|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
Gallup polls fraudulent
 Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:57 am
|
 |
|
More poll problems surface once again.
George Gallup Jr. has been described as being an evangelical Christian first of all. I guess these polls are being tweaked for God? All the major networks have either been fooled or are %100 behind furthering the GOP agenda.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/29/0450/00861
The Gallup Poll Debunked And Exposed
by Rimjob
Wed Sep 29th, 2004 at 04:04:50 GMT
This is going to be a long diary, but should explain the reasons for the Bush margin in some polls(CBS-ABC-GALLUP) & how the race is extremely close in others(ZOGBY-RASMUSSEN-IBD/CSM-NBC/WSJ) & why people shouldn't get discouraged from a couple of bad polls. The basic charge is that Gallup's polls are loaded up with republicans, whose views throw off the polls ability to reflect the true feelings of the country. Gallup tried to defend itself against the MOVEON ad calling them out on their poll for this specific charge & others. This afternoon on CNN's INSIDE POLITICS Gallup responded:
WOODRUFF: The editor in chief of the Gallup Poll is defending his organization's research methods following criticism from a liberal political group that supports John Kerry. MoveOn.org purchased this full-page ad in today's "New York Times" which questions the methodology behind the Gallup surveys.
Gallup's recent polls have shown George W. Bush leading John Kerry. And MoveOn.org claims that Gallup's polling techniques exaggerate Republican support.
Editor in chief Frank Newport responded to the group's criticism.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FRANK NEWPORT, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, GALLUP: Well, it's not at all unusual to find people criticizing polls or other information that they don't like, they disagree with the results of. Gallup's had that from both sides through the years when we show results that look like they're favoring one side or the other.
But certainly, this ad seems to have more misstatements of fact and misunderstanding than most. And it's good for us to be able to respond to it.
First and foremost, they put in quotes from George Gallup, Jr., who is a revered member of the Gallup family, worked here for 50 years, he's now retired and spent the last 20 years of his life focusing mainly on the study of religion and American attitudes towards religion. Why quotes from George Gallup about religion have anything to do with political polling makes no sense to us here at Gallup.
Second, there is no longstanding problem with likely voter methodology here at Gallup. In fact, this methodology has been exceedingly accurate election after election, when we look at who actually wins the popular vote. Third, is they state that Gallup somehow is predicting that there will be a certain percent of Republicans or Democrats or result of the election on Election Day itself. Not so. We never predict.
We say, as of today, if the election were held today, these are the results that we would find. Now, we by no means are predicting. We all know, particularly with debates ahead of us, that there can be significant change between now and Election Day itself.
They talk about poll results from us here at Gallup as phantom. We, of course, resent that. Any result that we put out is not phantom. It's an accurate assessment to the best of our ability of where the electorate stands as of that point in time when we do the voting.
And finally, they seemingly come up with some data, we're not sure from where, saying, oh, the average seems to suggest right now that Bush has just a three-point lead over Kerry. That doesn't seem to be the case.
Most observers now say it's a six to eight-point lead. That's what recent polls are showing. Our most recent CNN-"USA Today"-Gallup poll shows just that, an eight-point lead for George W. Bush.
All in all, again, we're used to it. We certainly have found people from both sides who criticize polling or any other information they think is not agreeable to their side. This ad seems to be somewhat more egregious than usual, and it's good to be able to respond to some of the inaccuracies.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WOODRUFF: Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, responding to that ad critical of Gallup in today's "New York Times." That ad sponsored by MoveOn.org. As most of you, our viewers, know, CNN and "USA Today" have partnered with Gallup for polling information during our coverage of this 2004 election.
Diaries :: Rimjob's diary ::
However, USA TODAY has an article discussing the discrepancy in the Gallup Poll & other polls. Of particular note is the question of party id & how its a part of the poll...
...At issue: Whether too many Republicans end up being counted as "likely voters" in Gallup's polls. In the past six USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup polls this year, about 40% of the likely voters in the surveys said they considered themselves to be Republicans. By one measure, that's higher than might be expected: Exit polls after the past three presidential elections showed that about 35% of voters in those years said they were Republicans.
Peter Schurman, MoveOn.org's director, said Tuesday that Gallup "should admit its mistake and correct it by using samples that more closely reflect" likely turnout.
Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, said the critics don't understand the science behind the polls. "This issue has been the subject of intense scholarly discussion and years of research. We're confident in what we're doing," he said.
Actually, it's what Gallup doesn't do that is at the heart of the debate. The polling firm does not adjust its "pool" of voters to add or subtract Republicans or Democrats in an effort to mirror those parties' estimated make-ups.
