Friday, September 17, 2004

Gallup, exposed

So Gallup is WAY oversmapling Republicans, and they've been doing it all year and in their state polls. Left Coaster has the details:
    I asked Gallup, who have been very courteous to my requests, to send me this morning their sample breakdowns by party identification for both their likely and registered voter samples they use in these national and I suspect their state polls. This is what I got back this morning:

    Likely Voter Sample Party IDs – Poll of September 13-15
    Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%

    Total Sample: 767
    GOP: 305 (40%)
    Dem: 253 (33%)
    Ind: 208 (28%)

    Registered Voter Sample Party IDs – Same Poll
    Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%

    Total Sample: 1022
    GOP: 381 (38%)
    Dem: 336 (33%)
    Ind: 298 (30%)

    In both polls, Gallup oversamples greatly for the GOP, and undersamples for the Democrats. Worse yet, Gallup just confirmed for me that this is the same sampling methodology they have been using this whole election season, for all their national and state polls.

    According to John Zogby himself:

    If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.

    So the Democrats have been 39% of the voting populace in both 1996 and 2000, and the GOP has not been higher than 35% in either of those elections. Yet Gallup trumpets a poll that has consistently used a sample that shows a GOP bias of 40% amongst likely voters and 38% amongst registered voters, and depresses the Democratic portion of the sample down to levels they haven’t been at since a strong three-way race in 1992?

    Folks, unless Karl Rove can discourage the Democratic base into staying home in droves and gets the GOP to come out of the woodwork, there is no way in hell that these or any other Gallup Poll is to be taken seriously.

No comments: