Skip to comments.Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: ‘Probably Unlikely’ That Electorate Will Feature Massive Dem Skew
Posted on 09/26/2012 12:18:38 PM PDT by smoothsailing
click here to read article
“Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: Probably Unlikely That Electorate Will Feature Massive Dem Skew”
That’s right, jackwagon. Start walking that cart back to reality-ville.
“polling equivalent of pornography” - LOL!
For a Cleveland Browns fan Hewitt can be funny at times.
Why is newsbusters putting this out now? That interview is pretty old, I remember hearing it a day or two after it happened.
Quinnipiac University BS'ing in their polls for years.
Hey, my husband is a Browns fan and he is funny ALL the time!...
Gee, ya think?
It's kind of funny, the defense the guy offers is actually a good defense of the honesty of the poll if he's telling the truth, but it would also mean that it's an honest poll that has no connection to reality at all. The pool you called had more Democrats? Well great, but unless 9% more Dems show up on Nov 6 than Republicans, your poll means squat.
When you do that it's not a random sample poll anymore.
Do you seriously believe the polls should be weighted and adjusted ~ .......... ~ isn't the background complaint that the Democrats are weighting and adjusting the polls so they no longer reflect the reality?
Do you think you can have it both ways ~ pure random selection polls that are not weighted and adjusted unless they are weighted and adjusted!?
Recognize that in 2008 the Democrats turned out 15% more Democrat voters than the Republicans turned out Republican voters. 15% is a huge difference and Hewitt is quibbling over 9% ~ is he the source of this utterly confusing and baseless debate over oversampling (as some call it)
Peter Brown is the guy at Qunnipiac who is responsible for the most recent set of distorted polls.
Here are the rest of the gang. A bunch of liberal hacks.
Michael Blair, manager of polling information and technology, firstname.lastname@example.org
Carmen Carranza, assistant manager of interviewer operations, email@example.com
Dorothy Donarum, manager of interviewer operations, firstname.lastname@example.org
Ralph Hansen, manager of data analysis, email@example.com
Terri Vitelli, polling institute assistant, firstname.lastname@example.org
Jonathan Wigglesworth, manager of CATI operations, email@example.com
It's pretty good timing on NewsBuster's part, IMO. Quinnipiac just came out with another one of their corrupt polls today.
You base your post on the assertion that what the pollster said about “that’s how he found it” is true. I don’t agree with that assertion.
HEWITT: And so if, in fact, you had gotten a hundred Democrats out of a hundred respondents that answered, would you think that poll was reliable?
BROWN: Probably not at 100 out of 100.
The go to pollsters for CBS and the New York Times. The results are so predictable.
Used to work with a very bright woman who was convinced that half the people in America were black and half were white, and there were just a handful of others.
A review of the Census was not enough to convince her otherwise ~ she wanted it half and half, and that was the end of that.
So, you do know there are, in general, more Democrats than Republicans, right?
Polls are weighted to generate a turnout model. There are biases (or outside forces) that determine which party is more likely to turn out. Only an idiot would believe that turnout is random. For example, if Obama suddenly declared that he has a preference for urinating on the Bible do you think this would impact turnout or would turnout still be ran-dumb?
That's a poll BTW.
Rarely. He reminds me of Oriely. Flopping around in the middle so to keep as many listeners/readers as possible.
In 2008, the advantage for Democrats was +8, nationwide
In Florida, it was +3 for the Democrats.
There is one silver lining to the skewed polls.
Eventually, the pollsters are going to slant more evenly for the sake of their own reputations. When they do, that will look like Romney is gaining and it will be hard for them to resist using the “momentum” word when discussing Romney’s rise in the polls. When voters here Romney is gaining momentum just before the election, they may be more inclined, not less inclined to think their vote matters enough to push him across the finish line.
It’s possible the Dem strategy is going to backfire on them. It may be helping them now but when Gallup, ARG and the rest want to protect their own credibility in November, they are going to have to start showing momentum for Romney.
Ask yourself why you ask such juvenile questions.
The poll also could have called more Republicans, but they got weeded out as unlikely voters. Considering that the Democrat base adores Obama and he's their dream candidate, and Romney is more disliked by the base than any Republican nominee in living memory, the polls are not hard to believe. Even the establishment that handpicked Romney did it because they said he would appeal to "independents." He might, but they assumed the base would come out no matter what just to vote against Obama. But many of them are sick and tired of the battered wife syndrome with the GOP and won't do it.
You decide what your total univese is ~ in politics that'd be Americans who vote ~ and then you randomly sample among them.
If you have unlimited resources you can set up an elaborate sample in some sort of matrix, or stratification ~ virtually none of these polls we see dragged in front of us on FR derive from a stratified sample selection process ~ they're just small polls where random sampling was used.
No one has ever had to jigger the data to come up with more Democrats and that's because there are always more Democrats. More recently they've added Independents but that's just garbage because there are no independents ~ and if you dig deep enough you can categorize them as Rep or Dem based on their own reported prior voting history.
