Slashdot Mirror
Are Today's Polls Clueless?
Frisky070802 writes "As noted on electoral-vote, Jimmy Breslin has an interesting article in Newsday on why polls are broken. This is because they poll only landline phones, and a substantial fraction of younger people have only cell phones -- so they hit a biased demographic. If a majority of younger voters tend Democratic, the polls could be giving Kerry a raw deal. Hmm, could this be why two polls released this week vary so widely?"
Most polls lack the all-important CowboyNeil option.
Ceci n'est pas un post.
Don't have landlines. I don't, most of my friends don't. The people overseas don't. I think Breslin makes some really good points in his article. What it comes down to is that polls just don't seem to add up.
Memories become legend, Legend fades to myth, and even myth is forgotten by the time that age comes again.-Robert Jordan
Based on my experience as a college graduate of this year, I can say pollsters are definitely missing a huge segment of the 18-25 population. NONE of my friends (yeah, I have friends, thank you very much) have a landline to their apartment, and instead rely on cell phones, as do I. Of course, this is in NYC--which raises the question, do rural and suburban areas (read: swing states) also have large populations ditching their landlines for mobiles? If not, it wouldn't seem to affect polls in those areas as much.
The people who say they want to vote for Bush are generally in the older age brackets, and they don't have as much trouble with the lies told by Bush and his people.
Biased anyone?
The key thing to remember is that people who carry cell phones tend to be younger and more liberal than people with land lines. As such, polls that ignore cell phones tend to have fairly skewed results.
Going door-to-door is probably the best alternative at this point, though there are flaws with that as well.
The devil is in the details here. First, of the 168 million cell phones, how many of those are owned by people who have no landline? And of those, how many are likely to vote?
.4*.35*.36*168 million is about 8 million votes that aren't included in the poll. Of those (at the very most). I bet it's 60/40 Kerry/Bush. I don't think it's really large enough to cause a dramatic turnaround in the election, but it is big enough to increase the margin of error in the polls.
Using my unscientific survey (i.e. my life as a college student) about 40% of 18-22 year olds don't have a cell phone. I would estimate that segment of the population to own maybe ~35% of the cell phones. In the last election we voted at about 36%. Thus,
On a side note: does anyone know if they survey all of the likely voters in a household, or just the person who answers? (I've never been polled)
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
I have seen a lot of sloppy polling. You have the big problem of the callers cheating, faking data and all kinds of crap you wouldn't belive. when they say + or - whatever % don't belive it for a minute
http://Lenny.com
I don't think this is the problem. Demographics like gender, race and political party, preference, etc., are usually corrected for, although I don't know about these polls specifically. They will either adjust the group they poll so that they are half men and half women, for instance, or adjust the weighting of the answers so they are effectively half men and half women. Unless people with cell phones hold different opinions that those with land lines--that is not accounted for by gender, race or political party, etc.--this will not be a problem.
I think the difference is just the inherent inaccuracy in conducting a political poll.
Now, while I agree that Bush has told some whoppers in the White House, pointing out this non-sequitur in an article that's supposed to be about bad polling methods really undermines his message. If he hopes to get better youth representation in future polls, the writer has best not look like a partisan shill while he's trying to influence the pollsters into changing their methods. He may as well have just wrote down a Dean-esque "YEARGH!" in print... his advice is going to be ignored as if he did so.
Those who complain about affect & effect on
If younger people typically don't have landlines, and thus are missed by the polls, and younger people stereotypically don't vote in anywhere near the percentages of older people, wouldn't this be making the polls more accurate?
Thank goodness they don't poll people with cell phones. I'm perfectly happy not getting solicitation calls on my cell phone.
Find some other way to handle this demographic.
The 18-25 demographic doesn't vote.
See http://www.fec.gov/pages/agedemog.htm
Year after year, Americans under age 25 fail to do their civic duty. Why do you think the drinking age is 21?
Young adults might support Kerry over Bush... if they bothered to *vote*.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
HA-HA!
What comes around goes around, I guess.
