Well, if Gallup takes a random sample, then, yes, they will have a larger number of Republicans over Democrats -- by 37% to 34%.
"I mean, it would make sense that the country appears to be trending red in their eyes, they consistently have larger numbers of republican's
in their samples than democrats."
Or are you saying the Gallup organization "stacks" their sample with Republicans? If so, do you have any evidence for that assertion?
See the following selection about Gallup’s polling practices prior to the election:
And here is the polling data for the specific poll mentioned:
Likely Voter Sample Party IDs – Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%
Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)
Registered Voter Sample Party IDs – Same Poll
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%
Total Sample: 1022
GOP: 381 (38%)
Dem: 336 (33%)
Ind: 298 (30%)
In addition, here is an article from John Zogby, head of Zogby International, who speaks about similar inconsistencies between his companies polling
results and Gallup’s.
I wish I could offer some other articles that raised questions about Gallup’s polling prior to the election. However, this was the first one I could
find with another site that had the polling sample results.
Because they might want to win an election now and then?
"And since when does the democratic side of the country need to be more moderate?"
I don’t understand this question. How is being moderate equivalent to winning an election? What do you consider your definition of moderate? I’m sure
it’s not the same as mine. I bet the Bush administration’s definition of moderate would have a picture of W in the Webster’s dictionary.
In essence, this election was not about being moderate. I think it boiled down to many issues that prior elections did not have to deal with (i.e.
9/11, the war in Iraq, and security concerns at home). There was also a lot of talk about gay rights/marriage and other items that were not really at
the forefront of past elections. Anyway, this is way off topic and has little to do with the actual point of this thread.
Yes, and that seemed to help them quite a bit in 2004, n'est-ce pas?
"Last I checked, this isn't exactly a administration that holds true to most traditional conservative ideals. They seem much more right than
past republican administrations."
I don’t speak French, what does n’est-ce pas mean? I think it’s something similar to saying “is it not?” or “no?”
If that’s the case I don’t think it did help them a substantial amount. Bush managed to get 3% more of the popular vote this time. A gain, yes, but I
wouldn’t put it into the “quite a bit” category.
That's odd. A minute ago you were implying that Gallup wasn't objective at all. Which one is it?
"I don’t know, the poll data seems somewhat subject to me, and without being able to examine how the sample brakes down, I won’t be able to
consider it credible yet. I know, it is Gallup, and they’ve been doing this for years, but without sample data, dissecting poll data is useless."
In actuality, this was a failed attempt for me to say I’m not an expert on this subject matter while still giving Gallup credit since they have been
in the business for a long time. I just find it odd that a county that historically has about a 55% blue-44% red (I’m sure I’m off here) affiliation
would shift so dramatically. While yes, I do think some of it may be the “associate with winners” mentality, I just think this poll might be off and
not a realistic example of a trend.
Anyway, I did ask if “Should be interesting to see if any national papers, websites, or big blogs pick up on this and take it into the debate realm.
Have you come across anything yet about this on and big sites?” I haven’t seen too much of it outside of blatantly left web sites. So, I wouldn’t put
too much stock in this. However, I could be completely over looking some stuff, so please, if you have links about stories that dissect this poll a
bit, please offer them.
[edit on 15-12-2004 by The Big O]