Obama Up By 9% In WP Poll??????

[mundame]

Maybe you'll like this poll better -------- or maybe not.

The Fox News Poll just this minute came up. 1:40, 9/24/2008

Poll: Obama Regains Lead

Latest FOX News poll shows Democrat recapturing lead — 45 percent to 39 percent — over McCain.
**********************************

So has this poll been cooked too, RSR?

[red states rule]

Maybe you'll like this poll better -------- or maybe not.

The Fox News Poll just this minute came up. 1:40, 9/24/2008

Poll: Obama Regains Lead

Latest FOX News poll shows Democrat recapturing lead — 45 percent to 39 percent — over McCain.
**********************************

So has this poll been cooked too, RSR?

Polling was conducted by telephone September 22-23, 2008, in the evenings. The
total sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of ±3
percentage points. Results are of registered voters, unless otherwise noted.
LV = likely voters
Democrats n=369, ±5 percentage points; Republicans n=306, ±6 percentage points;
independents n=188, ±7 percentage points
Obama supporters n=409 ±5 percentage points; McCain supporters n=350, ±5
Whites n=751, ±4 percentage points; Blacks n=91, ±10 percentage points
Investors n=412, ±5 percentage points
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/092408_poll1.pdf

What I see here is registered and not likely voters. I am not saying Obama is not in the lead, but the lead is only about 2 to 4 points

[actsnoblemartin]

the only poll that matters, nov 4th, 2008

[mundame]

Whoa!!! I have to throw a bone to you, RSR.

The Wall Street Journal poll came out this morning. They show Obama with a two-point lead, which they call a statistical tie, because it's inside the margin of error.

But the interesting thing is their final paragraph, in which their pollsters disapprovingly analyze the same WaPo/ABC poll that RSR so disliked yesterday. The Journal found a higher error than RSR was claiming! (My emphasis

********************************************
The Journal/NBC News poll comes a day after a national poll conducted for the Washington Post and ABC News found Sen. Obama with a nine-point lead. Mr. Hart, the Journal's Democratic pollster, argued that these results were skewed because their sample included a disproportionate number of Democrats. Democrats had a 16-point advantage in the Post/ABC poll, which is considerably higher than most polls have found historically and even this year.

The Journal/NBC poll found an eight-point advantage for Democrats.

********************************************

You didn't detail what you were talking about yesterday, RSR, presumably because your Freeper source didn't either, but this is exactly the same issue that showed up when another poll was challenged earlier this year on the same basis, that it oversampled Dems, and that one was (I think!) charged with actually adding Dems, rather than just hitting too many by chance.

No one is saying here that WaPo/ABC is cooking the books on purpose. They are saying that their sampling vacuumed up too many Democrats, more than the proportion there actually are in the population, and thus gave a result that the whole voting population would not give, if polled (the whole population will never be polled, not even on November 4, of course, but only the voting population matters).

The Journal pollsters think the Dems have about an 8% numerical superiority in the voting population at this point and that therefore their poll reflects the whole voting population at this time. WaPo/ABC pollsters would presumably defend at least their randomization tactics, I don't know whether they are saying there actually are 16% more Dems, but that does seem high, and their poll is an outlier in terms of the big gap for Obama.


I'm guessing the Journal poll is on the low side re Obama's lead and the WaPo/ABC poll is high.

So you were onto something, RSR, though next time you might want to try to explain what you are trying to say.