Skip to comments.Mitt Romney five percent lead by unskewed Gallup poll data
Posted on 09/10/2012 1:53:50 PM PDT by tellw
The Gallup seven day tracking poll of the presidential race released today shows Mitt Romney behind President Obama by a 49 percent to 44 margin. The seven day tracking poll of 3050 registered voters, that has a margin of error of 2.0 percent, samples Democrats by about a 8 percent margin based on calculations from the reported data. If the data is properly weighted for the partisan makeup of the electorate, the data from this poll unskewed would show a Romney lead of 49 percent to 44. By skewing the poll, it gives Obama a five point lead instead of showing Romney leading by the same total.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Unskewed? Something the LGBT community wouldn’t understand?
It seems that every poll I see samples Dems in greater numbers than Republicans. Is there a reason for this other than to make Dems look stronger?
The Examiner isn’t playing along with the disinformation blitz of today?
The “bounce” of the DNC was probably negative, so the Rats put out their marching orders to the media - giving us the current news cycle and its rosy reports for the One.
Of course all the anti-Romneys in here can’t wait with ther “I told you so”. It ain’t over yet.
I don’t buy this one. You can’t cherry pick Rasmussen’s partisan breakdown and use it to re-adjust Gallup’s numbers, while rejecting the Rasmussen poll at the same time.
You are wise Grasshopper
.....that's exactly what their up ta...
Always look for Likely voters (LV) over Registered voters (RV)in those polls too. Likely voters are a more accurate pulse of what's happening...
Also pay attention to the timing the poll was taken. Weekends traditionally poll Democrats at much higher rates because the Republicans are out doing things on the weekends. If the polls are done during the weekdays the numbers for Obozo and Romney are usually closer.
Axelrod got to them..big time along with the DOJ.
Democrats outnumber Republicans nationwide. State to state is a different story. As far as I know, Gallup is a reputable polling organization. Was their poll “skewed” to account for a gap between Republican and Democrat registrations/voters?
2012 - "If the poll ain't skewed, Obama's screwed".
“Axelrod got to them..big time along with the DOJ.”
Of course that’s what happened. Axelrod’s thuggish intimidation of Gallup when Hussein was behind was a huge story. I cannot understand why it wasn’t covered, or even mentioned in any of the media.
If someone like Rasmussen is also skewing his poll, that is scary. What about Romney’s internal polls? Wouldn’t his campaign find a way to communicate that these polls are inaccurate if his internals showed something significantly different? I don’t know what to believe.
Well there are a couple of reasons for it.
FIRST, party IDs are self-reported. So they tend to change -- if Republicans are popular more people will self-identify as Republicans, regardless of whether or not they register by party in a particular state. So it makes sense that there would be more self-reported Dems if polls show Obama ahead. I grant that it's weird and seems counter-intuitive.
SECOND, there are more "registered" Dems than GOPers in the country. As far as I know, this has always been the case. That may or may not have anything to do w/the party people tell pollsters they belong to. There are a bunch of reasons for the Dem registration advantage -- still a few conservative Southern Dems who now vote exclusively Republican, alienated Northern Catholics who still ID as Dems but often vote GOP, etc.
ALSO, we've seen a growth in the number of Independents, voters who often, as seems likely in November, skew Republican.
So much for the “pressure” put on by David Axelrod & Company. That such pressure is employed in the first place, attests to the dishonest intent of just about everything the Chicago Machine has brought to national politics.
REAL polling, that which is read in the inner offices of both the Romney Campaign and the Obama campaign, probably indicate a much bigger bump for Romney than for the Current Occupant. Because the two conventions were practically a continuous event with no serious polling taken in between the gatherings, to claim that Romney got “no boost” while Current Occupant got a 2% or 5% or 8% boost is just whistling Dixie from your anal orfice.
No matter what the spread, the regime of the Current Occupant (which cannot be distinguished from the re-election campaign) will spin it up as a sort of psy-war tactic, in an attempt to get the conservatives squabbling with the more entrenched Republican establishment. But why would or should we be doing Obama’s work for him?
Maybe people like the Obama’s to entertain them by taking Big Vacations and playing Golf. It is a reality show we all pay for with our taxes. Only certain people even watch the news, when they are not texting some non-sense, or talking on a cell phone.
Sometimes it goes deeper than R and D. They also oversample women. Easier to hide. The recent PPP poll showing Obummer up +5 in Ohio not only oversampled Dems +4, but also oversampled women +9.
The Gallup poll would take into account a day before the Dem convention as well as the first day which was a dud.
This may be a better big picture view than only the convention dynamics of the last few days.
This seems correct.
I suspect in addition that Rasmussen has also had to change their party affiliation/turnout model, which is also dynamic and based on, I believe, a separate poll.
So a parallel change in different Rasmussen polls could magnify a bump. This could easily work either way.
Rasmussen is a three-day poll.
I expect that tomorrow Rasmussen will show a counter-trend as Monday results come in and Friday falls off.
“Unskewed? Something the LGBT community wouldnt understand?”
