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

[red states rule]

On the surface it looks like Obama is breaking out. However if you look at the sample you will see the Washingon Compost oversamples Dems to get the results they wanted

and the Washington Post puts this poll, and gloats about the results on the front page



Washington Post-ABC News Poll [Details about Obama +9 "Poll"]
washington compost ^ | 9/24/08

Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:45:09 AM by mathprof

This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone September 19-22, 2008, among a random national sample of 1,082 adults, 916 registered voters and 780 likely voters. The survey includes additional interviews with randomly selected African Americans, for a total of 163 black respondents. The added interviews (commonly referred to as an "oversample") were completed to ensure there were enough African American respondents for separate analysis; the group was not over-represented in the reported results from the full sample. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Error margins are higher for subgroups. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2089189/posts

[mundame]

On the surface it looks like Obama is breaking out. However if you look at the sample you will see the Washingon Compost oversamples Dems to get the results they wanted


This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone September 19-22, 2008, among a random national sample of 1,082 adults, 916 registered voters and 780 likely voters. The survey includes additional interviews with randomly selected African Americans, for a total of 163 black respondents. The added interviews (commonly referred to as an "oversample") were completed to ensure there were enough African American respondents for separate analysis; the group was not over-represented in the reported results from the full sample. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Error margins are higher for subgroups. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

I'm not seeing the extra Dems you claim in the sample they say is "random"?

They say above they added interview to get enough blacks for a SEPARATE analysis but did not include those in the original "random" sample.

I saw one poll last spring in which the pollster admitted deliberately adding Dems ----- and he was very defensive about it, which he had better have been, because he sure didn't make a case on TV for that which persuaded me.

However, if the sample is in a defendable way "random," I don't see how there's a problem.

That is, it HAS to be random because we do not know beforehand what the proportions are, Dem-leaning versus GOP-leaning. You can't put in 50% of each, we KNOW it's not that. That would direly skew the results.

Random sampling of likely and probable voters is the only way that makes sense, I think. If you think differently, please explain. I read that Freeper site, but none of that was anything but assertions that since they didn't like the result, it must be crooked. Which is silly.

[red states rule]

I'm not seeing the extra Dems you claim in the sample they say is "random"?

They say above they added interview to get enough blacks for a SEPARATE analysis but did not include those in the original "random" sample.

I saw one poll last spring in which the pollster admitted deliberately adding Dems ----- and he was very defensive about it, which he had better have been, because he sure didn't make a case on TV for that which persuaded me.

However, if the sample is in a defendable way "random," I don't see how there's a problem.

That is, it HAS to be random because we do not know beforehand what the proportions are, Dem-leaning versus GOP-leaning. You can't put in 50% of each, we KNOW it's not that. That would direly skew the results.

Random sampling of likely and probable voters is the only way that makes sense, I think. If you think differently, please explain. I read that Freeper site, but none of that was anything but assertions that since they didn't like the result, it must be crooked. Which is silly.

There is a link to the WP Poll

Item # 901

10% more were Dem then Republican

[mundame]

There is a link to the WP Poll

Item # 901

10% more were Dem then Republican

If it's a random sample, then at least 10% more probably ARE Dem ------ that there are more Dems than Gopers is well known by now, it's been polled repeatedly for the past couple years.

If you are saying they should artificially choose 50% GOP and 50% Dem, that seriously would be inaccurate!! It would gravely overcount the GOPers and the poll would be useless. Are you saying that?

The WaPo/ABC poll hired pollsters that claim they made a random sample. Are you denying this, RSR? Are you saying they fiddled the sample while claiming it was random? If so, you'd have to back that up, surely.

I think there is a lot of fooling around with polls, but the big ones done by the big newspapers and TV networks in combination, as they have been doing all this season, are usually good enough unless it's Zogby. If someone does something......adventurous, like that poll where they oversampled Dems last spring, other pollsters get on TV and attack him.

So let's wait and see the next big one before we call it a "breakout." I prefer the RCP averages of polls, myself.

I think the best polls are probably the private, secret ones the candidates do; these tend to leak out from time to time. Because the candidates really need to know.

[red states rule]

If it's a random sample, then at least 10% more probably ARE Dem ------ that there are more Dems than Gopers is well known by now, it's been polled repeatedly for the past couple years.

If you are saying they should artificially choose 50% GOP and 50% Dem, that seriously would be inaccurate!! It would gravely overcount the GOPers and the poll would be useless. Are you saying that?

The WaPo/ABC poll hired pollsters that claim they made a random sample. Are you denying this, RSR? Are you saying they fiddled the sample while claiming it was random? If so, you'd have to back that up, surely.