About 10 or 15 years ago, some dude named John Zogby surmised that the standard political telephone polls we skewed toward the left because their methodologies involved making the calls during the day, when older Americans -- who tended to be more conservative -- were more likely to be preoccupied with activities like working, shopping and running errands. He started company to prove he was right. Here's his bio.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Door to Door might work better- but nobody wants to pay for that anymore. Calling phone numbers truly at random might work- but you've got more than just the United States in that list (Canada is also tied into the 10 digit dialing system, as are a few other places like the US Virgin Islands). I think that one guy has the best idea- move forward to internet polling of truly large samples.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
While I understand your comment is tongue-in-cheek, there's actually a number of states that make it quite difficult for homeless to vote.
There's been attempts to get them voting, but it's quite a challenge. In Oregon, for example, ballots are all sent in the mail. Now, you can use the election clerk's office as a mailing address, but that means physically picking it up. I suspect most homeless people are more interested in little things like shelter and food than going through the hassle it takes to vote.
I've been polled twice. They wanted to talk to a regsitered voter. I suspect they just talk to the first one, or in one case play recorded messages and record touchtones of the first one.
n(prime)% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
This sig no verb.
The people who say they want to vote for Bush are generally in the older age brackets, and they don't have as much trouble with the lies told by Bush and his people.
Yeah, because we all know that older people don't mind when a president and "his people" lie to the nation. And clearly everyone knows the president has lied to all of us. It's just that older people don't mind. Huh?
The young people on cell phones appear not to be listening and they hear every syllable. They punch out a number without looking. They are quicker, and probably smarter at this time, and almost doubtlessly more in favor of Kerry than Bush.
Yeah, and we all know that the younger people who are also smarter will doubtless vote for Kerry (probably a direct consequence of their increased intelligence). Only the old, stupid, slow people would not mind Bush's lies and vote for him and "his people."
Older people complain about Kerry's performance as a candidate. Younger people don't want to get shot at in a war that most believe, and firmly, never should have started because it was started with a president lying.
And obviously the older generation will be more concerned with trivial details such as the candidate's "political record" and "performance" while the younger, smarter people don't want to die and therefore don't want to vote for a liar who sends people to their death for a pointless cause.
Celebrate the finer things in life
Does any politician really care what young people think? The only votes that truly matter are the middle-aged middle-class votes. Period. All middle-aged, middle-class people have land lines. Wait 20 years when all the youngsters are middle-aged and then the polling methods will change.
Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
Let's question them! Because obviously they're not accurate!
A lot of younger people have cell phones, true.
But, a lot of younger people, quite frankly, "can't be bothered" to vote. (Idiots)
I think it evens out, yes they are missing some voters, but I think that the amount they are missing is quite negligible. I'm sure they have thought of this dilemma.
When the 60+ crowd (who are the 'best' voters) get cell phones, I'll start thinking we may need a better system, but until then I think we'll be ok.
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
they only get to ask those people who dont hangup on them.
it would be interesting to see a poll that showed the response rate. A lot of people hang up on pollster calls, thinking they're telemarketers or something, often before the questions even get asked. Therefore, if Gallup or USAToday or Quinnipeac (sp?) phoned 20000 numbers, show how many or what percentage of them took time to actually answer the pollster's questions.
the other thing I would like to see on these public opinion polls are how the questions are presented to the pollee. E.g, phrasing of the questions, multiple choice or open ended, etc.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Anytime I see a caller I don't recognize on Caller ID, I don't answer the phone and let the answering machine deal with it. Such calls have increased in frequency over the last few months; I wonder how many of those calls I don't answer are pollsters or campaign fundraisers?
I wonder if Caller ID has a neutral or skewing effect on the accuracy of polling today?
"It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
This is a tad unrelated, but I've got a big problem with polls on newspaper sites. For instance, CNN may run an article on how the war in Iraq was a bad thing (a viewpoint article), then, have a poll attached to it with the Q: "Do you think the war in Iraq was bad?" Yes/No ... of course, someone who just read an opinion article about how bad it was will probably vote the way the article did.
Just irritating. Anyone else seen stuff like this and wish to add to it?
-- Jinsaku
I wonder how that information was gathered... Maybe some sort of sampling method like a poll? Maybe a hunch? Totally made up, perhaps?
