Gallup Poll Says U.S. Trending Republican After Election

Here's the link. You have to register to read the full text, but a brief synopsis is there to read.

www.gallup.com...

Here is more of the text from another web article:
www.editorandpublisher.com...

Are Newspaper Readers Going Republican, Too?

By E&P Staff

Published: December 14, 2004 5:00 PM ET

NEW YORK Even as a new Gallup poll shows that the public values �values� less than November exit polls suggested, another survey from the same outfit released today showed a historic surge in Republican party affiliation.

In Gallup's latest poll this month, those identifying themselves as Republicans jumped to 37% of the public, with Democrats now clearly trailing with 32%.

Democrats have long held more party members than Republicans. During the Clinton years, the bulge was about 5% to 6%. As recently as late-October of this year the Democratic edge was 37% to 34%.

Gallup noted today: �Post-election shifts in partisanship after presidential elections or midterm congressional elections are not routine, but are also not uncommon.�

Another Gallup poll also released today showed that, contrary to many press reports, �values� ranked well behind the war in Iraq, terrorism and the economy as a prime concern of Americans.

OK, democrats. The handwriting is clearly on the wall for you. Either you dump the far left people and rhetoric and move back to the center, or you may become resigned to history's garbage dump.



[edit on 12/14/2004 by centurion1211]

I'm all confused now.

Since when is Gallup taken seriously?

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.

It's like FoxNews coming out with a poll saying that most American's hate democrats.

And since when does the democratic side of the country need to be more moderate? 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 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.

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?

Maybe this is a form of side-effect from the comments of MoveOn.org and there claims to "owning joO" (ie: the Democratic Party).




seekerof

I looked at the second article in the post, and personally, I don't think Gallup is saying anything very surprising.

Self identification with a political party usually happens for most folks by listening to a candidate and saying "Yeah, that guy is right, I like his party" or "I'm definitely not with HIM."

Not surprisingly, I think most people with low levels of conviction will side with a winner, "My team won!"

US Trending Rupublican after election? Really, you think? I mean after all that made 7 out of the last 10 for Reps, so we are entering a Rep era after all.

If so, then I have lost faith in my own country. Republican policies will ruin this country.

The Big O says:

"Since when is Gallup taken seriously?"

Gallup has always been the best-known pollster; as far as I know they're pretty objective. Maybe you disagree with Gallup's methodology because you don't like what they're saying.

"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."

Well, if Gallup takes a random sample, then, yes, they will have a larger number of Republicans over Democrats -- by 37% to 34%.

Or are you saying the Gallup organization "stacks" their sample with Republicans? If so, do you have any evidence for that assertion?

"And since when does the democratic side of the country need to be more moderate?"

Because they might want to win an election now and then?

"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."

Yes, and that seemed to help them quite a bit in 2004, n'est-ce pas?

"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."

That's odd. A minute ago you were implying that Gallup wasn't objective at all. Which one is it?

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

I looked at the second article in the post, and personally, I don't think Gallup is saying anything very surprising.

Really? Read the article again. It specifically states that this kind of poll shift after an election is not routine.

Not surprisingly, I think most people with low levels of conviction will side with a winner, "My team won!"

Not surprisingly, I think most democrats with low levels of common sense will keep saying things like "My team was robbed!"

Sounds like (former) democrats are starting to see the light.


[edit on 12/15/2004 by centurion1211]

"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."

Well, if Gallup takes a random sample, then, yes, they will have a larger number of Republicans over Democrats -- by 37% to 34%.

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:

mediamatters.org...

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.

www.zogby.com...

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.

"And since when does the democratic side of the country need to be more moderate?"

Because they might want to win an election now and then?

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.

"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."

Yes, and that seemed to help them quite a bit in 2004, n'est-ce pas?

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.

"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."

That's odd. A minute ago you were implying that Gallup wasn't objective at all. Which one is it?

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]

Is this a politcal conspiracy?

You know, there's a whole political board now right? Look up....it says Politics@ATS.

[edit on 12/15/2004 by Flinx]

Can we move it there?

Government, Politics, Democrats, Republicans, Religion= Boring.