Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Morgan in Denver

It definitely makes sense especially considering we know the following about Dim polls and pollsters:

1. they ask and phrase questions to get the results they want (e.g., Bush bad Dims good).

2. they often poll adults or registered voters rather than likely voters

3. they often poll on weekends, when its been shown that more Dims than Pubbies are home

4. they usually over-sample Dims and Ind to Pubbies

5. they often poll urban areas (where people tend to be more liberal), rather than rural areas - -where people tend to be more conservative and are usually out working in the yard, on the farm, etc.

and, I don't know how many need to be polled to get a good sampling, but some of the polls I've seen are between 6-700 or so folks - is that enough (especially given the above) for a good, true sampling?

I also read something in the last couple of weeks that made sense to me (my words here): With the do not call lists and more people w cell phones (sometimes instead of land lines) does that reduce the number of people available to be polled (especially conservatives)? IIRC it could be up to a 5% difference in the poll results.


913 posted on 10/09/2006 6:46:02 AM PDT by Seattle Conservative (God Bless and protect our troops and their CIC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 860 | View Replies ]


To: Seattle Conservative
I agree with your evaluation of polls, including the cell phone issue.

The do not call list does not apply to politics if I remember right. (I think there's an exemption for political phone calls.)

All the rest of what you say makes sense to me as well. Most polls I see need to have a plus or minus 3% over/under to be valid as well as a sampling of 1000 called. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I remember.

I usually add 5-8% for Republicans to any poll the press publishes to compensate for the biases and sloppy polling. That's been pretty accurate for the past number of years.  The polling companies are in business to sell their polling service so the poll they are most interested in having accurate is the final one before an election.  All the prior polls can be explained away as sampling based on information at the moment, and things change daily. Both political party "internal" polls are more accurate, IMHO, because the polling company  is held to a higher standard of performance.

916 posted on 10/09/2006 7:09:20 AM PDT by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 913 | View Replies ]

To: Seattle Conservative

To be clearer, I add 5% to polls with a plus or minus 3% and 8$ to polls with plus or minus 4% and under 1000 people polled. (Sometimes 7% IF the polling company has a better reputation for accuracy.)


917 posted on 10/09/2006 7:11:31 AM PDT by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 913 | View Replies ]

To: Seattle Conservative
often poll urban areas (where people tend to be more liberal), rather than rural areas

Good point. We live in a small city, in what could be considered rural Arizona. I have never been polled on a National level and none of our friends have, either. Here the GOP is still strong. If they polled Flagstaff or Tucson they will get a completely different outlook on the election than if they polled this area of AZ.

I do receive calls from Laura Bush to remind me to vote ~LOL~

920 posted on 10/09/2006 10:23:50 AM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 913 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson