and bounds to believe in it.

[WI_DEM]

15. Let's remember this when Gallup starts to tighten and DU is all up in lather about Gallup.

[tavalon]

16. And I thought they preferred teabagging!