Posted on 06/15/2004 8:13:10 AM PDT by KMC1
Roll Call Magazine is now reporting that the Los Angeles Times newspaper misrepresented the latest results in their on going Presidential Poll. The poll had shown John Kerry with a 7% point lead over President George W. Bush. According to Roll Call, the results were impacted because of greatly advantaged sample rate. Democrats included composed 38% of the responses, while only 25% of Republicans were included. The sample rate is said to be an "unheard of margin" in polling methods today.
(Excerpt) Read more at crosswalk.com ...
Gee, what a surprise! A slanted poll from the LA Times? Why, I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
Why am I not surprised that the LA Slimes would do this?
POLLS by the media are nothing but a free ticket to circumvent the election laws as to money spent by the slimey lib's. It was practically invented by the slimey Clinton mob.
Only 38% Democrat? Looks like some improvement there.
And this little tidbit of news actually surprises people????
It actually upsets and concerns some of our fellow Freepers????
Why?
Why does anything the LA Times says or prints worry anyone here???
I don't understand...it's a biased, lying, fantasy rag little better than the National Inquirer.
In fact, the Inquirer says that Kerry is favored over Bush by most Martians!
Just about as meaningful!
Come on folks....get real! Just disregard anything coming from the LA Times.
LA Times unfair!!!!
Say it ain't so!!!
Bump to spread the word
somebody with more math brains than me (and that is a lot of you) if 38% were demos and 25% were pubs and kerry had a 7% lead, what would the "lead" be if the poll was 50-50 demos and pubs?
They seem to be working full speed on their own marginalization.
bump
Exactly. It was a poll in name only.
And in other news, the Pope is reported to be Catholic...
This skewing of the base is common in many polls, it is based on the assumption that there are so many more registered dems, or that dems vote with higher frequency. So a 50 50 electorate is not considered reality. The problem is that the percents that are selected are easy to "push" and may not be real either.
No one would question that there is some ratio of dems to repubs that would give a poll representative of an actual election, but you can expect the LA times to try for good news for their readers. Zogby does this too, and close to the election he seems to get the right percentage. Now, when its time to try to push undecided voters into one or the other camp, honest polls are hard to find. For that I watch FOX.
You'd have to know what percentage of each party voted with their own party's candidate. The biggest shift would occur if each party's voters voted for their guy, and independants were the only swing voters.
Bush is supposedly leading independents by 3%. I've seen where Rats and Pubbies were about equal in voter registration nationally, so if the same number of Rats and Pubbies were crossing party lines (a big presumption), Bush would be up about 1%. Bush's people complained that the poll was leaning about 10 to 12 percent too democratic.
Why are you overlooking another possibility? Gross incompetence. It wouldnt be the first time someone screwed up and forgot to control the sample. I really doubt they set out to find 38% Dems and 25% Republicans. I think it just happened and if they noticed it in the data, they buried it in order to satisfy the editors desire to run with story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.