Nah, I'm sure it's totally reliable and accurate information from a completely unbiased unquestionably authoratative source.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
their sample is biased towards people that don't have anything better to do with their time! That eliminates most working people or people with children. Personally, I consider my time to be worth at least $60/hour, so if you want me to spend 10 minutes answering questions, you'd better pay me $10 -- otherwise I'll use that time to play with my 3-year old kid instead!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
The reason for Gallop's very high poll numbers for Bush was based on its bizarre assumptions on turnout. This is well documented in Zogby's critique of Gallop:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=859
Gallop assumes for that poll assumes that the turnout on election day will break down as follows:
Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)
However, as zogby noted:
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 Republicans are badly over-sampled and Democrats badly under-sampled, giving systematically biased results. Awful polling, but used to keep Republicans motivated and Democrats depressed.
I live in rural Minnesota and have done some calling for local politicians. Political parties can't even get their contact lists right, I can't imagine a polling entity being any more accurate.
Even within rural areas like this it is almost impossible to get a handle on who is for or against whom. In this divisive political environment people are not speaking their minds because they are afraid of being singled out and of hostility. This alone pretty much guarantees that polls will not be accurate.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
This article may help support my comment. To be fair, that age group tends to be pretty volatile. Earlier this year, I think they were fairly evenly tied. In recent months, the war on Iraq is making a greater difference in that age group, probably due to worries about a potential draft.
And before anyone asks about evidence for young people's concern over the Iraq war, here's a recent survey
they tend to be the most uninformed voters. and who wants uninformed voters voting?
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00] ...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits 'would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
George Bush does. He wants voters who believe that Iraq was behind 9/11. He wants voters who don't understand what "deficit spending" is. He wants voters who don't know anything about how he got into the National Guard while others were being sent to Vietnam. He wants voters who don't know how "nuclear" is pronounced.
John Flip Flop Kerry!
Bush is the king of Flip-Flops:
1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]
3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]
4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
Given that Bush has been caught in a stream of lies; outright lies and lies of omission (as well as blatent attempts to mislead the American voters and vast distortions), it's not "partisan" to say he's a liar. It's a statement of fact.
However biased (I mean this is the statistical sense) the poll results are, whatever real votes will be cast, you know deep in your heart that Cheney will reappoint himself ruler of the USA.
;)
He is the real President, he was the one taking the decisions in that breefing room in the morning of the 9th of September 2001. Decisions like keeping Bush away from Wahsington that day.
He certainly won't let democracy get in the way. Yes that's just my opinion, but when you wake up early on the 5th of November with anguish churning in your stomach, remember that I Told You So(TM)
Maybe we deserve this world ?
And I got within 1-2% of the final result.
The polling companies slice their data up by demographic, and then recombine them to get a picture of the electorate. Its pretty easily, really.
If 33% of the population is green,
40% purple,
27% orange,
then if green people are 2-1 for pepsi vs. coke, purple people 1-2 for coke, and orange people mixed you get: 48% Pepsi, 52% Coke. It doesn't quite matter what the ratios of green, purple and orange people are that you end up talking to as long as you talk to enough people in each box.
So while its possible that there is a shift, its only if Kerry voters are more likely to be landline-less no so much because landlineless people are less likely to be polled.
If a majority of younger voters tend Democratic, the polls could be giving Kerry a raw deal.
If, if, if, if, if...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I think it's better when a candidate is able to change their stance based on new information.
It's too bad this election has been showing this as a bad thing.
Lots of people remember the Chicago Daily News headline, but this story harkens back to the 1948 race.
Back in 1948, Thomas Dewey (he-of-the-new-york-state-thruway-fame) was polling ahead of President Truman. No one expected that Truman would win. However, after the votes were counted, Truman won.
Afterward it was discovered that extra Truman support came from urban and rural poor, the people who didn't have phones, and therefore they weren't polled.
There was even a third-party candidate back then: Strom Thurmond, the "Dixiecrat" who bailed on the Democratic party because Truman had the gall to support civil rights reforms (like integrating the military). "Ol' Lizard King", as I like to call Thurmond, apparently felt it was okay to secretly father children with "Negroes" (although he preferred a different N-word), but southern states shouldn't have to give up segregation.
