WSJ poll results: Bush supporters lie or have shoddy memories

[shockingelk]

Today, the Wall Street Journal published the results of the new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll in a front page article. The results are not overly favorable to Bush. But the raw data in the PDF linked to in the sidebar present a conclusively pathetic view of Bush supporters. The poll surveyed registered voters - here are the results for the question regarding how the participants said they voted in the 2000 election:

45% Voted for George W. Bush
33% Voted for Al Gore
2% Voted for Ralph Nader
1% Voted for Pat Buchanan
1% Voted for other candidate
1% Not sure who voted for
11% Did Not Vote
3% Too young to vote
3% Not Sure/Refused

In the 2000 Presidential Election, only 67% of registered voters cast a vote. 85% of the respondents to this poll claim to have voted. Another way of looking at it is that 33% of registered voters did not vote. The only answers that would be truthful for people in that 33% would be "did not vote" or "not sure", but only 14% provided one of those answers. About 19% of the people in this poll are lying or remembering incorrectly.

Both Gore and Bush got about 48% of the popular vote in 2000. If the sample of this poll was perfect, we would expect 32% of respondents to have voted for Gore and 32% to have voted for Bush. Compare to the actual results: 33% say they voted for Gore, 45% said they voted for Bush. Bush supporters are much more likely to lie or have shoddy memories. Not surprising.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Or it means that Wall Street Journal readers are more likely to vote

which is a more likely conclusion to be drawn from this poll.

For although you are correct that Shrub supporters are liars, asses, and thieves, and have shoddy memories, you can't necessarily conclude that from this poll.

Mathematically speaking, you can't assume that just because 67% of registered voters didn't vote that EVERY poll done has to show a 33% "didn't vote" answer rate.

Some times pollsters will hit a group that had 85% who voted, sometimes they'll hit a group that had 55%.

[Zero Division]

4. Am I missing something...I assumed it was a poll of the general public..

(registered voters in the general public, that is) conducted by WSJ/NBC, not a poll of WSJ readers.:shrug:

[shockingelk]

5. That's not how polls are conducted

You're assuming the population studied was WSJ readers, which is incorrect. Pollsters use registered voter rolls which are purchased from secretaries of state.

And statistically speaking you do expect random samples to reflect reality within the margin of error. That's why I said "If the sample of this poll was perfect ..." and "About 19% of the people in this poll are lying or remembering incorrectly."

Here are the raw results I'm speaking of - it's a large PDF: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/poll20040826.pdf

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. I misread - thought it was a poll of WSJ readers

And it's nice to see a poll that actually offers the questions, and methodology.

Then the results are quite odd - not that there still isnt' always a chance that a poll gets a 85% vote-rate (after all, the royal flush is rare, but it still pops up) - and likely that the repukes lied.

[Gman]

2. When I was a labor union officer

I never met anyone that said they didn't vote for me. Politicians will tell you the same thing. (actually, there were a few and I considered them in the 20% that will never vote for me no matter what... as opposed to the 20% who thought I could do nothing wrong... as opposed to the 60% that you always focus on to get reelected.) I honestly believe people can convince theirselves they voted for the winner, regardless of who they really voted for.

[Zero Division]

3. Excellent Find

I think a truly competent and thorough media would actually report these kinds of discrepancies in polls.

:kick:

[troublemaker]

7. More to the point... Shouldn't they adjust the sample?

If they used a sample where Gore and Bush voters were even Kerry would be up by 10 points or something, right?

I'm kidding of course -- I know they can't use that question for the sample because everyone LIES about it. But why are the other questions reliable if people cannot even truthfuly say what they did in 2000?

[shockingelk]

8. I think a lot of people feel they have to voice support foir Bush

"We're at war, and the president needs my support." They may feel differently at the polls.

I think it was Michael Moore that said a lot of people think of Ashcroft when they get a call from a pollster (imitates aggressive, hostile voice):

"DO YOU SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT?"