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

Skip to comments.

L.A. Times Poll (Is the Poll Skewed?)
self | August 25, 2003 | DiamondDon1

Posted on 08/25/2003 3:33:28 PM PDT by DiamondDon1

Welcome to the world of the Left Angeles Times…

On August 24, 2003 the Los Angeles Times released the results of a survey which has been touted by many as a huge boost for Cruz Bustamante’s chances to become the next governor.

Problem. The poll contacted 1351 registered voters but did not achieve the appropriate number of Latino voters. So the “main sample”, whatever that is supposed to mean was supplemented by an unknown number of Latinos in order to provide 125 additional Latino “likely voters”. Even by the Times own numbers, this little bit of skewing affects the numbers by 9 percent plus or minus.

Now when I took statistics, a “random” sample was just that “random”. When a poll is taken where “supplemental voters” and added to provide additional voters in one category that is a problem, the conclusions reached cannot be trusted.

When you read the poll below, take your time. Look at what they asked, and how they theoretically asked it (because such things as voice inflection can skew results).

We can look at the results differently than the Times and arrive at completely different numbers…such as:

Removing the Times supplementing process, we have 801 – 125 or 676 likely voters. If these 125 Latino “likely voters” were removed (51 percent according to the Times support Bustamante, and 12 percent support Arnold), the numbers change thus:

Bustamante = 280 – 64 = 216 likely voters or 32 percent

Arnold = 176 – 15 = 161 likely voters or 24 percent

Now while this in itself changes the numbers from a 13 percent lead for Cruz, to 8 percent other factors should also be considered.

Review the questions shown below. Notice anything? Notice a slanted bias? Note that the questions below occur before the candidate questions, and thereby influences the participant.

“In a recall election, a replacement candidate does not have to win by a majority vote. Because there are so many candidates on the replacement ballot, it is possible a new governor could be chosen with the support of less than 20 percent of the voters-even if, for example, Davis lost the recall election by 51 percent to 49 percent. Does knowing this could possibly happen make you more likely to vote in favor of recalling Gov. Davis, or more likely to vote against recalling Gov. Davis, or won’t it change the way you are likely to vote one way or the other?”

“As you may know, 135 candidates were certified to be on the ballot as candidates to replace Governor Davis if the recall passes. Does the fact that so many candidates will be on the ballot make you more likely to vote in favor of recalling Governor Davis, or won’t it change the way you are likely to vote one way or the other?”

Down a few questions…

“Some people say that the recall election is an attempt by Republicans to overturn an election they lost in November 2002. Do you agree or disagree?”

“Some people say that recall elections like this one interfere with an elected state official’s ability to fulfill his or her duties and efficiently run state government. Do you agree or disagree?”

“Does the fact that the special recall election will cost taxpayers at least 66 million dollars enter into your decision to vote yes or no to recall Governor Davis, or does that fact not enter your decision at all?”

Read the link below for yourself…there are many more questions similar to those above that appear skewed to make the recall sound like a right-wing power grab that is ethically, and morally wrong…

http://images.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2003-08/9130937.pdf

One only knows what the actual (unsupplemented) numbers regarding the recall “yes or no” are…

DD


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: arnold; cruz; losangelestimes; mcclintock

1 posted on 08/25/2003 3:33:28 PM PDT by DiamondDon1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
Looks like a push poll also......
2 posted on 08/25/2003 3:37:49 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: generalissimoduane; Rabid Republican; Ernest_at_the_Beach; kellynla; FairOpinion; DoctorZIn; ...
Note how the L.A. Times Poll was conducted...and if we only knew their sampling techniques...

DD

3 posted on 08/25/2003 3:39:29 PM PDT by DiamondDon1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
What is your source for all this? How about a link?
4 posted on 08/25/2003 3:42:24 PM PDT by South40 (Get Right Or Get Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
You can't take any poll conducted by the LA Times seriously.

Look at their past polls, especially the ones from the Regan era.
5 posted on 08/25/2003 3:42:45 PM PDT by LittleJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
Nevermind.
6 posted on 08/25/2003 3:43:10 PM PDT by South40 (Get Right Or Get Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deport
In my entire life where statistics are used, I have never seen the sample population supplemented by a non-random group (Latinos).

This poll has about as much validity as throwing darts at rotating dartboard in a hurricane.

DD

7 posted on 08/25/2003 3:45:35 PM PDT by DiamondDon1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
Is the Poll Skewed?

Is it by the L.A. Times?

8 posted on 08/25/2003 3:46:05 PM PDT by Redcloak (All work and no FReep makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no FReep make s Jack a dul boy. Allwork an)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
Thanks for the analysis. Looks like the LA Times' attempt to shape public opinion, not measure it.
9 posted on 08/25/2003 3:47:39 PM PDT by My2Cents ("I'm the party pooper..." -- Arnold in "Kindergarten Cop.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
Brit Hume was on Fox News talking about this. He said that other Dem polls did not show Bust. ahead, and also that the Rep. are saying their polls show them just about even. He also said that other poll takers are scratching their heads about these numbers and don't agree with them.

