The actual results? Murkowski 39%, Miller 35%, McAdams 23%. Bottom line is that Hays appears to oversample Democratic voters.
Posted on 06/28/2011 4:59:39 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
A new statewide survey in Alaska shows President Obama beating Sarah Palin in her home state in a head-to-head matchup. Continue Reading
The poll, by Hayes Research Group, had a sample size of 500 likely voters and a 4.4-point margin-of-error.
Still, it showed Obama's support as stronger than Palin's in a horserace.
Some 34 percent said they felt "strong" in backing Obama, while 6 percent were "not so strong," and 2 percent were undecided but leaning toward him.
Palin, Alaska's former governor and the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008, had 25 percent of likely voters saying they felt "strong" about supporting her, while 6 percent were "not so strong," and 5 percent were unsure but leaning toward her.
Still, there were a large number of undecided voters in the survey, with 7 percent saying they'd support another candidate, and 16 percent saying they remained undecided.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Really then who voted for that ding bat woman senator.
Any data for that? What’s her favoribility now vs say 3 months ago?
“They don’t like Sarah because they see her as an opportunist...”
Sarah ABSOLUTELY, by definition, IS an opportunist.
In my mind that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Opportunities are the guns of politics. A tool for Evil, a tool for Good.
Evil giggled when Obama capitalized on this generation’s irrational white-guilt and slanted media.
Good triumphed when, for a switch, a Rino pulled BullTwinkle the Moose Killer out of a hat just as the show was snoring off into one of those Dudley DoLeft cartoons.
I’m glad the local conservative grabbed the national RINO’s ring of opportunity. Whether she runs or not, it’s nice to have another fairly consistent conservative voice in the national spotlight. But then I don’t live in Alaska.
“She’d be foolish to run with all the $$$ rolling in.”
The only way I can imagine her making less money in the long run is if she runs and loses. If that is what’s holding up the show here, then she is something worse than an opportunist. I think the technical word for it would be “chicken”.
How much money has he cost them in Oil Checks?
They benefit from increased prices, so I doubt they’re that upset.
For one, her favorability is up with me. 3 months ago I’d have told you Palin was a no-good quitter out for fame and fortune. That’s data.
Proof: http://recovering-liberal.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-apgfk-poll-palin-rates-higher-than.html
The documentary will help tremendously. It already has. The problem with Palin is the fact that the media gets to dog on her without a response that is heard by many. All they have heard is that Palin is a right-wing extremist quitter out for money who says stupid stuff. You can’t get a more negative picture about a candidate than the one the media has painted for Palin. Her approval is bound to go up with a shot at the spotlight.
Really. Who won the primary in Alaska, Joe or Lisa? What happened after that.
If you want to be taken serious - post the facts. You probably are pleased about the outcome - so you don’t post what really went down. You can only fool the uninformed - like the media does daily.
Do you not see the evidence ALL OVER that she cannot beat him?
It’s not enough that Obama himself is unpopular...we have to have a nominee LESS unpopular than Barry.
About the only politicians in the country less popular than Obama right now are Pelosi and Palin.
For maybe a week I did. Trump did succeed in one thing, and that was making some of the candidates speak up.
And guess what, he couldn’t beat Obama according to the few polls done, and neither can Palin...all this running around she’s doing, and her poll numbers have not improved.
She’s running around in early primary states in what can only be described as a campaign bus, showing up wherever the candidates are. Yeah, she’s either running or soaking up media attention. I’m not saying she necessarily has negative intentions, even if her intent is to soak up media attention. She has made the media look ridiculous over the past month, and that’s good, and that might be her intent. However, the media will be able to paint her as an opportunist if she doesn’t do one of those things.
Note: I said “looks like” not “is.”
The actual results? Murkowski 39%, Miller 35%, McAdams 23%. Bottom line is that Hays appears to oversample Democratic voters.
Anyone relying on polls now is jumping the gun.
I understand the poll was conducted at the Anchorage LGBT Convention /s
One of the few aspects of methodology revealed in the poll was the "likely voter" selection mechanism. Usually this is extremely complex and involves screening questions in addition to voting patterns. In this study only one metric is used to determine likelihood: did the respondent vote in 2 of the last 4 statewide elections? Given the number of 0bama voters and energy level in 2008, and the number of weirdo voters necessary for Murkowski to pull off her write-in campaign in 2010, I would say this is probably a very suspect measure in a statewide poll of AK, but to be fair sometimes simpler is better. [I don't know of any major pollsters who just use frequency alone as a measure of likelihood, however...]
The study does not provide any breakdown of self-identification of R/I/D, which is a red flag. It is also a red flag that 34% of respondents feel very strongly about backing 0bama. That is very high, and coupled with the fact that they don't identify their sample self-identification would lead one to believe they are very strongly over-selecting Democrats: among R/I voters who favor 0bama in unbiased polls, his "strong" numbers are very poor.
The Hays Research Group web page says nothing about sampling methodology, except their non-response bias mitigation technique. However, they do not indicate what their final nonresponse number was, which is also a red flag.
Given that the sample is small, nonresponse bias would be a serious issue if present. (It's always a serious issue, but for a sample this small it could make the results nothing more than noise.)
Given they don't really release any of the internals or methodology, I'd say it's probably crap. The most important lesson to take away from this is that you're going to see a lot of very silly polling results released between now and next November. But you will not see any silly ones which favor Republicans, certainly none that favor Conservatives. That in itself is a selection-bias indicator.
You can also take away from this, as Dennis Green might say (of The Politico): "They are who we thought they were."
Not so says the polls: http://recovering-liberal.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-apgfk-poll-palin-rates-higher-than.html
Not to mention, her Republican nomination numbers went up after that. She was usually down in the lower teens, but now they’ve stopped including her because she started beating Romney in the polls. Most indies aren’t watching right now, so there doesn’t have to be a massive shift in order to demonstrate “electability,” only enough of a shift to show she is winning over those she is coming in contact with, which she is doing.
Do you think Sarah Palin will not carry the states she and McCain carried in the last election? How can that be?
Oh, I see it plain as day all over the state-run media. In the real world, the evidence is quite the contrary.
Thanks for the chart. I came to pretty much the same conclusion by examining what little methodology they provided (previous post.)
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.