Among the reasons Gallup doesn't try to do that:
It believes there are no reliable data on which to estimate exactly how many Republicans or Democrats there are in the country. Some states, for example, don't require voters to register by party affiliation. Basing an adjustment on previous year's exit polls, "means you're 'weighting' one poll based on the results of another poll, which has its own built-in sampling error," Newport said.
It believes party affiliation "is an attitude, not a demographic trait" and that voters can change their minds about which party they identify with more than once during an election year, Newport said. That would explain, he said, why the number of people who identified themselves as Republicans went down during this year's Democratic primaries -- when Kerry and his competitors were in the news.
Most polling firms use the same methods as Gallup when identifying party affiliations. Among those are the surveys done by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Andrew Kohut, the center's director, said in a statement last week that "important shifts in voter sentiment" could be missed if pollsters tried to apply rigid party formulas to results.
But not all pollsters agree with Gallup's approach. John Zogby is CEO of the independent polling firm Zogby International.
He adjusts the voter pools in his surveys to mirror party affiliations expressed in earlier exit polls. "I am one of the heretics in the polling industry," he said Tuesday. He maintains that "there are variations in people's party affiliations, but they aren't changing much daily, weekly or even monthly."
Critics say the debate over Gallup's work is important because the media's reporting of polls can affect the dynamics of a campaign. "We need the most accurate information possible. Next week the stories could be 'Kerry's surging in the polls,' but would that be true?" asks Markos Moulitsas Zniga, who's dailykos.com blog is a popular site for liberals.
Norman, however, said that Gallup's "overall record since 1988 on presidential elections, senate races and the national vote on congressional elections is as good as anyone's. And their record in the 2002 elections was clearly the best."
Here is the complete history of the Gallup poll this year from the same USA TODAY article & low & behold, in the polls where there are more republicans Bush does better, & in the polls with an equal number of respondents Kerry does better. Does it take Mr. Spock with Vulcan logic explaining that to Gallup for them to figure it out? Also, one other thing I noticed is that it's either a republican margin or even, dems never have a big advantage in the poll...
GREATER NUMBERS
The Gallup Poll asks voters to identify their party affiliation after they tell pollsters whom they would vote for if the election were that day. How the party affiliations compare with poll results among likely voters:
Jan. 9-11
BUSH 55
KERRY 43
Republican respondents 39%
Independent respondents 30%
Democratic respondents 31%
GOP advantage 8%
Jan. 29-Feb. 1
BUSH 46
KERRY 53
Republican respondents 36%
Independent respondents 30%
Democratic respondents 35%
GOP advantage 1%
Feb. 6-8
BUSH 49
KERRY 48
Republican respondents 37%
Independent respondents 31%
Democratic respondents 32%
GOP advantage 5%
Feb. 16-17
BUSH 43
KERRY 55
Republican respondents 32%
Independent respondents 33%
Democratic respondents 36%
GOP advantage -4%
March 5-7
BUSH 44
KERRY 52
Republican respondents 35%
Independent respondents 26%
Democratic respondents 40%
GOP advantage -5%
March 26-28
BUSH 51
KERRY 47
Republican respondents 44%
Independent respondents 23%
Democratic respondents 32%
GOP advantage 12%
April 5-8*
BUSH 48
KERRY 45
Republican respondents 41%
Independent respondents 24%
Democratic respondents 34%
GOP advantage 7%
April 16-18
BUSH 51
KERRY 46
Republican respondents 41%
Independent respondents 25%
Democratic respondents 34%
GOP advantage 7%
May 2-4*
BUSH 48
KERRY 49
Republican respondents 38%
Independent respondents 23%
Democratic respondents 38%
GOP advantage 0%
May 7-9
BUSH 48
KERRY 47
Republican respondents 37%
Independent respondents 30%
Democratic respondents 33%
GOP advantage 4%
May 21-23
BUSH 47
KERRY 49
Republican respondents 38%
Independent respondents 26%
Democratic respondents 34%
GOP advantage 4%
June 3-6*
BUSH 44
KERRY 50
Republican respondents 36%
Independent respondents 27%
Democratic respondents 36%
GOP advantage 0%
June 21-23
BUSH 49
KERRY 48
Republican respondents 36%
Independent respondents 28%
Democratic respondents 37%
GOP advantage -1%
July 8-11
BUSH 46
KERRY 50
Republican respondents 38%
Independent respondents 24%
Democratic respondents 38%
GOP advantage 0%
July 19-21
BUSH 47
KERRY 49
Republican respondents 41%
Independent respondents 23%
Democratic respondents 35%
GOP advantage 6%
July 30-Aug. 1
BUSH 51
KERRY 47
Republican respondents 42%
Independent respondents 23%
Democratic respondents 34%
GOP advantage 8%
Aug. 9-11*
BUSH 50
KERRY 47
Republican respondents 40%
Independent respondents 25%
Democratic respondents 34%
GOP advantage 6%
Aug. 23-25
BUSH 50
KERRY 47
Republican respondents 38%
Independent respondents 29%
Democratic respondents 32%
GOP advantage 6%
Sept. 3-5
BUSH 52
KERRY 45
Republican respondents 40%
Independent respondents 27%
Democratic respondents 33%
GOP advantage 7%
Sept. 13-15*
BUSH 55
KERRY 42
Republican respondents 40%
Independent respondents 27%
Democratic respondents 33%
GOP advantage 7%
Sept. 24-26
BUSH 52
KERRY 44
Republican respondents 43%
Independent respondents 25%
Democratic respondents 31%
GOP advantage 12%
Source: Gallup Polls; those marked with an asterisk were conducted independent of USA TODAY and CNN
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Wed Sep 29, 2004 7:18 pm
|
|
|
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409280002
Letter to MSNBC urging disclosure of pollster Luntz's GOP ties, questionable standards
Richard Kaplan
President
MSNBC
One MSNBC Plaza
Secaucus, NJ 07094
Dear. Mr. Kaplan:
Based on your channel's programming and editorial decisions during the 2000 presidential debates, I anticipate you are considering featuring Republican pollster Frank Luntz, CEO and president of Luntz Research Companies, as part of the network's analysis of this year's presidential debates. I'm writing to ask that, if you have already chosen to include Luntz as part of our coverage, that you reconsider that decision in light of Luntz's partisan Republican ties and history of questionable scientific methodology. If Luntz must be a part of MSNBC's lineup, I would expect that its viewers will be informed of these facts on-air.
As Salon.com reported in 2000, there is little reason to trust a poll taken by Frank Luntz, who was reprimanded in 1997 by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) for his work polling for the Republican Party's 1994 "Contract with America" campaign platform. According to Salon.com: "Luntz told the media that everything in the contract had the support of at least 60 percent of the general public," but when a member of the AAPOR "filed a complaint requesting to see Luntz's research and verification of the figure," Luntz refused, citing "client confidentiality." Salon.com described Luntz as "possibly the best example of what we could call the pollster pundit: someone who both purports to scientifically poll the opinions of the public, and then also interpret that data to support his own -- in Luntz's case, conservative -- point of view." Salon.com added that, according to David W. Moore, author of the book The Super Pollsters, Luntz's work is little more than "propaganda" disguised as research. Luntz has explained his own methodology as follows: "Say you poll on an environmental issue, and on eight of the 10 questions the numbers are in your favor. Why release the other two? It's like being a lawyer."
I sincerely hope your channel will not repeat the mistakes made during its coverage of the 2004 Democratic and Republican National Conventions, when MSNBC anchors and commentators failed to even once mention Luntz's partisan Republican ties or questionable polling standards during three appearances in which he touted flawed focus groups.
Though the overall results of Luntz's convention studies were not overtly in favor of either presidential candidate, three of his four focus groups were institutionally biased toward President George W. Bush. One Luntz focus group held during the DNC compared the views of Gore 2000 voters to Bush 2000 voters. Yet in three other groups (one during the DNC and two during the RNC) Luntz compared Republicans' reactions to speeches to the combined reactions of Democrats and Independents and then wrongly labeled the groups as "Republicans" and "Democrats" during his September 2 appearance on MSNBC.
Your channel's failure to identify Luntz's party affiliation notwithstanding, this pollster has made clear his preference for the 2004 presidential election. The St. Paul Pioneer Press reported on September 2: "Earlier this year, GOP pollster Frank Luntz advised Republicans to never talk about Iraq or homeland security without first mentioning how 9/11 changed everything." The Cleveland Plain Dealer noted on September 1 that "Republican pollster Frank Luntz did his best Tuesday to pump up Ohio's Republicans at a delegation breakfast. 'If you guys fail, if John Kerry becomes president by a percent or half a percent, I think you're going to be pretty regretful,' he said."
I trust that as a reputable media organization, MSNBC will agree to provide full disclosure of all relevant information regarding its commentators and pollsters in the future. I look forward to monitoring your channel's coverage of the upcoming debates.
Sincerely,
David Brock
President and CEO
Media Matters for America
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Wed Sep 29, 2004 7:23 pm
|
|
|
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409290002
Gallup's Newport dodged charges in MoveOn.org ad
Purporting to respond to a full-page ad by MoveOn.org in the September 28 edition of The New York Times, Gallup Poll editor-in-chief Frank Newport dodged the ad's central charge that Gallup's polling methods favor Republicans. On the September 28 edition of CNN's Inside Politics, Newport referred to and purported to answer the following sentence from the ad: "Simply put, Gallup's methodology has predicted lately that Republican turnout on Election Day is likely to exceed Democrats' by six to eight percentage points." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Gallup's polls do skew Republican by including more Republicans in their samples than statistics from the last two presidential elections show are representative of the electorate.
