Gallup: LV W 52% Kerry 44%; RV W 54% Kerry 41%

[tritsofme]

Yes RV has a higher * lead some how, not a typo.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s lead over Democratic nominee John Kerry (news - web sites) narrowed to eight points in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of likely voters released on Monday, compared with a 13-point lead in the poll conducted two weeks ago.

The survey of likely voters showed 52 percent would vote for Bush and 44 percent for Kerry. A similar poll conducted from Sept. 13-15 showed Bush with 55 percent compared to Kerry at 42 percent.


However, among registered voters Bush's lead widened to 13 percent with 54 percent supporting the president and 41 percent backing Kerry. It was up from the earlier poll in mid-September that had 52 percent of registered voters behind Bush and 44 percent in favor of Kerry.


<snip>
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20040927/pl_nm/campaign_poll_gallup_dc_3&printer=1

[Placebo]

1. WEEEEEEE!

More bloated false poll numbers in *'s favour!

The media will be drooling all over these numbers till the debates thursday.

[jsw_81]

2. Biased and false?

I don't think so. The sad fact of the matter is that Bush has a clear lead at this point. And we can't just say that the polls are biased and false when they're virtually all showing the same thing (and remember, these polls had Kerry up only a few months ago).

Kerry better get his act together -- fast -- or we're going to be looking at four more years of hell. Based on his history of come-from-behind victories, I'm confident that he can turn this thing around, but I'm definitely starting to get nervous. What the f$%! is wrong with this country?

[depakid]

4. it's Gallup - which means it IS in fact biased and false

If you'd read the 100's of posts over the course of the last couple years about Gallup's methodology and their right wing christian ties, you know that and wouldn't be so disheartened.

Frankly, I wish people would stop posting these propaganda polls here, but that like asking an addict to put down their drugs.

[jsw_81]

13. A question

Was Gallup biased and false when it had Kerry beating Bush last spring? :shrug:

[sonicx]

15. i doubt gallup is bias, but it is

pretty worthless til about a day or 2 before the election.

In 2000, They gave bush a double digit lead over gore a week before the election, but had them about tied in the final days.

And if you go to pollingreport.com and look at their gallup 2000 trend chart, its has wild(very wild), unexplained percent shifts.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

16. lol good point nt

[papau]

54. 52/44/3 LV Gallup while 51/45/1 LV Wash Post before the debate

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/prez.poll/index.html

Bush apparently leads Kerry (52/44/3 LV) in pre-debate poll
President's approval rating highest since January
Monday, September 27, 2004 Posted: 9:48 PM EDT (0148 GMT)

(CNN) -- Headed into their first face-to-face debate, President Bush appears to be leading Democratic Sen. John Kerry among likely voters, with a clearer edge among registered voters.

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows that among likely voters, Bush was the choice of 52 percent, while Kerry was the choice of 44 percent and independent Ralph Nader garnered 3 percent. That result was within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

In the broader category of registered voters, 53 percent supported Bush; 42 percent, Kerry; and 3 percent, Nader. That question had the same margin of error.<snip>
========================================================
other results:

50/50 on approve of the president's Iraq policy, but 55/42 it was not a mistake to send U.S. troops there, with 53 percent ready to send still more troops to Iraq. Better handle Iraq is Bush 55/41

Bush's job approval rating at 54 percent

LV Kerry leads in wrong direction 49/44, while Bush leads in right direction 54/44
======================================================

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54435-2004Sep27.html

Poll Shows Bush With Solid Lead (51/45/1 LV - No chg since RNC convention)
Despite Worries, Voters Cite Lack of Clarity From Kerry

By Dan Balz and Vanessa Williams
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 28, 2004; Page A01

President Bush heads into the first presidential debate with a solid lead over John F. Kerry, boosted by the perception that he is a stronger leader with a clearer vision, despite deep concerns about Iraq and the pace of the economic recovery, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll and interviews with voters in battleground states.

