Polling

[shostakovich]

Internet polling irritates me in general. They are not representative of the population. First of all, they reflect only a portion of the general population. Secondly, the participants are self-selected, so it is representative of only a certain type of person. Thirdly, they don't reflect me, because I think they are stupid.

Recently there has been a poll (internet or otherwise) asking people whether they think the 2006 elections will result in a Democratic or Republican majority in Congress. This meaningless poll only measures a mixture of the powers of prognostication, wishful, and fearful thinking of those who participate. I'm not heartened by the Democrats' edge. It is NOT AT ALL a predictor of the outcome of the elections, as it says NOTHING about how the participants will actually vote in November.

POLLS, HUMBUG!!!!!!!!!!!
Shos

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

POLLS, HUMBUG!!!!!!!!!!!

Yup. Complete agreement here.

[Shapley]

Shos,

Complete agreement here. Whether or not the people think the Congress should be in Democrat or Republican hands, the fact remains they can vote for one Representative and two Senators, and rarely both of them at the same time.

It's a stupid question for pollsters to ask.

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon@Work]

Polling like this is about as worthless as predictive newspaper articles. I stop reading any news article that attempts to predict future news. Sorry, you journalists have no more valuable insight than I do.

<small>[ 03-17-2006, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: BigJon@Work ]</small>

[Shapley]

You only have to recall Susan Estrich's smirking face as she explained that the exit polls clearly showed the John Kerry had a commanding lead and would be the next President of the United States.

Here's one of my favourite sites for polling information:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Notice that, when the poll is taken of registered voters or likely voters, the numbers tend to run two or three (or more) percentage points higher than the polls of the general population. I believe this is a consistent trend, so when pollsters want to report drastically lower numbers, they poll the general populace. My question, if they're not going to vote, why would we give a rats' rear-end what they think about politics? Every so often, a politician will claim to speak for them when they weigh in on one issue or another, but I would have to ask how they know? If they don't vote, how do we know (or why do we care) where they stand on any issue? My view is that, by being unwilling to participate in the electoral process, they say that they are willing to accept the decisions of others, whatever it may be (and, by the polls, accept it grudgingly).

In my opinion, you can pretty well disregard any poll that isn't limited to registered or, preferably, likely, voters.

V/R
Shapley


V/R
Shapley

[shostakovich]

UNANIMITY! SO RARE! S'WONDERFUL!
SHOS

<small>[ 03-17-2006, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: shostakovich ]</small>

[Shapley]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188633,00.html

Overall, the Republican candidates do a better job of keeping the support of their party faithful. McCain and Giuliani receive the backing of at least 80 percent of Republican voters, while in those same matchups Clinton is backed by just over 70 percent of Democrats and Kerry holds onto less than two-thirds. Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans to vote for the opposing party's candidate.

Among self-identified independent voters, Republicans have the advantage and receive about half of the vote in most of the matchups, with one exception — independents are more likely to support the Democrat when Cheney is the GOP candidate.

<small>[ 03-21-2006, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

And, of course, we can trust Faux News to quote accurate staistics when it comes to Rep vs. Dem.