But rather than respond to the charge over Gallup's methodology, Newport focused instead on the ad's use of the word "predicted":
Third is they state that Gallup somehow is predicting that there will be some percent of Republicans or Democrats or a result of the election on Election Day itself. Not so. We never predict. We say, "As of today, if the election were held today, these are the results that we would find." We by no means are predicting. We all know, particularly with the debates ahead, that there can be significant change in everything between now and Election Day itself.
OK, we get it. Gallup isn't in the business of predicting. But, arguably, it might be in the business of producing polls designed to favor the Republican candidate for president.
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:34 am
|
|
|
In my videotape archives:
Taped from C-SPAN
Forum on polling and elections October 2000 Ohio State U.
Zogby:
"We count every Republican response twice on the belief that they are more likely to be out working and earning a living,"
He went on to explain the assumption that Democrats are sitting at home drawing welfare and more likely to answer the phone.
Several newly retired CEO's of polling organizations stated "...there is tremendous pressure from the RNC to interpret the margin of error favorably."
eg: today that means for a 5& margin of error, take 5% from Bush and give 5% to Kerry to get the actual poll results.
Several of those CEO's stated they had been (golden parachute) retired because of their opposition to that RNC pressure.
A few pollsters noted that most polling organizations began at the behest of the RNC.
eg: Harris began polling in an attempt to overcome the impression that most Americans still supported the New Deal programs of Roosevelt and Truman.
harris contributed toward the eisenhower victory by making ike seem more popular than he really was.
And so it continues today.
Polls do not reflect nor record public opinion.
Polls manufacture support via push polling.
Read 'push polling' issues in the origional wording, before the pollsters even begin to make their calls:
http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/TalkingPoints/default.htm
NCPP - National Council on Public Polls
... a warning about a growing and thoroughly unethical political campaign technique,
commonly called "Push Polls," masquerading as legitimate political polling. ...
www.ncpp.org/push.htm
Karl Rove - The White House Prince of Push Polling
Karl Rove: Prince of Push Polling By Daniel R. Morrow If "push polling" is a crime
against humanity, then justice has no chance of being served until Karl Rove ...
www.webdelsol.com/The_Potomac/politics-rove.htm |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:16 pm
|
|
|
The chief of the Gallup poll defended his organization by saying that they’re doing nothing wrong because there are no particular standards being applied to these polls. Well that's exactly the problem! The lack of standards in the world of polling gives anyone the ability to alter the entire procedure to fit their own personal liking. Networks like CNN ought to at least be straightforward about the fact that these polls are biased as all hell. The worst part about it is that it can have a major impact upon voter turnout. Some voters might incorrectly believe that one candidate has already established a substantial enough lead to guarantee a victory and not even bother to vote. This based on a poll that’s being conducted by a group that most likely has political leanings one way or the other.
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:28 am
|
|
|
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/30/luntz/index.html
Salon.com, Roll Call: Republican pollster canned at MSNBC
Salon: Republican pollster canned at MSNBC
Upon hearing that MSNBC planned for Republican pollster Frank Luntz to conduct on-air focus groups as part of the cable network's debate coverage tonight, David Brock of the media watchdog group Media Matters sent MSNBC executive Rick Kaplan a letter of complaint. It looks like Kaplan listened.
Media Matters links to this Roll Call article today showing Luntz got canned. It's sub only, so here's the text:
By Mary Ann Akers
Roll Call Staff
September 30, 2004
The watchdog organization Media Matters for America was none too pleased that MSNBC had scheduled GOP pollster Frank Luntz conduct on-air focus groups following tonight's presidential debate.
In a letter to MSNBC President Richard Kaplan, Media Matters President David Brock (who used to call himself a conservative), said he hoped the network would disclose Luntz's "partisan Republican ties and history of questionable scientific methodology."
Brock cited a number of examples, including Luntz's work on the 1994 Republican "Contract with America," pointing out that Luntz was reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research for refusing to disclose data on how he surmised that 60 percent of Americans supported the Contract. Brock also noted Luntz's published remarks counseling swing-state Republicans on what to say about Iraq and homeland security.
Looks like the letter had an impact. Although MSNBC did not respond to Brock, a spokeswoman for the network told HOH late Wednesday that the network has decided "not to go with Frank for the debate." In fact, MSNBC won't conduct polling at all now, she said. Brock was delighted to hear the news. "It is encouraging that MSNBC responded to criticism in a constructive way. Clearly they realized that employing a partisan pollster does not reflect well on them as a responsible media outlet."
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 2:33 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