Bush's relentless attacks on Kerry have badly damaged the Democratic nominee, the survey and interviews showed. Voters routinely describe Kerry as wishy-washy, as a flip-flopper and as a candidate they are not sure they can trust, almost as if they are reading from Bush campaign ad scripts. But Kerry's problems are also partly of his own making. Despite repeated efforts to flesh out his proposals on Iraq, terrorism and other issues, he has yet to break through to undecided voters as someone who has clear plans for fixing the country's biggest problems.

Bush remains a polarizing figure, strongly admired by his supporters and despised by partisans on the left. Some swing voters who disagree with his policies nonetheless see him as a confident leader and express reluctance to vote him out of office in the middle of the struggle against terrorism, unless Kerry convinces them that he can do a better job. <snip>

Americans remain deeply divided over Bush's presidency. As many are dissatisfied with the direction of the country as are satisfied (49 percent each), according to the Post-ABC poll, and overall those surveyed give the president identical negative marks on his handling of Iraq and the economy. <snip>

[Anaxamander]

5. What about the fact that they include a disproportionate amount

of Republicans in their polls?

[Teaser]

6. Virtually all saying the same thing?

Dude, have you followed any polling this year? Or are you just making it up?

[sonicx]

7. Zogby, Fox, Economist, Rasmussen, Harris, NBC, CSM have Kerry within 1-3

Gallup, Newsweek, Time, CBS, and ABC don't (they polled more rupubs and don't weight)

[LisaL]

8. Hello?

The way Gallop balances their poll, they ~ 40 % republicans and ~30 % democrats, which is not found in nature. How do you think the stupid poll is going to come out with Kerry in the lead?
:eyes:

[tritsofme]

9. They don't weight their polls

They use a completely random sampling.

[sonicx]

12. yup

that sure worked out well for Rasmussen in 2000. :P

[tritsofme]

17. Rasmussen used a turnout model in 2000

that assumed monster GOP turnout on election day.

This is different than a random sampling showing more self-idenified republicans.

[sonicx]

19. oh i didn't know that. what made him think that? nt

[tritsofme]

22. God only knows

Maybe it was the whole media created "broken glass republicans"??

Now he forces the party ID back down to 2000 exit poll numbers.

[RoyGBiv]

23. Virtually all ...

I'm not sure what constitutes "virtually all," but the fact of the matter is that the polls are varying a great deal. Some, such as Zogby, Rasmussen, etc. have the race within the margin of error. One last week had Kerry in the lead. Others are all over the place.

It is not correct to say that Bush has a clear lead. All that is clear is that we don't really know who has a lead, which likely means it is what a lot of people have been saying it is for a long time now -- very, very close.

As for whether Gallup is biased, I don't think so. I think that's an overblown charge that just makes people feel better. That said, there are biased polls, and biased news organizations and reporters use polls in biased ways.

[democraticinsurgent]

24. Gallup IS biased

They have staked all their polls on a 7 point Republican advantage in the sampling (40 vs 33 Dems). They alter their responses in order to get exactly this ratio, despite exit polls in both 1996 and 2000 indicating a 4 point Democratic advantage in terms of party id.

So: Gallup has institutionalized an ELEVEN point bias for Republicans and Shrub. If you apply this to their results then they make some sense.

By the way Gallup is not the Gallup of old, when it was owned by the late George Gallup. After he died the organization was sold to some corporate mopes who do the right's bidding.

Pay no attention to it unless you weight as above.

DO pay attention to Truth Is All's analysis. He nails it.

[tritsofme]

26. That is not true

Gallup uses a random sample, and does not weight its polls for Party ID.

[Quixote1818]

28. Wrong!

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002806.html

Friday :: Sep 17, 2004
Why You Should Ignore The Gallup Poll This Morning - And Maybe Other Gallup Polls As Well
This morning we awoke to the startling news that despite a flurry of different polls this week all showing a tied race, the venerable Gallup Poll, as reported widely in the media (USA Today and CNN) today, showed George W. Bush with a huge 55%-42% lead over John Kerry amongst likely voters. The same Gallup Poll showed an 8-point lead for Bush amongst registered voters (52%-44%). Before you get discouraged by these results, you should be more upset that Gallup gets major media outlets to tout these polls and present a false, disappointing account of the actual state of the race. Why?

