The "How Can Gallup?" Game, from Ruy Teixeira

[swag]

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/index.php

As everyone knows, Teixeira is the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority", and his "Donkey Rising" is one of the best public opinion blogs there is. Here's an excerpt from his "How Can Gallup?" Game, from the 09/27/04 entry:


. . .
How can Gallup.....have Bush tied in the solid blue states (that is, the non-battleground blue states, so WI, MN, IO etc aren't included), when he is trailing Kerry by 15 points in California and 20 points in New York?

How can Gallup.....have Bush up by 13, when he's only leading among independents by 2 (and that was exactly Bush's margin among independents in 2000 when, as you recall, he did not win the popular vote by 13 points)?

Not only that, Bush's current margin among Republicans in the Gallup poll is not too far from his 2000 margin (93-6 now vs. 91-8 then) and Kerry's margin among Democrats is identical in magnitude to Gore's (85-10 now vs. 86-11 then).

Actually, this one is kind of easy. The only way you can produce a 13 point Bush lead with these internals is if you have quite a few more Republicans than Democrats in the sample--my guess is 7-8 points more. If you re-weight their sample to the 2000 exit poll party ID distribution (and I kind of have to do this, just to drive certain pollsters and their acolytes into a frenzy), you wind up with a modest Bush lead of 2 points.

. . .

[Josh]

1. Yeah, the guy at electoral-vote.com said Gallup is weighting at 40%

for Republicans despite the fact that the 2000 exit poll data indicated that 39% of voters were Democrats and 35% were Republicans. Given that turnout will be high this year (probably for both sides, but I'd say more for the Democrats), a poll with 40% of Republicans in the sample just cannot be accurate. I don't dispute that Bush is in front in both the popular and electoral vote counts at this point in time, but it's achingly close, not 8 points as Gallup has it (or 14 or whatever among registered voters).

[NJCher]

2. how they determine LV (likely voter) is a joke!!

I read on down to where Ruy tells how they determine what an LV is:

1. SALIENCE: How much thought have you given to the upcoming election for president?— quite a lot, or only a little? (“Quite a lot” or “Some” as a volunteered response score one point)

2. KNOWLEDGE: Do you happen to know where people who live in your neighborhood go to vote? (“Yes” scores one point)

3. BEHAVIOR: Have you ever voted in your precinct or election district? (“Yes” scores one point)

4. BEHAVIOR: How often would you say you vote—always, nearly always, part of the time, or seldom? (“Always” or “Nearly always” scores one point}

5. INTENTION: Do you, yourself, plan to vote in the presidential election on November (*), or not? (“Yes” scores one point)

6. BEHAVIOR: In the presidential election, did you vote for (*) or (*), or did things come up to keep you from voting?

7. INTENTION: I’d like you to rate your chances of voting in the upcoming election for president on a scale of 1 to 10. If “1” represents someone who definitely will not vote, and “10” represents someone who definitely will vote, where on this scale of 1 to 10 would you place yourself?

Why it's a joke: because people are going to lie about their actual voting. Here's why I think this.

Years ago I started going to unions to register voters. Now, you would think all the union people are already registered as Dems but there are plenty of unions out there that are not. So when you ask these people if they are registered to vote, they say yes. But our voting registration captain told us to get them to fill out the form anyway. Why? Because they've been through this before and find that people lie about it because they are embarrassed about not being registered.

So does Gallup actually believe they are going to discern LVs (likely voters) with this technique? How naive and foolish. Unbelievable.


Cher


edited to add: It is important to poll likely voters. The best way to do it is to get the sample directly off the election rolls. Why would these dufuses not do this? It is easy to do.

I am simply astounded at this thinking. Very, very unprofessional.

[liveoaktx]

3. This guy is running for a county precinct position-I gave him a list

of all the people in his precinct who had voted in the primary. He called me up, very irate and upset, because he believed I had given him a list with some people missing. Why? Because, when he was going door to door, some people told him they had voted for him in the primary.. and they weren't on the list.

The list didn't have a mistake-the people were lying to this guy's face.

[HFishbine]

4. How does one compile a list

of people who voted for a certain candidate? Seems like that would be impossible to ascertain.

[NJCher]

5. right

Because the vote is between you and the voting booth, as well it should be.

Very interesting, dac_76.

Despite the fact that only half the population votes, the vote is a strong American value. Even people who immigrated as adults exhibit this acculturation.


Cher

[HFishbine]

6. Nevermind

I misread. You said a list of people who voted, not who they voted for. That information is readily available. My bad. Sorry.

[swag]

7. More from "Donkey Rising"

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/index.php

Well, our correspondent, Alan Abramowitz, has been getting into the spirt of the "How Can Gallup...." game, so I thought I'd share some of the fun he's been having with DR readers:

It's hard to know where to begin when it comes to all of the preposterous results in . First of all, they've got about a 10 point Republican advantage in party ID among registered voters. I am guessing that this is one of the largest Republican party ID leads in the history of the Gallup Poll. So according to Gallup, what's happened since the Republican convention is something on the order of the New Deal realignment in reverse. If you reweight their data based on the partisan composition of the 2000 exit poll, you get something like Bush 48, Kerry 47.
Going along with the ridiculous party ID results, they've got Bush now leading by 15 points in the Midwest and by 21 points in the West. For Bush to be leading by 21 points in the West he'd have to actually be leading in California by about 10 points and cleaning up in Washington and Oregon as well. This is totally out of line with recent independent state polls showing Kerry leading in California by 15, leading in Washington, and running about even or slightly
ahead in Oregon. According to this poll, Bush is doing better in the West as a whole than he is in Montana, where the most recent independent poll has him ahead by only 18. The Midwest result is totally out of line with the most recent independent polls in Illinois (Kerry +15) and Ohio (Bush +3).

Gallup's own state polls are totally out of line with this result. How can Bush be 2 points ahead among RVs in states like Florida and Nevada but 13 ahead among RVs in the entire country?