Karen

10 posted on 08/25/2003 3:47:49 PM PDT by KE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KE
Brit coming up after this commercial "Is Bust. really ahead"? I will watch and post.

Karen

11 posted on 08/25/2003 3:48:38 PM PDT by KE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
Brit Hume was just discussing this on the air. The poll started on Aug. 16th right after dipwad warren buffet stated he'd like to see Prop 13 repealed.

The whole thing is skewed; it doesn't reflect how people feel today.

12 posted on 08/25/2003 3:53:42 PM PDT by South40 (Get Right Or Get Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KE
I wrote a book on nuclear waste issues where the enviro opposition push-pull polled with questions like this made up by a commie academic named Paul Slovic. Yup, the above California poll is skewed.
13 posted on 08/25/2003 3:55:17 PM PDT by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
L.A. Times Poll (Is the Poll Skewed?)

Does a bear have hair?
14 posted on 08/25/2003 3:56:27 PM PDT by SwinneySwitch (Freedom isn't Free - Support the Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
Of course the poll was skewed! And since the poll was taken before Bust-the-bank vowed to "RAISE YOUR TAXES BY 8 BILLION DOLLARS" and BEFORE Simon withdrew from the race... the poll is BOGUS! Take the poll today and people who pay taxes in CA will not be so anxious to vote for MORE TAXES, hence Busty's number falls not to mention the 135 Hispanics that were loaded in the sample, McClintock's number will be higher since more than likely Simon's supporters would vote for McClintock and finally Mr. Hide & Seek's number would at best stay the same or continue to drop as it has since he entered the race. The debate on September 7 will separate the REAL DEAL from the liberals of both parties! Aunold & Busty will feel like two one legged men in a butt kicking contest when they have to go up against McClintock in a debate! VOTE4MCCLINTOCK http://www.tommcclintock.com
15 posted on 08/25/2003 3:59:19 PM PDT by kellynla (USMC SEMPER FI! VOTE4MCCLINTOCK...or pay the con$equence$! http://www.tommcclintock.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
If you haven't yet, read the rest of the questions on the link...there are four questions before the RECALL question (and the question is long enough to choke a horse) and about a dozen questions between the RECALL question and the CANDIDATES question...apparently these participants didn't have anything better to do with their lives...

DD

16 posted on 08/25/2003 4:03:08 PM PDT by DiamondDon1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: South40
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/recall/la-me-poll24aug24,1,7382768.story?coll=la-home-headlines Here is your link.
17 posted on 08/25/2003 4:05:36 PM PDT by kellynla (USMC SEMPER FI! VOTE4MCCLINTOCK...or pay the con$equence$! http://www.tommcclintock.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Hey Kelly!

The question at the top of the thread was rhetorical in nature...it is quite clear what was going on here...

DD
18 posted on 08/25/2003 4:06:05 PM PDT by DiamondDon1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Kelly:

The data is shown in the .pdf file below...

http://images.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2003-08/9130937.pdf

The article does not have the raw data, so you can see how the sampling was done...and it makes you wonder what the editor at the L.A. Slimes (oops...) Times was thinking...

DD
19 posted on 08/25/2003 4:09:44 PM PDT by DiamondDon1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
Either you are politically naive or an modal Californian (who just immigrated from Mexico).

The LA Times does not conduct polls ... they publish editorials.

20 posted on 08/25/2003 4:12:06 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
LA Slimes is LA Slimes, but still, 32 to 24 is a big deficit and big lead for Cruz.

We cannot bury our heads and must realize Bustamante is the favorite and has a solid bloc which will vote for him simply because of the D.

21 posted on 08/25/2003 4:15:53 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LittleJoe
The surprising part to me was that they published the awful sampling techniques...and after acknowledging such sampling techniques, they published it anyway.

DD
22 posted on 08/25/2003 4:17:00 PM PDT by DiamondDon1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Well while he are aware that the Times wants Cruz to win, and for that reason alone we need to be on our toes, the results of even 8 percent is skewed due to the sampling techniques.

For example, the following statements are basically the same:

Your face could stop a clock!

When a look at your face, time stands still...

So you have left-leaning polesters asking the questions, questions prior to the candidate question were anti-Republican in general...so what other than they held a poll (and nobody cared...)

DD

23 posted on 08/25/2003 4:26:16 PM PDT by DiamondDon1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
"The question at the top of the thread was rhetorical in nature...it is quite clear what was going on here..." Yea, Don I know...I was just agreeing with you...

24 posted on 08/25/2003 4:26:44 PM PDT by kellynla (USMC SEMPER FI! VOTE4MCCLINTOCK...or pay the con$equence$! http://www.tommcclintock.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
you have to ask.....there's a Times in the name.....
25 posted on 08/25/2003 4:28:11 PM PDT by The Wizard (Saddamocrats are enemies of America, treasonous everytime they speak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
Fact is that poll or no poll the near 50% that voted for Davis and voting bloc that elected dems across the board in state wide races and has put in a majority dem assembly exists and will be voting to keep anyone with an R after their name from winning.