Because the Gallup Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only 33% will be Democrat. You read that correctly. I asked Gallup, who have been very courteous to my requests, to send me this morning their sample breakdowns by party identification for both their likely and registered voter samples they use in these national and I suspect their state polls. This is what I got back this morning:

Likely Voter Sample Party IDs – Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%

Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)

Registered Voter Sample Party IDs – Same Poll
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%

Total Sample: 1022
GOP: 381 (38%)
Dem: 336 (33%)
Ind: 298 (30%)

In both polls, Gallup oversamples greatly for the GOP, and undersamples for the Democrats. Worse yet, Gallup just confirmed for me that this is the same sampling methodology they have been using this whole election season, for all their national and state polls. Gallup says that "This (the breakdown between Reeps and Dems) was not a constant. It can differ slightly between surveys" in response to my latest email. Slightly? Does that mean that in all of these national and state polls we have seen from Gallup that they have "slightly" varied between 36%-40% GOP and 32%-36% Democrat? I already know from an email I got from Gallup earlier in the week that in their suspicious Wisconsin and Minnesota polls they seemingly oversampled for the GOP and undersampled for the Dems. For example in Wisconsin, in which they show Bush now with a healthy lead, Gallup used a sample comprised of 38% GOP and 32% Democratic likely voters. In Minnesota where Gallup shows Bush gaining a small lead, their sample reflects a composition of 36% GOP and 34% Democrat likely voters. How realistic is either breakdown in those states on Election Day?

According to John Zogby himself:

If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.

So the Democrats have been 39% of the voting populace in both 1996 and 2000, and the GOP has not been higher than 35% in either of those elections. Yet Gallup trumpets a poll that used a sample that shows a GOP bias of 40% amongst likely voters and 38% amongst registered voters, with a Democratic portion of the sample down to levels they haven’t been at since a strong three-way race in 1992?

Folks, unless Karl Rove can discourage the Democratic base into staying home in droves and gets the GOP to come out of the woodwork, there is no way in hell that these or any other Gallup Poll are to be taken seriously.

How likely is it that the Democrats will suffer a seven-point difference against the GOP this November or that the GOP will ever hit 40%?

Not very likely.

The real problem here is that Gallup is spreading a false impression of this race. Through its 1992 partnership with two international media outlets (CNN and USA Today), Gallup is telling voters and other media by using badly-sampled polls that the GOP and its candidates are more popular than they really are. Given that Gallup’s CEO is a GOP donor, this should not be a surprise. But it does require us to remind the media, like Susan Page of USA Today, who wrote the lead story on the poll in the morning paper, and other members of the media who cite this poll today, that it is based on a faulty sample composition of 40% GOP and 33% Democrats.

[tritsofme]

30. Nope, this is from Gallup's website

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=12292

We've had many inquiries and comments about the latest Gallup Poll trial heat results on the presidential race. Our editorial team will be responding to as many of the issues raised as possible here over the next day or two.



One question that comes up frequently (and apparently is based on various statements bouncing around the Net) concerns the party identification of the respondents in our sample. The supposition on the part of some is that these party identification figures from poll to poll should be constant and the same as some standard established from previous polling.



That's simply not the correct way to look at party identification. At Gallup (as is the case for many other polling firms), we ask party identification at the end of the survey using this wording: " In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent? " Our experience tells us that this is not a fixed demographic measure (like age or gender or ethnicity), but rather is a variable in and of itself. While many Americans are hard-core Republicans or hard-core Democrats and never would call themselves anything different, there is a group of Americans who have no firm party allegiance and whose political identification can and does shift during an election season.



In fact, if one candidate is doing particularly well, it is usually the case that more people in the sample will identify with that candidate's party. Thus, if Kerry is having a good period of time in the campaign (as was the case after the Democratic primaries last February and March, and again in June and July of this summer), then more people will identify as Democrats at the end of the questionnaire when we ask with which party they identify "as of today." If Bush is doing better, as he is now, then more people at the end of the questionnaire will identify as Republicans.