—Ohio not only oversampled Dems +4, but also oversampled women +9.
Wow, that’s really some good information. I knew about the party weighting but sex?!?!?! Where would all the men have gone? /s
You are correct. I wouldnt trust the +4 R number until we see it in November.
The other thing, though is that the Gallup is an RV poll not an LV poll. The LV universe is more R than all RVs.
Gallup is not skewing their sample at all, unlike some others.
The ‘Axelrod Factor’ doesn’t impress me.......................
Yeah, but 2010 says its not +4 and who is less pissed off now than then?
There are other ways to build polling structures that allow you to specify how many Republicans and Democrats you want of course.
In general there are always going to be more people reporting themselves to be Democrats than Republicans because, as it turns out, there are not equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats.
We are quite lucky to win the elections we do ~ sometimes we are hopelessly outnumbered.
Like your ID --- "Goodbye Mr.Chips" ---great movie!
One thing is certain... even when we discount the Democrat oversampling in polls like this one, we cannot ignore the more trusted pollsters like Rasmussen (which polls likely voters ). I cant believe that even Rasmussen is part of the MSM trying to dispirit Republicans.
It REALLY looks like Obama is leading in the polls at this point in time. We have to be realistic. It is what it is.
The main question is not whether or not the economy is bad. The economy IS bad and people know it.
However the huge factor is HOW DEPENDENT ARE AMERICANS BECOMING ON GOVERNMENT?
If the answer to the above question is this VERY. Then yes, Obama might even win and we have to sadly conclude that we have crossed the tipping point in this country.
I have a very sick feeling that this might be the case (God forbid ). Consider these factors:
1) Nearly HALF of Americans pay no taxes ( 47% last I read ).
2) 1 in 3 Americans are in some sort of government welfare program.
3) 45 Million people on food stamps. Up by over 15 million compared to 4 years ago.
4) Obama promising to help those underwater in their mortgages and college students and grads who cannot pay back their college loans.
5) Auto workers in swing states like Michigan and Ohio being brainwashed into believing that it is good to bail out GM because Obama cares and wants to save their jobs.
Those factors CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED.
Once a significant number of our populace suck on the governments teat.... it becomes like a drug which is very difficult to withdraw from and they will vote accordingly.
Many of these people are not even informed. They are too busy playing with their cell phones and texting.
don’t know if to laugh or shake my head when I see those letter.
It’s a mixed bag of weirdo’s mental sickness and perverts, hell even wild animals know it takes a male and a female to reproduce and they don’t have the alpha of the wolf pack thinking now he’s a she.
That tells us how sick the homostapo/homosexuals and their sipporters are.
Sorry I couldn't resist it was so obvious.
Not to be a nitpicker, but the oversampling of women was 54% to 46%, or 8%. The 2010 census showed women outnumbering men by about 1.6%, so the PPP oversample of women is actually 6.4%, and that should definitely skew results in Obama’s favor since he always seems to poll stronger with women (Rush’s arousal gap).
The question is whether this oversampling of women is deliberate or a side effect of discarding republican responses to reach the desired R/D mix, which are more likely to have come from men.
But, I agree, any time someone has to decide whether to keep or toss a given sample, there is the potential for mischief.
By women, do you mean single women, or married women? Big difference.
What keeps me hopeful is that he couldn’t fill the stadium last week.
Here's a problem for any poll ~ it's called "sample cells". If you want to poll on just one thing ~ do you like A or like B ~ that's two sample cells. A statistically meaningful sample population within a certain confidence interval will have to be polled for each one, and if, for instance, you needed 100 answers for A, you might be getting just 90 answers for B, so you'd have to keep sampling people until you had a minimum of 100 in each cell.
That's for a single characeristic with a 1% confidence interval.
If you need TWO characteristics, you need 4 cells, and the minimum requirement might still be 100, but you'd have to keep sampling until you found a combination of those two characteristics had found at a minimum 100. That could result in a need to sample enough people to give you far higher sample results for the other combinations.
You've probably noticed they ask for about a 3.5% confidence interval ~ then they'll tell you male, female, young, old, black, white, etc. Might be 10 or 15 characteristics in each full poll. If 3.5% is the confidence interval, we take the reciprocal of that times the number of different characteristics to find out what the minimum acceptable number is for the smallest reporting cell ~ and in this one 30 X 6 or 180! You could easily need to survey several thousand people to fill the other cells with statistically reliable numbers ~ or you could just drop off the smallest reporting sample cell ~ which is what they've done if you suddenly find yourself reading a report about old white women, but not old black men! Kind of a clue ~ and a very dangerous one in a political campaign.
Note, the more things you want sampled in a poll, the more costly it gets because the need to fill those minimum sample cells to a statistically significant level can give you a geometric increase in the number of people to be sampled.
If, as one Freeper reported yesterday, the polling company ended up with 1 voluntary respondent for each 13 who refused to participate in the poll, you might find yourself paying for 10,000 phone calls ~ which could easily break the bank.
Heh, you’re right.