Of course, back in 1948 you had two decent, qualified people running for president, today we're lucky if we get one.
My father is a blogger.
The fact that many of use have call blocking, privacy features, and answering services/machines. I can't say that I would even answer a poll call.
Aside from the sheer fact that Polls are slanted and do NOT include all of the candidates!
:-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again.
back at my parents' house, out in the land where they still haven't wired cable and the phone lines are only good enough to get 28.8k, cell phones are next to worthless. My other family members have them just in case they are going into a city sometime and need to call home.
I think it's better when a candidate is able to change their stance based on new information.
Unfortunately, in Bush's case, that "new information" usually comes from focus groups and opinion polls.
No, that's Kerry. Bush is just outright lies the first time around. He might change his words, but whatever he does he planned to do from the start.
Flip flops aren't a bad thing.
Usually yes, being flexible is a good thing, if you "flip flop" for the right reasons. The list presented above were all "flip flops" Bush did based on what was most politically expedient.
Voters hate it when politicians seem to change their minds to get votes. It makes the candidate seem like they're whoring or lying and aren't to be trusted. Why Kerry, who has a decades long political career, gets slammed for a few minor revision to his overall political philosophy and Bush, who has managed all these 180 degree turns in 10 years (and most in the last 4) gets a free ride is beyond me.
-dameron
----
DailyHaiku.com, saying more in 17 syllables than Big Media says all day.
First, I think that today's poll likely overstates Bush's gain, but I think that there is a definite gain. And I think that it can be explained thus: the two polls from last week that show a virtual tie ended on Monday and Tuesday respectively. Today's poll ended after the forged memos broke open.
It should be noted that people under 25 are disproportionately conservative, though not disproportionately Republican - there have been several surveys exploring this.
It should be noted that Republicans disproportionately refuse to answer polls in general for a variety of reasons, and that polls taken over the weekends in particular favor Democrats. Not sure why this is; the speculation seems to be that Republicans tend to be out more on weekends.
It should most emphatically be kept in mind that all polls are wrong. Each method for correcting (likely voters/registered voters, bias weighting and so forth) has some problem and/or some amount of guesswork. Polls are also point-in-time snapshots of opinion. This makes them useful primarily in a trend-mapping mode rather than taking any given poll on its face.
The worst characteristic of polls related to forecasting public opinion is that they are a lagging measure. They cannot predict changes based on events. For example, if John Kerry were to make a convincing speech that unites his various past opinions into a logical whole, and presenting a reasonable plan for how to win the war and manage the future, that could swing the polls quite dramatically. On the other hand, so could a terrorist attack in the US (could push things in either direction). Leadership and events matter, and neither of them are predicted by polls, only reflected after the fact. (This is also why dirty campaigning works very close to the election, such as the DWI attack on Bush in 2000, which cost Bush about 4% support within a few days of the election.)
My guess from looking at the trends and comparisons to past voting patterns and their relationship with polls at that time is that Bush has an overall 4-6% lead, and it's growing. If it moves towards an actual 10-12% lead, this could be the most lopsided electoral vote talley since 1984. I would be stunned if either candidate could get even 60% of the vote in today's political climate. I would not be surprised if Bush gets 55-57%, unless the course of the election changes dramatically in the next 6 weeks.
Most sadly of all, the inept Kerry campaign has made it virtually certain that the Democrats will not be able to change the situation in the House or Senate, either one of which would act as a curb on any tendency to overexuberant behavior by the Republicans.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Check it out. Bush leading 50% to 41% amoung registered (not even "likely") voters.
Now, are you also going to argue that CBS and the New York Times are biased towards Republicans?
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
The real kicker about polls isn't so much who's asked, but what they're asked. Small variations in wording on the surveys result in very different answers by those being polled.
Polls are pretty accurate, but what's reported isn't always an accurate representation of what was queried.
No, that's Kerry. Bush is just outright lies the first time around. He might change his words, but whatever he does he planned to do from the start.
I really get pissed off at the right-wing spin machine. Frankly, Kerry has not "flip-flopped" as they would like to pretend. They take things like omnibus spending bills, which fund everything from museums to studies of why farts smell bad, and then pull out individual pieces from them: "John Kerry said that he would protect our troops and then John Kerry voted against a bill to pay for them to have body armor." What they don't mention is that the other 135 items included things millions of dollars to compensate Exxon for the the loss of oil soaked up by Alaskan wildlife after oil spills.