Massively skewed polls will help make massive Dem vote-fraud-influenced results more credible.
Yep, we can even tag Romney as the "Comeback Kid" - that would really make some liberal heads explode.
I agree with you, in the end the pollsters will want to protect themselves. It will be entertaining to watch them try to explain it! LOL!
The magic is gone. There’s no way in hell the demholes have the same enthusiasm and turnout they had in ‘08. In their wildest dreams the demholes know it wont be a 2008-like turnout for their side. Conversely, everything that produced the Tea Party / conservative / republican enthusiasim & turnout in 2010 is still there, with a foreign policy cluster-f*#% to boot. I’ve seen some opinions that a reliable poll would need to split the turnout model difference 1/2 way between 2004 and 2008. I’d argue that half way between ‘08 and 2010 would be a better way to go.
I would laugh, but lies that jeopardize the commie’s defeat aren’t really funny.
“Recognize that in 2008 the Democrats turned out 15% more Democrat voters than the Republicans turned out Republican voters.”
Not even close. Where do you get your facts, Mother Jones?
You are wrong. Turnout is not random it’s as simple as that. Determining who will make up the voters (LV’s) each years is what separates good pollsters from bad ones.
Furthermore, according to some pollsters (ie Rasmussen) there are more self described Republicans than Democrats.
I had long suspected you were just a disruptor on here. This thread removes any doubt.
Your facts are not only completely incorrect, they are an exact replica of the Democrat talking points regarding the polls.
Nice work, Moby.
You Think??? How about Ohio? or Pennsylvania??
why not try a poll with 1/3 D 1/3 R and 1/3 I??
Not true, at least according to Dick Morris. DM claims Ras has a +2.5% Dem skew.
Simply dividing the difference in the two vote totals by the total number of votes don't tell you anything about the difference!
Either the Democrat vote was 14% larger than the Republican vote, or the Republican vote was 16% smaller than the Democrat vote.,P>Also, remember, the Democrat totals do not vary with the Republican totals. Most voters would prefer to NOT vote for the other brand every single time.
Here is what Rasmussen says are the current numbers and trends in party affilitation in the U.S.:
Republican 37.6 Democrat 33.3 Other 29.2 August 2012
Republican 37.0 Democrat 33.7 Other 29.3 November 2010
Republican 33.8 Democrat 41.4 Other 24.7 November 2008
I find it hard to believe that Democrats will have a higher turnout than Republicans six weeks from now.
You missed the R in Skrewed.
True. However, depending on the random digits involved (just the last four numbers, or were prefixes involved in the randomness?), you might be able to randomly call people in an area with a demographic most likely to achieve the desired result. Harlem vs. Manhattan, for instance...
So much depends on the finer points of the technique, and we don't have those to analyze.
When Chicago registration is down from '08, that means it's Democrat registration that is down. When it's down in that bastion of Democrat voters, it strongly suggests a national trend.
Id argue that half way between 08 and 2010 would be a better way to go
It makes sense, and is probably similar to the Rasmussen model.
You cannot sit down and randomly call just Democrats or just Republicans unless you have lists composed exclusively of such folks and all you want is a random sample of current Democrat or Republican thought.
Stop and think about this a moment. How is registration down in Chicago? They never remove anybody up there ~ so what happened?
He might use D+2 or D+2.5 for his LV turnout model but that isn’t what he has determine the true party ID percentages to be. The fact that he doesn’t use party ID as his only guidance for a LV model as some idiots argue supports my contention that is ISN’T random.
LOL, you picked up on that! That was the subtle point I was trying to make. Glad you saw it! :)
I am not sure I know what you mean.
People who voted Democrat are not the same as Democrat voters in the polls being discussed.
I do not think that you are talking about the number of votes for Obama vs McCain, are you?
Certainly the overall vote was much higher for Obama, but that is not what the discussion is about.
If you call Manhattan only numbers ~ if such a thing is actually possible anymore ~ you have 1 in 10 who are Republicans. A poll taken there would look quite reasonable with 9 Dems for each 1 Rep. If there were a 50/50 split, that would be unreasonable.
Even in the bogus polls, The GOP is going more for Romney than the Dems are going for 0bamugabe
I believe that's true too. Once a pollster sets his baselines for an election, they don't usually change their methodology.
Polls like the ones we are discussing are NOT PREDICTIVE ~ PRESCRIPTIVE PERHAPS ~ telling Romney NO MORE MR NICE GUY ~ OR ~ Start the campaign for gosh sakes.
Read the article, it will help you answer your questions.
Helpful hint: The answer is in the title.
Lists of registered Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are readily available. Calling those lists randomly in predetermined percentages designed to show what you expect turnout to be, based on party affiliation, is easily done.
We have people who seem to believe THAT CAN'T BE but, of course, it's always true ~ because there are more Democrats.