Newsweek oversamples poll for Dems

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Saturday, Oct. 21, 2006 8:15 p.m. EDT
Newsweek Poll: Democrats Gain Congress

More than half of Americans, 55 percent, would like to see Democrats take control of Congress, according to a poll by Newsweek magazine released Saturday.

The poll of 1,000 likely voters found that 55 percent would choose a Democrat to represent their district if the vote were held now, and 37 percent said they would vote Republican.

This includes 31 percent of white evangelical Christians, an increase of 6 points among that strongly Republican group over the 2004 elections.


"Similarly, Democrats now lead among white Catholics, a group that went for President Bush in the 2004 presidential election," Newsweek said in a statement.


The poll, which had a margin of error of 4 percentage points, found that 44 percent of white Catholics planned to vote Democrat and 42 percent planned to vote Republican.

The poll found that 57 percent of those surveyed disapprove of Bush's job performance and just 35 percent approve. And it found that 67 percent are dissatisfied with the direction in which things are moving in the United States.

While 65 percent of those polled felt the United States was losing ground in Iraq, only 31 percent said the issue was the most important factor behind their vote this year for members of Congress.


Some 18 percent said the economy was most important while 16 percent said healthcare was most important to them.


But 74 percent said a top priority for Congress should be to make changes to allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices for seniors, and this included 70 percent of Republicans.


And 68 percent of those polled said raising the minimum wage should also be a top priority.

Of those sampled, 282 identified themselves as Republicans, 349 as Democrats and 330 as Independents.

(c) Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.

*********************************************************

Now, let's do a little analysis. Notice that the Democrat sample is significantly larger than the Republican sample, as is the Independent sample. If we take out the Independent sample, the remaining sample divides out 55% Dem, 45% Republican. Isn't that interesting?

If we assume that Democrats will all vote Democrat, and vice versa for Republicans, then it is also safe to assume that the Independent vote is equally split. If that's true, then the 55% advantage given to the Democrats is solely due to the oversampling. That would mean that in reality, if Republicans and Democrats were sampled evenly, the vote would be 50-50.

Why does Newsweek oversample the Democrat vote? The party affiliations spread across the country aren't split that way. As a matter of fact, the last election showed IN ACTUAL VOTES 52%-48% for Bush, if you want a national trend. So if we throw out the Independent vote as meaningless, the votes should split along party lines, and the parties should be represented fairly.

Newsweek shows their bias. It costs a lot of money to conduct a nationwide poll. Either Newsweek doesn't have enough skilled phone operators to call until they represent the samples accurately, or they deliberately oversampled in order to make the Democrats appear to have an advantage in the polls.

Thank God elections are still settled by counting ACTUAL VOTES. Of course, if the Democrats win, that will change.
 
The other subtle technique used, both to honestly predict an election, as well as to skew the result, it to grossly exagerate expected turn out.

If the survey factors in very high Democrat turn out, and very low expected Republican turn out (due to "staying home over 'scandals' or other such crap), you'll see the often found gross distortion of reality.
 
Wait, so you're saying that in order to be fair, the polls should be weighted to have an equal number of Democrat and Republican respondents? That's not how polls work I'm afraid.

The whole purpose of a poll is to sample a random group of "likely voters" (in this case), and let the cards fall where they may. Somtimes polls are weighted for other demographics like age, gender, and race, but using party affiliation is generally frowned upon. After all, a person can change his party affiliation, but not any of the others (unless you count surgery). :D

This page has some info on the methodology used in all of the major polling companies:

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4176

Newsweek uses Princeton Survey Research Associates, which is considered to be a reliable polling firm that uses sound methodology.

Besides, the Newsweek poll fits right into the pattern seen on all the other polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm

Not all states require you to select a party affiliation (mine doesn't). So it doesn't take much of a stretch to consider the possibility that people might change their self-declared party.
 
You're confusing polling techniques.

You can take a completely blind sample, for example, by just picked every 20th name in the phone book. But when you publish your method, it should note this. And unless you use a HUGE sample, this method will be very inaccurate.

And what happens if you use only phone books from urban areas?
Or you use phone books only from rural areas?

You'll have to very different set of results.

So, if you're using a small sample population, or predict the outcome of an election, you try to use proportionate samples. And this is the part where most surveys reveal their bias. So if the public is divided 40/40 and 20% independent, you try to match this. The goal being accuracy.

Ideally, you would even factor race, income, education, sex, ect into the sample. It's all about how much you want to spend, how long you want to take, and often, if you're looking for a specific result or you want an honest representation.

As I mentioned, you can inflate the degree of voter turnout you expect from any given party. Which often means that these media surveys are really just guess work. So if the population is 50/50, you can say Republicans will only have 30% turn out since they are discouraged by Mark Foley, and Democrats are movitaved and will have 45% turnout.
 
Calabrio said:
You can take a completely blind sample, [which Newsweek did] for example, by just picked every 20th name in the phone book. But when you publish your method, it should note this.

And Newsweek DID that too. Did you miss this part?

Of those sampled, 282 identified themselves as Republicans, 349 as Democrats and 330 as Independents.

