I know you'll be shocked to the core. The NYT once again bases "newz" on a fraudulent poll that predicts doom & gloom for the GOP.
Of course they aren't trying to suppress the conservative vote, now are they?
****
Laying The Smackdown On The NYT’s Latest Poll (Again)
by Bull Dog Pundit @ 12:05 am.
Ankle Biting Pundits
OK, you all know the drill by now. The New York Times has again come out with a poll showing (again) that the Dems can’t lose come next Tuesday. And, again, the problem is that </b>the poll seems to bear no resemblance to those people who are actually going to, you know, SHOW UP to vote.
My point here is not to complain about the poll methodology, etc., but rather to again the decry the use of these polls to drive “news” stories and do “analysis” about the midterm election. The reason - the “news” stories provide no context about the poll demographics, nor do the polls accurately reflect who is actually going to show up on Election Day.
Here’s why I say this…
In the NYT poll, 23% of respondents aren’t even eligible to vote.
And of those 77% that are registered, a full 37% didn’t vote in the last mid-term election, and an additional 13% don’t remember if they voted then. Folks, that means that OVER HALF OF THE TOTAL RESPONDENTS DIDN’T VOTE/CAN’T REMEMBER VOTING IN 2002.
Plus, some 26% didn’t even bother to vote in the friggin 2004 Presidential election.
How in God’s name can the NYT seriously this poll to be reflective of anything?
Now let’s look at some of the specific demographic information that should give you pause.
1. Party ID of Respondents - The poll is made up of 35% Democrats and only 28% Republicans, even though in 2004 party ID of voters was even. While that’s not to say that it will be exactly the same this time, it should give pause.
2. Party Preference In Voting - This is one I’ve never seen before. The poll asked for what party the respondents generally voted. Only 26% of respondents 28% of respondents “Always” or “Usually” vote for Republicans (7% “Always’). However, a whopping 39% “Always” or “Usually” vote for Democrats. (14% “Always” and 25% “Usually”). Um, hasn’t the GOP been the majority party for the last 12 years?
3. Religion - 13% of respondents had no religion. In 2004, only 10% of voters had “no” religion” and voted overwhelmingly for Kerry by 36%.
Even more telling is that in the poll, 47% of respondents either “never” attend church or do so only a few times a year. In the 2004 election, those people made up only 43% of the electorate and voted for Kerry by about a total of +15%. (In fact in this poll 18% of voters “never” attend church, while in 2004 that number was 15%, and Kerry won them by a whopping 26%.
Further, Catholics make up only 22% of poll respondents, and in 2004, Catholics made up 27% of the electorate, and voted in favor of President Bush by +5%
4. Age of Respondents - When it comes to the age of the poll respondents, 22% were between 18-29 even though in 2004, only 17% of voters came from this age category, and voted for Kerry by +9%.
5. Marital Status - In this poll, only 57% of respondents are married. In 2004 63% of voters were married and voted for President Bush by +15%.
6. Weekend Polling - 3 of the 5 nights are weekends, and the poll director of the WP has previously admitted that weekend polls favor Democrats.
And yes, the numbers in both polls are dismal for the GOP, except that these polls are meaningless because we don’t know the Congressional districts of the respondents. Only about 40 CD races are competitive. Where are the respondents in these polls from?
There’s more, but I’ve got to get to work. And please, don’t misunderstand my point. I’m not saying the GOP is definitely going to win, or that they haven’t screwed up so bad (i.e. spending, immigration, Foley) that they won’t lose, nor that the polls are “bad”.
How do we know what the numbers were for the less than 50% of those that voted in 2002, or the approximately 70% of those registered that voted in 2004? It Could be that they actually make the numbers worse for the GOP. But it could just as likely make the numbers not so dismal. That’s the problem. There’s no context.
What I’m saying is that these MSM polls are being used to drive “news” stories and “analysis” (watch how many news and talk shows use these polls when discussing what might happen in 2006), when they bear no resemblance to the people who might actually show up to vote.
Take for example the headline of the poll’s “Analysis” -
<< “With Elections Approaching VOTERS Want A New Approach” >>
To put it mildly - Bullshit. The poll respondents want a new approach. But the problem is that the poll respondents aren’t necessarily “voters”.
And of course there’s this analysis of what the poll means relative to next Tuesday:
<<< Even beyond the war, the Times/CBS News poll, like most other polls this fall, contained worrisome indicators for Republicans as they go into the final days of a campaign in which many are bracing for a loss of seats in both the House and the Senate.
In a year when there are many close races, Democrats were more enthusiastic than Republicans about voting and more likely to say they would support their party’s candidates, although Republicans were slightly more likely to say they would actually vote.
Fifty percent of independent voters, a closely watched segment of the electorate in such polarized times, said they intended to vote for the Democratic candidate, versus 23 who said they would vote for a Republican. >>>
But unfortunately this is what we’ve come to expect from the “Paper of Record”.
anklebitingpundits.com
graphics8.nytimes.com
cnn.com
cnn.com
cnn.com
cnn.com
nytimes.com |
