Newsweek poll: GOP in meltdown

newsweek | 10/7/2006 | sachem longrifle(vanity)

[hsalaw]

I just don't think this Foley stuff is going to make much difference with Republican voters.

I agree. I've talked with a number of my friends about this and they just shake their heads and say yes, it's awful what Foley did, but it's probably some scam by the dems anyway to take our eye off national security. It's sure not going to make people run to the dems as the party of family values and moral standards, let alone the biggie: national security.

[ConservativeGreek]

Newsweek Poll 10-2-04

Momentum Kerry!
Registered Voters
Bush 45%
Kerry 47%
Nader 2%

[JimSEA]

a majority of Americans now believe the Bush administration knowingly misled the American people in building its case for war against Saddam Hussein: 58 percent vs. 36 percent who believe it didn’t.

With this item in the poll and, of course, prominently quoted, remember that Impeachment of the President and Vice President are at the top of the agenda for any Democrat majority congress. Vote!

[ghostmonkey]

I found the internals of the poll:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061007/nysa007.html?.v=73

Newsweek Poll
Congressional Republicans and Election '06
Princeton Survey Research Associates International

Final Topline Results
(10/7/06)

N = 1,004 national adults, 18 and over
Margin of error: plus or minus 4
Interviewing dates: 10/5-6/06

SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR KEY SUBGROUPS:

483 Men (plus or minus 6)
581 Women (plus or minus 5)

841 Whites (plus or minus 4)
145 Non-whites (plus or minus 9)

296 Republicans (plus or minus 7)
332 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
338 Independents (plus or minus 7)

SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR REGISTERED VOTERS SUBGROUPS:

899 Registered voters (plus or minus 4)

624 Likely voters (plus or minus 5) (definition noted below)

278 Republicans (plus or minus 7)
302 Democrats (plus or minus 7)
291 Independents (plus or minus 7)

NOTES:

Data is weighted so that sample demographics match Census Current Population Survey parameters for gender, age, education, race, region, and population density.

Reported sample sizes are unweighted and should not be used to compute percentages.

Likely voters are determined based on response to a series of questions about voting intentions, voting history, general interest in politics, interest in the 2006 election, and knowledge of the voting process. Likely voters are the 62% of registered voters with the highest score on an index summarizing response to the likely voter questions.

D2. Now I have just a few more questions so we can describe the people who
took part in our survey ... Regardless of how you might have voted in
recent elections, in politics TODAY, do you consider yourself a
Republican, Democrat, or Independent?

Total RVs LVs
25 Republican 27 29
36 Democrat 38 39
35 Independent 32 29
1 (VOL.) No party/Not interested in politics 1 1
* (VOL.) Other party * *
3 Don't know 2 2
100 100 100

[ghostmonkey]

PING with the internals of the newsweak poll. Perhaps you can give your insights on it.

[1-Eagle]

Ok thanks for the stats. Heres my response:

(1) How many times have pollsters been successful in following up to see "how likely" a "likely voter" is? Did they vote? How do you know if they are telling the truth?

(2) If I give you numbers like: 89 Rep, 78 Dem, 88 Indy, result of poll: Republicans win. It must be true. Right? I have all kinds of numbers, right? How can you prove me wrong? I have lots and lots of stats. Lots of stats must mean accuracy, right? Another trick is to use 'name dropping.' So I call my poll the CBS/NBC/CNN/GALLUP/ZOGBY Poll. Now, with all those heavy guns, how can I go wrong?

(3) How many respondents were citizens? How do they know?

(4) How many respondents believe in UFO's?

(5) How many respondents were able to answer the phone and had time to take the poll, because they are too lazy to work and have a political axe to grind?

(6) How many people worked for the poll, and how many of them interviewed cats and dogs?

(7) How many calls were made outside of the State of New York, or California?

(8) How many women and how many men were polled? In 1996, an LA Times poll was skewed because it interviewed more women than represent the national % of the population, by about 10%. Not surprisingly, the poll went 10%+ in Clintons direction, and he was known for having more support from women as a voting class.

And I could go on. Polls are not accurate. Period. Theres no way they can tell you which 20% of the population is actually going to show up at the polls and how they are going to vote. Instinct, gut feeling, and rolling dice probably get as close to accurate as any pollster ever will.

