Here is another quote:
Basically, if an observer is concerned about a poll’s results, that observer should skip over the party identification question and just look at the ballot directly. In other words, cut to the chase. Don’t bother with party identification sample numbers. Look directly at the ballot.
For example, we know that in Ohio:
•Obama won by 5 points in 2008
•Bush won by 2 points in 2004
•Bush won by 3 points in 2000
Now if a given poll in Ohio in this election shows Obama with a 10-percentage-point lead, one should just ask, “How likely is it that Obama would be ahead by 10 points if he won by five points in 2008?” — forgetting party identification, which we assume is going to be higher for the Democratic Party if Obama is ahead, anyway. The discussion of the ballot in the context of previous ballots is, in fact, a reasonable discussion. It may be unlikely that Obama will double his margin in 2012 from what occurred in Ohio in 2008. Or maybe not. But the focus should be directly on the ballot, and discussions of reasons why it might be different than one expects should not involve an attempt to explain the results by focusing on changes in party identification — which is basically a tautological argument.
Well, then why have Party Identification at all on the ballot? By the way, this guy is a bit misleading...you CAN know the number of Republicans and Democrats in many states...Florida, for example, has voters register their party or as an Independent.
I think this is a cover-article because people are beginning to smell their love of Obamugabe and aren’t buying into what they’re cooking.
Their only point is that supposedly party affiliation is decided by the respondents. So more people say they are democrats because more people are voting for Obama.
Then they say you should question the poll results themselves, not the party identification statistics.
Uh Duh, IF the results seem wrong perhaps the party ID breakdowns also are wrong.
Please note also because Obama isn’t ahead nationally, they have all decided to make the news story Ohio, and that’s all that matters. We’ll just pretend Obama leads by 10 in Ohio and we’ll say it so often people will equate it with a national lead.
You almost might think that they are starting to get wind of the early voting numbers we’ve been posting and are becoming a little desperate to save their “models.”
Even if I discount the fact that Gallup is ignoring the 2010 elections, his statement is still a big pantload of crap. Maybe? Maybe not? And this is an attempt at an explanation?
Gallup would have more credibility if they simply said, "Eric Holder owns us. Please believe our made-up numbers or he'll sue."
WOW... that is an extremely twisted logic here by Gallup and they could not explain anything at the end... They know that extreme overampling of a given party in a poll against their true representation in the electorate is called “Poll cheating” but they are not to say it no matter what...