Furthermore, there are no Census or official figures on party identification nationally. A number of states do not require party registration, and what a person calls himself or herself can vary significantly from week to week or month to month.



So it is incorrect to say that a poll's showing one candidate to be ahead is the result of the fact that there are too many members of his party in the sample. In fact, that there are more people identifying with a leading candidate's party is a result of the same forces that are pushing that candidate into the lead.



One final note. Gallup (and other reputable pollsters) do carefully analyze the compositions of each sample on known demographic measures for which there are solid Census figures: age, gender, region of country, ethnicity, and education. And we do weight each sample to each of these if necessary, using complex and accepted statistical procedures. So our samples are remarkably constant from poll to poll on known demographic and regional measures. But in a political year we don't expect that samples will be the same from poll to poll in terms of party identification, any more than we expect the samples to be the same from poll to poll in terms of the choice of candidate for whom the respondents are voting.

[democraticinsurgent]

55. Gallup normalizes its sample to 40% Repub

From this morning's Electoral-vote.com commentary:

It is becoming increasingly clear that the pollsters are producing the results that the people paying the bills want to hear. Even pollsters who were once thought to be above suspicion are now suspicious. Gallup, for example, is now normalizing its samples to include 40% Republicans, even though the 2000 exit polls showed the partisan distribution to be 39% Democratic, 35% Republican. There is scant evidence that the underlying partisan distribution has changed much since then.

[RoyGBiv]

33. Bias and Methodology

There is often a fine line between bias and methodology which is used to measure specific things. The problem with Gallup's poll is more in the way it is used rather than the way it the data is collected and weighted during analysis. That is to say, it has the same problems a lot of polls that used that methodlogy have. They only come close to being accurate within a week of the election itself, sometimes not until election day itself. In that sense, they really mean very little. They're just food for political junkies and political organizations.

But this isn't bias, per se.

[progressivebydesign]

45. Also, they give a HEFTY amount to Independents...

..which are NOT 1/3 of the voting public! And.. they skew Republican. Most people who call themselves independent are left over Perot fans, who left the republican party for him... They DO NOT constitute nearly 1/3 of the voters and DO NOT rate almost as much weight at Democrats.. that's absurd!

[Quixote1818]

29. Here is an article about how bias Gallup is

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002806.html

Friday :: Sep 17, 2004
Why You Should Ignore The Gallup Poll This Morning - And Maybe Other Gallup Polls As Well
This morning we awoke to the startling news that despite a flurry of different polls this week all showing a tied race, the venerable Gallup Poll, as reported widely in the media (USA Today and CNN) today, showed George W. Bush with a huge 55%-42% lead over John Kerry amongst likely voters. The same Gallup Poll showed an 8-point lead for Bush amongst registered voters (52%-44%). Before you get discouraged by these results, you should be more upset that Gallup gets major media outlets to tout these polls and present a false, disappointing account of the actual state of the race. Why?

Because the Gallup Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only 33% will be Democrat. You read that correctly. I asked Gallup, who have been very courteous to my requests, to send me this morning their sample breakdowns by party identification for both their likely and registered voter samples they use in these national and I suspect their state polls. This is what I got back this morning:

Likely Voter Sample Party IDs – Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%

Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)

Registered Voter Sample Party IDs – Same Poll
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%

Total Sample: 1022
GOP: 381 (38%)
Dem: 336 (33%)
Ind: 298 (30%)

In both polls, Gallup oversamples greatly for the GOP, and undersamples for the Democrats. Worse yet, Gallup just confirmed for me that this is the same sampling methodology they have been using this whole election season, for all their national and state polls. Gallup says that "This (the breakdown between Reeps and Dems) was not a constant. It can differ slightly between surveys" in response to my latest email. Slightly? Does that mean that in all of these national and state polls we have seen from Gallup that they have "slightly" varied between 36%-40% GOP and 32%-36% Democrat? I already know from an email I got from Gallup earlier in the week that in their suspicious Wisconsin and Minnesota polls they seemingly oversampled for the GOP and undersampled for the Dems. For example in Wisconsin, in which they show Bush now with a healthy lead, Gallup used a sample comprised of 38% GOP and 32% Democratic likely voters. In Minnesota where Gallup shows Bush gaining a small lead, their sample reflects a composition of 36% GOP and 34% Democrat likely voters. How realistic is either breakdown in those states on Election Day?