[cgbg]

I get confused with Newsweek sometimes. First its global cooling, then global warming. Then its a meltdown.

Monkeys at typewriters would add far more to the intellectual conversation. :-)

[cgbg]

The biggest problem with this poll is its underlying premise.

By asking folks if they were "familiar with x" it induced them to lie. Who wants to admit they are so ignorant they never heard of "x"?

Since the next question asks if Party A covered up X the respondent knows the answer they are supposed to give to show they are not an ignorant slob.

This is slanted garbage polling at its worst.

[Polybius]

My confusion is the poll claimed most americans now trusted the democrats on the war on terror and with moral values because of the Foley mess. Is this believable?

If it is true, America is too stupid to deserve to survive.

[cgbg]

I have not discussed the Foley situation at home.

So this morning I took a poll of my own:

"Dear, do you know who Congressman Foley is?"

"Uh, wasn't he the Speaker of the House back in the 90's?"

"Yeah, but not that Foley, the new Foley."

"Never heard of him".

My wife votes--usually Republican.

[MikeA]

And the Newsweak poll is claiming Bush at a "record low approval rating" of 33% since the Foley scandal. PLUHHHSE. Dry that one out and you can fertilize the lawn with it. NO one other than the insaniacs who already hate Bush are going to blame him for a sex scandal that had ZILCH to do with Bush. I really don't believe Americans as stupid as they may be would give Clinton a 65% approval rating for having sex with an intern but give Bush a 33% approval rating because of some Congressman having dirty talk with a page not much younger than Lewinsky.

Anyway, we know Newsweak's cheap tactic. Overpoll Democrats by 10-12 percentage points and then claim the GOP is in "free fall." Works for me. Might make the Dim. voters complacent.

[MikeA]

Pure deception by Newsweak. There is not an 11 point difference between Republican and Democratic registration. The differential is around 3-4 points in favor of Democrats. And I think the male/female balance is out of wack as well. I didn't do the math but it should be 52/48. This appears to be a bit more than that favoring females respondents. The party I.D. being out of balance accounts for the "drop" in Bush's poll numbers in this poll. Newsweak's polls are notorious for news creations.

[ghostmonkey]

That's exactly what I thought. The Party ID breakdown at the 2004 election was 37%D 37%R and 26%I.

Rasmussen, considered the "Gold Standard" Is using a breakdown of 37.0%D, 32.3%R.

http://www.hs.ttu.edu/hdfs3390/weighting.htm

This "poll" isn't even close to either standard.

[MikeA]

I think Rasmussen may even be off with their numbers. The last party I.D. census I saw about 6 months back had Dems at 35%, GOP 32%. Maybe Rasmussen has more up to date numbers than I do, but the fact still remains NewsWeak is WAY off. Additionally, a national poll has very limited ability to project an outcome for Congressional elections, especially if this poll over-represents population centers in California, New York and Illinois.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I want to see the poll asking Americans how much they trust the media. If I am correct it rated below politicians and used car salesmen.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Newsweek attempting to stampede the Crazy Christians by waving the Fag Flag.

[MNJohnnie]

36% Feel House Speaker Hastert Should Resign

Rassmussen did a poll on Foleygate. Out of ALL respondents, Democrats and Republicans only 36% felt Hastert should go, 64% either did not or did not care.

Pretty much nukes the "Everyone hates the GOP" story line being spread by Donner Party "Conservatives" now does it not?

Then there is this little gem. HERE is what happened after Watergate, the start of one of the worst recessions in US History and Ford pardoning Nixon. Lutz et al are telling us THIS year is going to be worse. Worse? A booming economy? A scandal no one but the Always Angry care about, A war no wear near as unpopular as Vietnam is going to result in WORSE fall out for the GOP then 1974?

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/busch/06/1974.html

When the votes were counted, Democratic hopes had been realized. Republicans lost 48 House seats, five Senate seats, and statehouse after statehouse. The Democratic scythe cut most deeply in previously Republican suburbs where concerns about the economy and clean government resonated strongly.

One suspects the Donner Party "Conservatives" are merely HOPING it will be worse. After all these are the clowns who gave us the absurd "Win by losing" dogma of the politically suicidal.

[justshutupandtakeit]

And some believe the Treason Media is not Liberal enough.