Jump to content

All Over But The Crying


FrancoDiSantisxxx
This topic is 6609 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

John Zogby appeared on The Daily Show and, in answer to Jon Stewart's question, very decisively and confidently stated that Kerry would win. He based this on the fact that Mr. Bush had not risen above 48 percent in any of the recent polls and that undecideds historically have broken for the challenger when the incumbent cannot rise above 50 percent.

 

On the other hand, John Mercurio on CNN (who has this hot geeky freshly scrubbed vibe going on), and who has been studying the electoral map for the past year, is indicating that Bush has a very narrow lead of 276 votes. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/electoral.votes/index.html

 

I imagine this means everyone can simply stay home on Tuesday and not worry about this any longer. Of course, I already voted, so I intend to stay home and watch bad porn.

 

 

http://www.gaydar.co.uk/francodisantis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Of course, I already

>voted, so I intend to stay home and watch bad porn.

 

Porn is like sex -- even when it is bad, it is pretty good.

 

I plan on waiting for that geeky Gallup guy to show up on CNN and explain what went so wrong with his precious polls. Let's say you're a college professor, and I'm a freshman political science student. For my term paper I want to take a poll using the Gallup approach described below. Do you flunk me immediately, or attempt to rescue a kernel of truth from all the falsehood?

 

==According to data obtained by Steve Soto over at the Left Coaster, Gallup's mid-October LV sample—the one that showed Bush with an eight-point lead—has only 14.5 percent minority representation and only 7.5 percent black representation.

 

How plausible is this as a representation of the election day electorate? Not remotely plausible. In 1996, minority representation among voters was 17 percent; in 2000, 19.4 percent. In 2004, the minority proportion of voters should be more than this, because minorities are growing, not declining, as a percentage of the U.S. population. So 14.5 percent for nonwhites as a prediction of the 2004 electorate is very, very unlikely. It would defy both recent history and powerful demographic trends.

 

As for 7.5 percent blacks? Come on. Blacks were 10.1 percent in 1996 and 9.7 percent in 2000. And they're 12 percent of the voting age population. There's just no way in the world blacks will only be 7.5 percent of voters in 2004.

 

So, in effect, Gallup's likely voter approach is disenfranchising minorities in assessing American voters' inclinations on the coming election. That's wrong and Gallup should stop doing it.

 

And speaking of disenfranchisement, how about America's young people? This group is also full of voters who are relatively unlikely to answer the seven LV questions right and thus qualify for admission into the exalted realm of the Gallup LV sample.

 

Sure enough, Gallup informs us that young voters (age eighteen to twenty-nine) only compose 11 percent of likely voters. Well, that would be quite a trick. In 1992, young voters were 21 percent of voters; in 1996, 17 percent of voters; and in 2000, 17 percent again. And we're supposed to believe that young voters are all of a sudden going to drop to 11 percent this year? Please, this doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

As it happens, minorities—no big surprise—lean very heavily toward Kerry this year. But young voters are also Kerry's best age group this year. Systematically under-representing these groups in Gallup's LV samples will therefore have an obvious, and fairly substantial, effect on their results, tilting them in the direction of Bush and the Republicans.==

 

http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are interested in this stuff check out

 

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/

 

for WAAAYY more depth and detail than I imagined I would ever know. Basically mysterypollster describes the anomalies cited to how Gallup screens for "likely voters". A difficult and arcane art to be sure. But if I were a freshman poli/sci student I would very much be using Gallups information. They have been polling since the 1930's and have 70 years of trendlines and analysis available that is the bedrock of political polling. Plus to their credit they make all their information, including the raw data, available after the election to academics.

 

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...