According to John Zogby himself:

If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.

So the Democrats have been 39% of the voting populace in both 1996 and 2000, and the GOP has not been higher than 35% in either of those elections. Yet Gallup trumpets a poll that used a sample that shows a GOP bias of 40% amongst likely voters and 38% amongst registered voters, with a Democratic portion of the sample down to levels they haven’t been at since a strong three-way race in 1992?

Folks, unless Karl Rove can discourage the Democratic base into staying home in droves and gets the GOP to come out of the woodwork, there is no way in hell that these or any other Gallup Poll are to be taken seriously.

How likely is it that the Democrats will suffer a seven-point difference against the GOP this November or that the GOP will ever hit 40%?

Not very likely.

The real problem here is that Gallup is spreading a false impression of this race. Through its 1992 partnership with two international media outlets (CNN and USA Today), Gallup is telling voters and other media by using badly-sampled polls that the GOP and its candidates are more popular than they really are. Given that Gallup’s CEO is a GOP donor, this should not be a surprise. But it does require us to remind the media, like Susan Page of USA Today, who wrote the lead story on the poll in the morning paper, and other members of the media who cite this poll today, that it is based on a faulty sample composition of 40% GOP and 33% Democrats.

[okieinpain]

41. as long as the polls keep, (gallup in particular), using more

repugs in their numbers then dems then I'm not going to worry about it. now if they did a poll and had more dems in their polling groups then I would worry.

there are more dems in this country, we just aren't voting.

[DemFromMem]

44. I only follow Rasmussen

You can spot trends in his poll even if the poll is not perfect. He's never had the race separated by more than 5% in the last six months (either direction) and it is now even again. I'm now convinced that voter turnout is going to be the key. Either guy has enough support to win if he can get the base out.

[Thrill]

3. YAWN

..

[simpsonsbuff]

10. Bush does lead, but not by much

I mean Bush is in the lead by 2-4 points, no more, no less.

[Thrill]

11. Call me with the state by state polls

I could careless about these nationwide polls. There is no way in hell bush will win the popular vote so these polls like this are full of shit.

State by State Polls are the ones I care about

[newyawker99]

31. Hi simpsonsbuff!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ronnykmarshall]

14. Buck Fallup!

[fujiyama]

18. Actually wouldn't it be

Guck Fallup?

:P

[ronnykmarshall]

20. Yikes!

By mad.

[TruthIsAll]

21. Great Info. I always look forward to Gallup. NOT.

Who the hell believes anything from those Republican push pollers.

Haven't we learned by now?

Trust the Indies. Toss the Whores.

[marlakay]

25. These polls are stupid and don't take in all the new voters n/t

[WiseMen]

27. Folks, SOMETHING is going on in public opinion. Hope we can

figure it out and take the drastic action needed before it is too late

[sonicx]

32. Zogby, Fox, Economist, Rasmussen, Harris, NBC, CSM have Kerry within 1-3

nt

[Ell09]

34. Folks this borders on CRIMINAL and it's impact is HUGE!!

Several posters have mentioned that Gallup oversampled Republicans AGAIN. If they sampled 6 % more Republicans than Democrats, then the race is WITHIN 2 points and well within the margin of error.

The problem is that CNN and other organization are trumpeting this poll, and that can have a drastic effect on the election. Kerry supporters may not realize that they have a chance to elect their guy and decide not to waste the hour it takes to vote. Further there's a fairly significant portion of the country that will "vote for the winner" if Bush is trumpeted as having this type of lead, that gives him another group of people who just want to be part of a winning team (ie the bandwagon fan is sports).