Cruz will get anywhere from 30 - near 50% of the vote.

Skewed poll or not, this is reality.

26 posted on 08/25/2003 4:45:38 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
Now when I took statistics, a “random” sample was just that “random”. When a poll is taken where “supplemental voters” and added to provide additional voters in one category that is a problem, the conclusions reached cannot be trusted.

It all depends on how it's done.

For instance, if I want to survey a population and compare let's say three age groups. If one of the age groups is underrepresented in the population, and I draw a random sample, I may not get enough of the oldest age group.

There just aren't that many of them and a random sampling will give me about 30 old respondents. That's not a big enough sample to compare them to the other groups.

So, I purposely interview 100 old respondents even though a random sample would not give me this result.

Now all I have to do is weight the old respondents down from 100 to 30, when extrapolating to the entire population.

That is only one of the many ways populations are over and under sampled. As long as you weight them back to their proper proportions, before extrapolating to the whole, your fine.

27 posted on 08/25/2003 4:48:18 PM PDT by Strider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strider
Point well taken.

But exactly how did the Times find these Latino voters? One would think they would call in Latino areas which are most likely Democrat in nature. It would be very difficult to right this ship, the water inside is above the waterline outside...

DD
28 posted on 08/25/2003 5:06:41 PM PDT by DiamondDon1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
Hmmmm? Just as I suspected - "likely voters" not "registered voters". They can't ask them if they are registered, because illegal hispanics cannot be registered voters.

We're not the only ones who think this is skewed. FOX did a story on it and the reporter (?) said he couldn't figure it out either - and thought it was probably not very accurate.
29 posted on 08/25/2003 5:14:46 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - "The Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
But exactly how did the Times find these Latino voters?

The proper method is to keep dialing randomly until you get a large enough group of Latino voters to complete the survey.

Then I can compare the answers of say White and Latino voters, and retain the ability to weight them back to the entire population, when looking at the population in total.

I'm not saying that a poll can't be skewed, even on purpose. But, over and under sampling is a valid procedure.

That being said, the pollster is paid by someone. I'd never put my name on a skewed poll, but I can't vouch for all of us.

30 posted on 08/25/2003 5:25:45 PM PDT by Strider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Strider
The proper method is to keep dialing randomly until you get a large enough group of Latino voters to complete the survey.

Then I can compare the answers of say White and Latino voters, and retain the ability to weight them back to the entire population, when looking at the population in total.

Agreed...it is doubtful that this pollster suddenly found God, and took the time to randomly call people (white, black, asian, latino) to actually find the Latino likely voters...

I agree with your analysis on the 30 year old, however every community has 30 year olds, but if it were 90 year olds you're missing, it is all but too tempting to call retirement homes, rather than do it right...

I am glad that you would not put your name to this...

DD

31 posted on 08/25/2003 6:12:34 PM PDT by DiamondDon1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
Notice that 16 percent of Democrats think you can't vote for a canidate if you vote no on the recall, and about 15 percent aren't sure.

However the pollster corrects this misconception before asking which canidate they would vote for (besides all the other push poll type questions).

As I have said before on other threads, Bustamante is going to take a hit from Democrats who don't bother to vote on question two, but the LA poll seems designed specifically not to reflect this.

32 posted on 08/25/2003 7:07:49 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
I am far more optimistic. Davis is more unpopular now, and even during the 2002 vote the election was seen by our left leaning press to be a choice between two unpopular alternatives.

Only the most die-hard liberals will bother to vote, many will not bother to vote for a canidate. By contrast the conservatives are reved up and anxious to get to the polls.

33 posted on 08/25/2003 7:15:44 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
apparently these participants didn't have anything better to do with their lives...

If a major media company called me for a poll I would probably suffer through it to give them the answers they really don't want.

They could then either:
A) Toss my answers and substitute what they think I really meant.
B) Add ten more "supplemental" samples to balance my opinions.
C) Remove my opinions from the population of likely voters, since I have voted in every election in the last 20 years and I am surely too tired to vote in another.
D) All of the above.

34 posted on 08/25/2003 7:33:52 PM PDT by SC Swamp Fox (Aim small, miss small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
PING!

Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin.

35 posted on 08/25/2003 11:06:25 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
Non fact based optimism has done the Repubs in here in CA over and over and over.

The bozos helped Bush waste time and money by saying their polls showed he had a chance to beat Gore and the race was very close.

They are incompetent boobs and get snookered again and again.

Not taking the Dems and how they will support Bustamante in lock step for the most part is a recipe for loss.

36 posted on 08/25/2003 11:19:51 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
And the media, including FOX, is running with it!
37 posted on 08/25/2003 11:55:52 PM PDT by LittleJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Non fact based optimism has done the Repubs in here in CA over and over and over.

Better then bitter pessimism. I recall the 2002 election polls had Davis winning by a lot more then he did. If the Pubbies were a little more confident and reved up Davis probably would not have won.

38 posted on 08/26/2003 12:38:10 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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.

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