This is called an "artifact of the design" and doesn't really reflect opinion ~ just that you are hearing results where they had so many women in that line, but they had too few men in that line to tell you about it.
In short, the guy paying for the poll didn't want to pay enough for a poll that would tell him everything he'd asked about.
A bigger difference is “big women” or “small women” ~ but they won’t give you reliable answers on those two factors so don’t even bother.
Although incorrectly identified as a Conservative, or Republican by the public, that celebrity has definitely HURT REPUBLICANS when it comes to getting those folks to vote Republican or Conservative!
He, on the other hand, is praised for his courage in reporting that information.
To date I'd guess Sean Hannity has encouraged a good 25 million people to NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN simply because that would be to vote for a tax increase.
BTW, that's all based on a lie however. First off, NOBODY in America escapes taxes ~ just can't be done. Secondly, the original claim had only to do with a single tax called the Federal Personal Income Tax ~ and not all taxes.
Third, Ronaldus Magnus himself began the process of relieving the poor and working poor from the harrassment of paying the federal personal income tax.
And, besides, the tax as originally invisioned a century ago was that it would only affect the top 1 or 2% of wage earners!
Please don't continue this one ~ it just hurts us ~ even the rich don't want to pay more taxes ~ what makes you think the poor wish to? That's just crazy talk.
Any poll of registered voters [if you’ve got a driver’s license, you’re likely a registered voter] isn’t even worth analyzing.
It amazes me how ignorant and uninformed you guys are. What is defeating you is your ignorance not the Democrats.
The fact is THERE ARE MORE REPUBLICANS THAN DEMOCRATS in the country according to party affiliation exceeding Democrats by 4%. 37.6% (R) 33.3%(D) 29.2%(other). This situation has been trending Republican for a while now for the Republicans for over a year. This information comes from Rassmussen and you guys have not been aware of this for over a year. Taking these trends into account the Democrat polls make no sense.
Rasmussen Reports poll out today has Obama at 50%, leading Romney 50-45. Do you agree with that? If not, why not?
Party ID is a fuzzy metric -- it varies considerably depending on how you assess it. But it makes no sense to take party ID results from one poll and apply them to candidate support numbers from another poll and pretend that that's a useful metric.
First of all Republicans outnumber Democrats by something like 2 million now in party affiliation. As I stated earlier there are 37% Republicans verses 33% Democrats according to party affiliation. Since you were the one to suggest that there were more Democrats than Republicans, I had to correct you first on that fact. This is huge.
Secondly Indpendents are trending for Romney 54-40 again according to CNN. http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/09/cnn-obama-52-romney-46.html
The independents count for 29% of the vote. Rassmussen has also told us that basically all the Dems will vote for O and all the Repubs will vote for Romney then that leaves the Repubs with the advantage since they exceed Dems by 4% and they have 54% of the Indies. This means Romney will win. As far as the Rassmussen poll goes it does not make sense in light of these other numbers.
Let’s not forget that pollsters can totally miss the mood of the country as in 1994 where no one saw the Republicans take the House for the first time in 40 years.
I also suspect that the Democrats are not as monolithic as assumed. In the end I suspect Romney will win 55-45 the same numbers as those who want to repeal Obamacare.
Too bad this isn't the buffet at Sizzler.
You can't juxtapose independents in one poll up with party ID in another poll and GOP favorables in a 3rd. That's about as unscientific as you can get because different polls have different survey methods. Somebody classed as an "Independent" (albeit Republican-leaning) by one metric may be considered a Republican in another poll.
Re: Party ID, it varies considerably depending on how you measure it, but most polling firms find a small but pretty consistent Dem advantage for the reasons I articulated. That does not mean that Dems win every election - Indies have a slight GOP lean historically.
Here are Gallup's trends over the past few years.
Well I see you ignoring some glaring facts. The 2010 elections. The Wisconsin elections. These are two facts that trounced the polls. As a matter of fact the polls said Walker was going to lose. It was sooooo close leaning against Walker that he was going to lose. In the end he trounced the other guy. After all they did in Wisconsin they could not win.
Even Rassmussen was not projecting a Walker win when it was obvious he would win. The same holds for Obama. As far as throwing out the facts I gave you nice try.
Obama will ho down the same numbers as are opposed to Obamacare about 55-45 just as happened in 1994 with Hillarycare. No one saw that coming not even Rassmussen.
Sorry you lose. There are too many on this forum willing to be victims and throw in the towel at the slightest hint of heavy lifting.
As a matter of fact the polls said Walker was going to lose.
Yeah, no. Try again. These are the four polls that came out closest tothe election.
WeAskAmerica 6/3 - 6/3 1570 LV 54 42 Walker +12
PPP (D) 6/2 - 6/3 1226 LV 50 47 Walker +3
Marquette University 5/23 - 5/26 600 LV 52 45 Walker +7
WPR/St. Norbert 5/17 - 5/22 406 LV 50 45 Walker +5
I'd say the polls were pretty decent...
It is my FAVORITE movie. But then, I am a Latin teacher, so, of course it is. :-)
Won the Oscar for best male actor 1939