We must do something about this. Protest CNN and Gallup, flood the other news organizations and alert them to the bias of this poll...SOMETHING. I've seen the power of this board when everybody bands together for a common cause. This may be the most damaging example of media bias yet. The country is starting to believe that Bush is well ahead, because that's what they are being told. This race is very close, Bush is up by no more than 5 points, and Kerry can easily fly past him in the debates. That WON'T MATTER if the media keeps trumpeting polls that give Bush a non existent extra 5-7%.

[tritsofme]

35. Once again,

it would be impossible for Gallup to oversample any voter group unless you accuse them of engaging in outright fraud, because they use random sampling.

[TruthIsAll]

37. One question: Why do you keep defending Gallup?

Didn't they screw up royally in 2000? Not in their last poll, but in the months preceeding the election, as their CNN tracking poll gyrated out of control on a weekly basis, much to the consternation of Judy Woof Woof and Bill the Shill Schneider.

You would think they learned something from that fiasco.

Their methodology has been a proven failure.

[tritsofme]

39. The methodology of their daily tracking polls in the final two weeks of

2000 was suspect.

IIRC they used a sample of only 300LVs every night and it was not a rolling average.

I think it is better to look at a poll with as long as a history as Gallup has and discuss the results, rather than automaticaly claim that they are part of some vast conspiracy and ignore their results.

I have no reason to believe that Gallup's final election poll will not be within the MoE of the actual results.

And why should I let obviously false claims about how their polls are conducted go unanswered?

[Ell09]

40. false claims?

If you're going to do a poll, you need a REPRESENTATIVE sample of the public. Gallup has CONSISTENTLY oversampled/overpolled Republicans. What don't you understand? If 6 % more Republicans vote than Democrats, then this poll could be considered legitimate. I would be saying the same thing if Gallup or another polling organization oversampled the Democrats. It's all over the news now that Bush is well ahead, which is just garbage according to MOST polls. The idea that Kerry is well behind hurts him, and hurts him badly.

[tritsofme]

42. They use a random sample

and that's how Gallup has always conducted their polls, they have never weighted for Party ID.

Unless you are willing to say they are committing outright fraud, then there is no way they can oversample Republicans on purpose.

[gdgibson]

47. Okay, so you want an answer?

Here's one: as noted above, Gallup (like every other polling organization) weights its sample for demographics -- this is done in order to make sure that the sample for the poll represents the polling universe as a whole (i.e. so they don't "randomly" sample 300 Hungarian male hairdressers making more than $100,000/year).

As you point out, Gallup does not weight for party identification. Now, of course, the "party identification" results themselves are an interesting variable for studying how the election is going -- it may show that there's been a shift in which party people want to identify with. But the problem comes when their sample doesn't jibe with results that history would lead us to expect on election day. History has shown that, over the past three or four elections, people responding to exit polls have had a much different distribution, something on the order of 40% Dem, 35% Rep, 25% Independent. The pollsters who came closest to preditcting the results in 2000 weighted according to the historical party identification at the time, and are doing so this year (Zogby is the most prominent example). As it happens, they're showing fewer wild swings in their results.

Why would a "random" sample produce a different distribution? I couldn't say, though certain Democratic constituencies are less likely to get sampled (college students, for example) and less likely to answer questions about their political preferences (African-Americans). Of course, some Republican constituencies might also refuse (conservative evangelicals). And there's always the possibility of some sort of sea-change in the electorate (even though this doesn't seem to be borne out by other polls). But it's not up to me to explain why Gallup refuses to weight for party identification: Gallup should have to explain why they don't do it, and what their results would look like if they did. (If someone wanted to do Gallup's work for them and dig out identification numbers from the internals of some 2000 poll, that might be a start.)

You're right when you say that, by itself, not weighting according to identification probably isn't a sign of some vast conspiracy. But it does make Gallup's methods suspect enough for people to take their results with a grain of salt. And when the media reports their results as if they're engraved in stone -- well, one does begin to wonder about the practical effects on voters' attitudes and intentions.