Polls have had problems like this for years. For example, what about the millions of people who simply *are not home* to accept phone calls? This problem didn't suddenly spring into existence with the advent of cell phones, it just made idiots like Breslin understand the problems better.
When the subject is discussing the relative merits of polling systems then uses political invective to buttress its arguments.
There's another group too, *totally* unaccounted for by the polls: Americans living overseas. Here's a couple of factoids:
I got the first point from this site a few days ago. The front page keeps changing, so here's the text:"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
Two polls (Harris Interactive, and Pew) show the race being even. The outlier is Gallup which has Bush ahead.
So lets do some quick and easy math.
Kerry 46% Bush 46 % (Pew)
Kerry 48% Bush 47% (Harris Interactive)
Kerry 41% Bush 52% (Gallup)
Now lets average both candidates and reach some middle ground:
Kerry 45 Bush 48.3
(The margin of error is +/- 3 or 4 points)
Is this accurate? No. But its something to think about.
What is it with all those "US territories" anyways? Does nobody else find it strange that they can't vote/don't have US citizenship/rights , and that they are still a part of the US? Does that make the US president their unelected dictator? Why don't they "count" anyways? If I were one of them I'd be royally pissed everytime bush mentions the word democracy.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
You had to be a land owner in the US to be eligible to vote.
No foolin'.
I know some people with no phone at all. I bet they aren't counted.
Those damn kids with their text messaging.
8 24 3
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/19/191
Anyway, cellphones are more popular amongst younger voters and less popular amongst older voters.
And younger voters do tend to vote Democrat more than older voters.
So the polling could be missing a segment of the population that will be voting more heavily Democrat. Personally, I know two people who only have cell phones and I intend on annoying them into voting.
"(Of course, this is using the latest re-definition of "lie" to mean "anything opposed to the truth" (and we'll just leave "truth" up in the air), as opposed to the rather more reasonable definition of "knowingly telling a falsehood"."
I prefer "misleading someone to suit your goals".
Under your definition, half-truths, evasions, rumours, beliefs and such are all "true" in that they aren't "lies".
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again into bondage."
Alexander Frasier Tytler
"The decline and fall of the Athenian republic"
It looks like we're at "apathy" now. Time to break the cycle.
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist, Gay Alien Whale Party, whatever...just do it
Which is "misleading someone to suit your goals".
"The opposite of "lying" is not "saying a true statement". You can truthfully tell a falsehood, and you can lie but tell the truth (accidentally)."
Which is the root of the problem. It is possible to not tell the truth (even when you know you are not telling the truth) but not to "lie" under too many definitions for "truth" and "lie".
"Your definition fails to account for pathological liars who think what they are saying isn't true but they aren't misleading for any particular "goal"."
I don't know if they don't have goals. They're pathological. I believe that I just don't understand their goals nor can I understand them.
"Of the things you list, the only correct criticism is "belief"; yes, if someone honestly believes a falsehood and says it they are not "lying"."
I can agree with that. As long as they fit the rest of my definition of not misleading someone.
"We get that all the time around here; they aren't "lying", they are simply wrong, which, while still bad, is nowhere near as morally offensive."
Yep. But, again, that gets back to my definition including "misleading". Maybe I should have put "intentionally misleading" or "Attempting to mislead" there instead of "misleading".
Will the person you are talking to choose a different course of action if s/he knew all the facts related to the situation that you know? (Regardless of whether those "facts" are indeed facts as long as you believe they are.)
If so, and you have not present all of those facts and/or you have presented other items then you have lied.
It's a very broad definition, but I feel that such is needed.
Would you people just knock it off? You have two candidates with any concievable chance of winning the election, and they're both dicks. Get over it.
Is it any wonder after the push polls over the last decade that fewer voters are willing to honestly answer the questions of strangers who phone them?
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
You have two candidates with any concievable chance of winning the election, and they're both dicks.
