Now Zogby debunks Newsweek and Time

[59millionmorons]

Two new polls came out immediately after mine (as of this writing) by the nation's leading weekly news magazines. Both Time's 52% to 41% lead among likely voters and Newsweek's 54% to 43% lead among registered voters give the President a healthy 11 point lead. I have not yet been able to get the details of Time's methodology but I have checked out Newsweek's poll. Their sample of registered voters includes 38% Republican, 31% Democrat and 31% Independent voters. 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. While party identification can indeed change within the electorate, there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Democrats will only represent 31% of the total vote this year. In fact, other competitors have gone in the opposite direction. The Los Angeles Times released a poll in June of this year with 38% Democrats and only 25% Republicans. And Gallup's party identification figures have been all over the place.

This is no small consideration. Given the fact that each candidate receives anywhere between eight in ten and nine in ten support from voters in his own party, any change in party identification trades point for point in the candidate's total support. My polls use a party weight of 39% Democrat, 35% Republican and 26% Independent. Thus in examining the Newsweek poll, add three points for Mr. Bush because of the percentage of Republicans in their poll, then add another 8% for Mr. Bush for the reduction in Democrats. It is not hard to see how we move from my two-point lead to their eleven-point lead for the President.

I will save the detailed methodological discussion for another time. But I will remind readers that my polling has come closest to the final results in both 1996 and 2000.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=859

[Frodo]

1. Why only look at party turnout from Presidential elections?

What has it been in the off-years?

[gasperc]

2. 38% GOP, 31% DEM for the newsweek's methodolgy WTF

what a bunch of crap, I'll have to call and cancel my FREE subscription to Newsweek

[Frodo]

3. Chill, it's not a big deal.

Most pollsters balance their sample to reflect what they think turnout is going to be. Some just take it as it is - which can throw things off.

When some polls oversampled Democrats, many here just announced that it was just a sign that more people considered themselves Democrats. That to re balance the numbers would be wrong. Now that the figures break the other way, the polls that we once liked are the "worst" out there and to be ignored.

Neither is really the case. ALL polls should be taken with that same grain of salt. This year is unlikely to match previous turnouts (for better or worse), so ALL the pollsters who rebalance are likely to be wrong to some degree. Just pay attention to the internals and use your OWN assumptions about turnouts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Debunked Those Polls Yesterday....

Zogby's been plagiarizing me...


By manipulating the percentages of Dems, Reps, and Indys in your poll you can come up with any result you desire....