Gallup caught lying about the generic ballot trend on Voters

Comments Off on Gallup caught lying about the generic ballot trend on Voters

This is a long article, but very interesting………………

 

Pelosi Boehner

The Gallup Generic Ballot is a trusted, widely reported resource. I’ve analyzed it extensively, and defended it to others. But yesterday, when I covered the poll’s latest release, Gallup lied. I was lied to, you were lied to, everyone who’s trusted the Gallup name got lied to.

How? Gallup is combining two different sampling methods into one so-called trend of Registered Voters (complete with captioned graph), getting different results, but pretending they show one trend all the same.

Remember on June 2 when Republicans took a big lead in the Gallup generic ballot? I used it to project conservatively a 45 seat Republican gain in the House. This was a poll of registered voters, according to Gallup’s Survey Methods notes:

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted May 24-30, 2010, with a random sample of 1,594 registered voters, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, selected using a random-digit-dial sampling technique.

But now on July 19 that Democrats are showing a big lead, despite the fact that Gallup’s pretty graph now is titled Candidate Preferences in 2010 Congressional Elections, Among Registered Voters, the sampling is different:

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking July 12-18, 2010, with a random sample of 1,535 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, selected using random-digit-dial sampling.

Catch the difference? The Republicans lead with a sample of Registered Voters, but the Democrats lead with a sample of Adults. Someone who trusted Gallup’s pretty, but lying, picture would never have noticed. Real Clear Politics noticed, and actually recorded the polls differently. Friends noticed this and alerted me.

It is terribly dishonest for Gallup to string together two different polls as one series, as Gallup does not only in their graphs, but in their write-ups as well. Here’s an example from the July 19 release:

The Democrats’ six-point advantage in Gallup Daily interviewing from July 12-18 represents the first statistically significant lead for that party’s candidates since Gallup began weekly tracking of this measure in March.

Notice, they call the series one measure, even though it’s at least two different kinds of polls with two different kinds of sampling pools. You cannot pretend that a poll of all adults and a poll filtered by registered voters are part of the same series, even if the same questions are asked. That’s Polling 101, and whoever’s responsible for the Gallup release should have known this, and certainly whoever’s responsible for oversight of the Gallup releases would know this.

Somebody’s lying. I have no reason to believe that Gallup’s actual polling is fabricated, but it’s easy to see that how Gallup packages its results is designed to mislead readers into seeing trends that just aren’t there. Observe the Gallup trend, per Real Clear Politics, with polls of adults distinguished from polls of registered voters, the most honest approach:

Date Pool Lead
7-18 A D+6
7-11 RV D+1
7-3 RV R+6
6-27 RV D+1
6-20 RV D+0
6-13 RV R+5
6-6 RV D+0

Sorted this way the trend is clear: Registered Voters oscillate between near-ties for the Democrats, and big leads for the Republicans. But once we switch to Adults, Democrats suddenly take a big edge of their own.

Is this credible? No, but you’d never know it if you took Gallup’s releases at face value. Even if the truth was there if you dig deep enough, it’s still a lie to misrepresent the data as Gallup has done.

As a final note, I have a prediction: Somebody, perhaps even Gallup, will claim that the Survey Notes were mistaken in this last release, and that the poll was of Registered Voters, but was just recorded wrongly. If this is the case, then that still suggests a serious lapse of quality control at Gallup leading to misinformation being published, and still calls into question every poll release Gallup makes. So I don’t buy it as a defense.

Besides, Gallup noted that the latest Generic Ballot was included as part of a daily tracking poll. It is vastly more likely that this change is a result of cost-cutting, combining one poll with another to save money over the summer, when they hope nobody will notice. But really, when you change the secret sauce, somebody’s going to notice.

Update: Gallup has now issued a correction alongside the bare changing of ‘adults’ to ‘registered voters’ in the Survey Methods:

Editor’s note: The original version of this story inadvertently referred to national adults rather than registered voters in the survey methods statement. The results reported here and in all Gallup generic ballot trends so far this year are based on registered voters; the survey methods statement now correctly reflects that.

A commenter at RedState.com pointed out a significant flaw in this story: the sample size didn’t change. Originally the post read 1,535 adults, now it reads 1,535 registered voters. However the overall daily Obama Job Approval tracking poll also surveys “approximately 1,500 national adults.” are we to believe that approximately 99% of the adults in daily tracking sample were registered to vote? MSNBC reported in 2008 that about 80% of American adults were registered, and that number will decline from 2008 to 2010 as voters are purged and don’t re-register for the midterm. The odds against this are astronomical, making this poll an incredible outlier for so many to be registered.

My conclusion: that this was a simple typo just doesn’t add up.

Red State

62 Comments Leave a comment

Polling

awunsch Wednesday, July 21st at 12:15PM EDT (link)

This is becoming a political game apparently. With the Obama administrations rise to power along with the progressives in congress, it is becoming very difficult to believe anything without really checking a number of sources. I guess it goes with the general decline in the morals of our society. The media (State run media as Rush says) is no longer worthy of following, Obama is the master of deception when he talks, politicians and judges no longer respect the constitution – and the beat goes on. Voters in Nov have the opportunity to vote democrat and solidify the decline of our Nation or vote republican and start this country back to a prosperous, moral country (not that there aren’t progressives in the republican party as well that need to be voted out).

Advertisements

Obama has lost the white vote

Comments Off on Obama has lost the white vote

The Magic Is Gone: In an e-mail to Columbia University journalism professor Thomas Edsall, political scientist Larry Bartels of Vanderbilt University explains why the Obama campaign cannot afford to alienate white working class voters while pandering to minority voters:

If the Democratic Party can do something to win one more non-college white vote, without alienating anyone else, it is exactly one vote closer to winning. If it can do something to win one more college white vote, or Latino vote, or Asian vote, without alienating anyone else, it is exactly one vote closer to winning. If it wins one more non-college white vote and loses one college white vote, or Latino vote, or Asian vote in the process, it is not any closer to winning. The interesting strategic questions have entirely to do with the marginal shifts in vote probabilities produced in different groups by different sorts of appeals, and their collateral political costs (whether alienation or opportunity costs).

 Unfortunately for Obama’s calculus, RealClearPolitics Chief Political Correspondent David Paul Kuhn reports that he “does not currently have enough white support to win re-election even if he retains his minority base from 2008”: 

Pundits often note that Romney cannot win with his current level of Hispanic support. That’s likely true. But so is the converse: Obama cannot win with his level of white support unless white swing voters withhold their votes from Romney as well.

 Today, fewer whites back Obama than any Democratic candidate since Walter Mondale. Romney does not need to emulate Ronald Reagan to win. Should he match Reagan’s share of the white vote in 1984 – presuming all else remains constant since 2008 – Romney would rout Obama.

 Of course, America has changed since Reagan. Non-Hispanic whites were 89 percent of the electorate when Reagan first won the White House in 1980. They were 85 percent in 1988. By 2008, whites were 74 percent. That shift has upended the electoral landscape. But only so much. …

 Should Romney win the whites Obama lost, Romney will only need to perform as well as John McCain with minorities to win. …

 The white margin to watch: 61-39. That’s the rough break-even point. Obama likely needs more than 39 percent of whites to assure re-election. Romney likely needs at least 61 percent of whites to assure Obama’s defeat (or 60.5 in some scenarios).

Kuhn concludes that “diversity may not prove enough to save Obama.”

Tea Party Nation

States Should Flatly Reject ObamaCare Exchanges

Comments Off on States Should Flatly Reject ObamaCare Exchanges

This video was made before the Supreme Court ruling last week, but makes great points that I think should be followed by every State.

Homeland Security Report Lists ‘Liberty Lovers’ As Terrorists

Comments Off on Homeland Security Report Lists ‘Liberty Lovers’ As Terrorists

Is this unbelieveable or what? People that love their Liberty or who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority (like the founding fathers were), believe their “way of life” is under attack,People who consider themselves “anti-global”, people opposed to abortion are listed as Terrorists. Can you believe that? Well it’s true. What has happened to our government’s thinking like this? This is contrary to normal thinking or reasoning. $12 million was spent on this study.

A new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

Entitled Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008 (PDF), the study was produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland. The organization was launched with the aid of DHS funding to the tune of $12 million dollars.

While largely omitting Islamic terrorism – the report fails completely to mention the 1993 World Trade Center bombing – the study focuses on Americans who hold beliefs shared by the vast majority of conservatives and libertarians and puts them in the context of radical extremism.

The report takes its definitions from a 2011 study entitled Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism, produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, in which the following characteristics are used to identify terrorists.

– Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack;

– Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”;

– People who consider themselves “anti-global” (presumably those who are wary of the loss of American sovereignty);

– Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”;

– Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty”;

– People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”

The report also lists people opposed to abortion and “groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers” as terrorists.

As we have exhaustively documented on numerous occasions, federal authorities and particularly the Department of Homeland Security have been involved in producing a deluge of literature which portrays liberty lovers and small government advocates as terrorists.

Continue reading


 

I’d rather fight with a moderate Republican than give Obama a 2nd term!

Comments Off on I’d rather fight with a moderate Republican than give Obama a 2nd term!

I don’t always agree 100% with Mark Levin, but he’s right about this. Hold your nose and vote for Romney. Anything to get rid of Obama.

US Will Sign Gun Control Treaty on July 27!

Comments Off on US Will Sign Gun Control Treaty on July 27!

In one point Dick Morris is wrong in this video. Treaties do become Supreme Law of the Law according to the Constitution, BUT! , they to MUST be Constitutional as well. So the Small Arms Treaty CAN NOT violate the 2nd amendment and ban guns. Educate yourself on the Constitution folks, so you aren’t duped by the media and politicians.