How can you say that about John Kerry? He may not be the most charismatic speaker or the most personable guy to ever run for office, but he's a decent man who has served with honor and dignity in the military and in elected office. Really, what has he done that makes you think that he is a "dick"?
Yep, I've seen it attributed to various sources. I thought that was the original. :)
Personally, I think the polls are missing the big story this election: voter turnout. I am seeing a lot more young people being politically active, I expect that could swing the vote in unexpected ways.
The Bolachek Journals
Nothing. The "liberal" media's been whispering it in his ear for the last year and a half or so, though.
Younger people don't want to get shot at in a war that most believe, and firmly, never should have started because it was started with a president lying...
So I suppose that they are supporting Kerry because Kerry has publicly stated that he will add 40,000 troops to the Army. As a volunteer Army, where will these 40,000 troops come from?
As for Bush, who would you rather have in prison now, Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden? Bush's "adventure" in Iraq has cost over 1,000 Americans their lives, and we are no closer to punishing the 9/11 murderers than we were three years ago.
The government which governs best, governs least. The only anti-war, pro-American Defense (not Offense), let you run your own life candidate is Libertarian Michael Badnarik. He will be on the ballot on all but 1 or 2 states.
Let Badnarik debate!
-Ace
This is my standard answer for everyone who calls me for polls, surveys, etc. I have no idea who the caller is or how the information will be used, and in this watch-what-you-say era I would be nuts to tell some "pollster" something somebody might not approve of. Hey, I have to fly on airplanes sometimes. Assuming there are lots of others like me (or even people who LIE to pollsters) this would be an even better reason to distrust polls than any statistical demographic difference between cell phone and non-cell phone users.
I'm not surprised polls skew Republican. I've never been asked to do a poll, but if they did call I wouldn't waste my time. I have the feeling quite a large percentage of my generation would do the same. Older folks, typically more conservative, are probably a lot more likely to "play ball" with pollsters. This doesn't reflect how the masses will actually vote...
BUT it's a big problem. The results make headlines, and headlines sway public opinion. Seeing Kerry down 15% is disheartening and will certainly cause potential democratic voters either to give up (why bother if he's just going to lose?) or "swing" their vote the other way.
my password is private, but unchanged.
Pollsters do not adjust things based on what is being polled--candidate in this case. This is such an obviously wrong thing they would not be able to get any customers. Even if you wanted a poll to favor your side, you wouldn't use them because their results would be wrong and unpredictable.
"Hey, Republicans, don't even bother worrying so much about getting to the voting booths. It's in the bag, as the polls show! So sit back and watch the returns on FOX news, don't bother yourself with voting!"
MORTAR COMBAT!
A good summary can be found here
ABC, American Viewpoint, CBS/NYT, Gallup, Harris, Hart, Marist College, Opinion Dynamics, Princeton Survey, Pew, Newsweek, Bloomberg, CNN/USA Today, and Fox all predicted Bush.
So the polls lean which way again?
They point to a more persistent problem, the widespread usage of caller screening technologies that have been adopted to ward off telemarketers. "Recent compilations of response rates in telephone surveys by the Council for Marketing and Opinion Research suggest that studies with short field periods are now averaging about 10 percent, although most media polls have response rates in the 30-45 percent range"
It doesn't take much of a stretch to realize that it is the more affluent and educated that generally spend the time and money to avoid unwanted interruptions by the telephone. This seems to me to make a very slight (maybe a point or less in most polls) conservative bias in many polls.
The upshot for those who want to get their voice heard by a pollster - pick up the phone when the caller ID says "unknown caller". It might be someone asking your opinion about presidential candidates. Of course, it probably is someone asking you to buy storm windows or somesuch.
open mind: teaching computers the stuff
I don't know much about the state of polls in the US, but some of you guys seem to be pretty much bitching about them, so the methodology used by the US firms seems to be broken.
In Quebec, Canada, where I live, we have a pretty good poll firms. At least when it comes to politics. When a poll is done, there is never more than a 5% difference from the real result. Heck, in 1995, all 3 major poll firms said that Quebec's referendum for independence would end up 50%-50% and turns out it was 49.7% and 50.3% IIRC.
If the polls are so bad in states, maybe the companies should see how polls are done in other countries.