They picked 1000 random names, and it was THOSE PEOPLE POLLED who identified their party affiliation. Newsweek did NOT go out and intentionally chose more Dems than Repugs as Percy Wetmore would like you to believe.

"Intelectual honesty" my a-s-s.

How is it possible for a random sampling to contain more Dems that Repugs you ask? It could be for the reasons you stated, or it could be for the fact that it's downright embarrasing to be affiliated with the GOP lately.
:D
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
And Newsweek DID that too. Did you miss this part?



They picked 1000 random names, and it was THOSE PEOPLE POLLED who identified their party affiliation. Newsweek did NOT go out and intentionally chose more Dems than Repugs as Percy Wetmore would like you to believe.

"Intelectual honesty" my a-s-s.

How is it possible for a random sampling to contain more Dems that Repugs you ask? It could be for the reasons you stated, or it could be for the fact that it's downright embarrasing to be affiliated with the GOP lately.
:D

Or it could be that since they called them at home during the day, most of the Republican voters weren't home since they are busy at work making money so they can pay taxes, while most of the Democrats are at home smoking weed and mooching off the state. :D
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
And Newsweek DID that too. Did you miss this part?

They picked 1000 random names, and it was THOSE PEOPLE POLLED who identified their party affiliation. Newsweek did NOT go out and intentionally chose more Dems than Repugs as Percy Wetmore would like you to believe.

"Intelectual honesty" my a-s-s.

How is it possible for a random sampling to contain more Dems that Repugs you ask? It could be for the reasons you stated, or it could be for the fact that it's downright embarrasing to be affiliated with the GOP lately.
:D

What part did you miss? You're trying to correct me, but in essence you're confirming what I said. I was speaking in general terms, not even specifically mentioning anything related to the Newsweek poll.

But if you take a small sample, a purely random sample like that will not be accurate. And it is misleading to publish it as being some kind of honest representation of the political climate.

So in this case, they did a random phone survey, calling mostly Democrats. And what was the outcome?

That kind of polling is misleading and really not suitable for publication. Unless, of course, you like the implications made by the poll, and the possible fall out of such a poll might have. Which,when considered with Newsweeks history, would make any clear thinking person a bit suspect.

There is a huge difference in quality between the political polling data the parties have and the crap we see published in the liberal media on a daily basis. That's why, most political scientist statisticians, with access to the "real stuff," knew Bush would win in 2004 and in 2000, despite what all the other mainstream media data leading up to elections indicated. I doubt we have one on this board, but I've spoken with them in the past about this. And, no, these weren't conservative pollsters either.

In this case, the random sample misrepresents support for democrats and it has no bearing on anything regarding likely voters or voter turnout. Making it little more than a worthless poll designed to influence the electorate, NOT inform it.
 
Calabrio said:
In this case, the random sample misrepresents support for democrats and it has no bearing on anything regarding likely voters or voter turnout. Making it little more than a worthless poll designed to influence the electorate, NOT inform it.
Too bad you had to waste your breath trying to inform Johnny (the independent...chuckle,chuckle). All you needed to do was post the last paragraph. That is all he really needs to know. The Drive-by-Media has used this poll tactic for decades now to try to brainwash the unthinking masses into voting with the majority. You will NEVER hear them trumpet a poll that does not favor their position.

IMHO, firms like the Associated Press are one of the greatest dangers our society faces today. We desperately need a socially conservative news outlet to counteract their incessant false reporting of the stories of the day.
 
Let me s-p-e-l-l this out for you to u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d.

I am NOT disputing that this poll (hell ANY poll for that matter) is not an accurate prediction of how the election will turn out. What I AM disputing is that Newsweek has somehow intentionally biased the results of this poll as was implied by the initiator of this thread by intentionally "oversampling" Dems.

Their goal was to randomly select 1000 "likely voters" (NOT and equal number of REPUGS & DEMS) and ask them about their views on issues. How can they possibly help it if the 1000 random people they polled leaned away from the right? Are you proposing they keep on calling people until they have an equal number, or "throw away" data from the DEMs and INDs and only look at the data they took for an equal number of the 3? How would that NOT be "biasing" the result which is what YOU guys seem to be harping that they are doing?? All Percy is doing is wringing his hypocritical hands with wishful thinking.

What Newsweek could have done though to clarify their statistics, is to break down the % of Repugs and % of Dems who'd cross party lines. That information would provide more insight into how the two sides are thinking, and allow the informed reader to better understand the mood of the country.
Keep in mind that only a minority of voters are "hardliners" like you guys who blindly vote your party and ignore achievements of individual canditates. But hey, ignorance must be bliss, eh?
 
Here's another example of how the poll was biased.

On immigration, 40 percent trust the Dems more, while 34 percent trust the GOP more. Two weeks ago the Democrats held a nine-point lead on that issue.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/page/2/

The issue isn't immigration, it's ILLEGAL immigration. What a subtle way to totally distort an issue. Makes you wonder how the question was phrased, eh?

1. Do you feel that the Republicans or the Democrats are stronger on immigration?

2. Do you feel that the Republicans or the Democrats are stronger on preventing illegal aliens from entering the country?

Take a guess.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top