I think there is a lot of fooling around with polls, but the big ones done by the big newspapers and TV networks in combination, as they have been doing all this season, are usually good enough unless it's Zogby. If someone does something......adventurous, like that poll where they oversampled Dems last spring, other pollsters get on TV and attack him.

So let's wait and see the next big one before we call it a "breakout." I prefer the RCP averages of polls, myself.

I think the best polls are probably the private, secret ones the candidates do; these tend to leak out from time to time. Because the candidates really need to know.

Mundame, libs conduct their polls like they do their recounts

They keep doing them until they get the results they desire

They WP did the same thing in 2004 and they Kerry way ahead of Pres Bush. Then they are stunned when their guy lost

[mundame]

Mundame, libs conduct their polls like they do their recounts

They keep doing them until they get the results they desire

They WP did the same thing in 2004 and they Kerry way ahead of Pres Bush. Then they are stunned when their guy lost

Was that the famous Zogby poll? That was pretty funny, but he WAS the only one who got that result. I don't trust Zogby at all: his polls always, 100% slant Dem.

However, I don't believe the polls from the big media are slanted. I think they do want to know, and tell the people. After all, they've had several pro-McCain results since his convention bounce, and you didn't say those were inaccurate. Now one is showing something different.

I do like to see several to see a trend, but I don't think these big polls are crooked. As long as you keep Zogby out.

[red states rule]

Was that the famous Zogby poll? That was pretty funny, but he WAS the only one who got that result. I don't trust Zogby at all: his polls always, 100% slant Dem.

However, I don't believe the polls from the big media are slanted. I think they do want to know, and tell the people. After all, they've had several pro-McCain results since his convention bounce, and you didn't say those were inaccurate. Now one is showing something different.

I do like to see several to see a trend, but I don't think these big polls are crooked. As long as you keep Zogby out.

Maybe you are right the liberal media is not slanting the polls to Obama. Maybe they are following the rules of Afirmative Action

[Abbey Marie]

So now we are using Affirmative Action in polling too?

[red states rule]

So now we are using Affirmative Action in polling too?

Seems logical to me Abbey

But let's not forget racism

How many articles have already "predicted" and "explained" that will be the reason the messiah loses

What some MSM outlet needs to do is to practice CYA and report how "Obama will lose because he is an empty suit with questionable associations and Americans don't trust him or his judgment"

Not that is wishful thinking

[mundame]

Maybe you are right the liberal media is not slanting the polls to Obama. Maybe they are following the rules of Afirmative Action

Pretty cute.

I guess they DID do affirmative action, in the sense that they sampled extra blacks for "separate analysis," they said.

As long as they didn't include the extras in the main poll results, and they SAID they didn't, that doesn't matter.

[Immanuel]

Maybe you are right the liberal media is not slanting the polls to Obama. Maybe they are following the rules of Afirmative Action

So now we are using Affirmative Action in polling too?

Seems logical to me Abbey

Seems to me that this is a stretch RSR.

They said it was a random sample across America. Now, if they did a "random sample" by dialing only zip codes in New York, Illinois and California that would not be such a random sample but there is no proof that this was done.

Immie

[red states rule]

Seems to me that this is a stretch RSR.

They said it was a random sample across America. Now, if they did a "random sample" by dialing only zip codes in New York, Illinois and California that would not be such a random sample but there is no proof that this was done.

Immie

It is not hard Immie. All the WP had to do was poll4% fewer Dems and 5% more Republicans

They oversample Dems, get the tresults they want, and put the results on the front page as a news story

[mundame]

It is not hard Immie. All the WP had to do was poll4% fewer Dems and 5% more Republicans

They oversample Dems, get the tresults they want, and put the results on the front page as a news story

Sure, RSR, but DID they do that?

And do you have any proof they did? They SAID they took a random sample.

Believing things simply because you want them to be true is perhaps not the best reason for belief.

[red states rule]

Sure, RSR, but DID they do that?

And do you have any proof they did? They SAID they took a random sample.

Believing things simply because you want them to be true is perhaps not the best reason for belief.

I already answered that question

Here you go

There is a link to the WP Poll

Item # 901

10% more were Dem then Republican

[Immanuel]

It is not hard Immie. All the WP had to do was poll4% fewer Dems and 5% more Republicans

They oversample Dems, get the tresults they want, and put the results on the front page as a news story

I am sure that polling companies know all the tricks of the trade to get the results they want. But, if they do it too often and their results are always off base, then they lose credibility and eventually they are out of business. Of course, if they are an arm of a much larger business such as The Alan Guttmacher Institute, they don't have to be accurate because their funding comes from NOW and Feminist Organizations rather than people who want serious and accurate information.

Immie