(One final note: I would expect that respondents equate "identification" with "registration" 90% of the time. Most "likely voters" would know how they're registered. Moreover, party affiliation is a big deal for most people. It would be as hard for most Republicans to call themselves Democrats as it would for a Duke fan to root for UNC. Where crossovers occur, they're often proud of it: "Democrats for Bush," "Republicans for Kerry," "I hate Duke, but I think Roy Williams is a carpet bagger and that it was time to give Phil Ford a shot.")

[progressivebydesign]

49. The Independent voter demographic is shrinking each election..

.. since Ross Perot fizzled out, more and more independents are finding their way back to their own party... usually republican. The recent polling is giving them at least 30% of the vote.. which is bullshit. They constitute about 18% probably.

I agree with all you wrote.. very well thought out, and exactly what I was thinking about it.

[progressivebydesign]

48. Do you work for them or something?

I've never seen anyone here on DU fighting so valliantly for Gallup before? Umm.. we've all seen their OWN admission of how they sample their data.. Regardless of whether they found a way to pre-select responses by party, the fact is.. they consistenly OVER sample Republicans and Independents, as do many of the mainstream polls like that. Why are you a Gallup apologist?

[tritsofme]

52. I happen to think its a superior method,

that's my opinion, and we'll see which polls are right after election day.

When their random sample consistently reports more Republican party identification, that can really only mean two things, either during this time period more people are likely to identify themselves with the GOP, or they are making things up.

[uhhuh]

50. I'll do it

I accuse Gallup of outright fraud.

[goclark]

36. I'm making address labels

THE MEDIA LIES
AND SO DOES
BUSH
Kerry/EDWARDS '04


Today I had other stickers with me that said "BUSH IS A LIAR"
They are stuck in public bathrooms, it's real cool on the toilet paper roll, magazines at the Dr's office, the gas pump-- it was so much fun!

If we wait for the media to get the message out,it will be a cold day in HELL.

WE are the messengers! Power to the Real People!

[progressivebydesign]

46. I think it motivates people to vote for Kerry.. perhaps..

Instead of thinking they should just give up, perhaps it will really mobilize the vote this time.. I have to say that in our very recent primary, in a not terribly liberal area, the Democrats outvoted the Republics 60% to 40%. The turn out for the Democrats was unprecedented for a primary! Too many poll recently, including Gallup, have over sampled Republicans and Independents* (*which make up a single digit of voters, yet are given almost 1/3 say in the polls like this). Democratic turnout will be huge this time.. these pollsters are DREAMING!!!

[simpsonsbuff]

38. IT GETS ME SO UPSET

i mean the worst thing is that it gives people the wrong impression.

P.S-What u think u of this joke: George W. Bush on reading Barack Obama name, " oh my god we got him!" I am pointing to Osama Bin Laden.

[Bleacher Creature]

43. I know Gallup is bunk, but . . .

Their most recent "poll" has Shrub with a 61 to 34 lead on the issue of who is best on the issue dealing with terrorism.

Even if this number is skewed by 10 points or so, how the hell can a majority of people honestly believe this? Is Gallup even more skewed than we originally thought? Are people just this stupid?

WTF?!?

[boilerman10]

51. Gentlemen, please....

What happens if Kerry wins large?

Will there be any end to the hand wringing and "What went wrong-ing" of the media and fat pollsters?

Kennedy was thought to be a dead duck against Nixon, and he narrowly won.

Ford was considered the likely choice in 1976, Carter won.

Face it, Bush's possible double digit lead may be wrong. Dead wrong.

If it is close, and I think it isn't as close as the pollsters think, for the public outrage over Iraq, and the economy, is seething around here.

I meet few people in a day who fly Bush stickers and few that fly Kerry stickers too. but I do meet a lot of people clearly frightened for the future of America, and I don't think Gallup is reaching them.

[SoCalDemocrat]

53. Gallop may not be reliable

They showed Bush 13 points up on Gore 5 days before the election of 2000.

Best best is either Zogby or Rasmussen. I have reason to believe most or all other polls are biased.