Kerry "leading," even according to Gallup

[Chris Alger]

A Sept. 15 Gallup poll showed Bush leading by 13 points, prompting some to conclude the election was over. Today's NY Times has a story about newly worried GOP operators and Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=13567) just released a new poll showing Kerry leading by a point, with Bush's popularity on the plummet again.

[GWB]

Gallup readjusted their Party Mix ratios to stem the criticism of previous polls. This thread has a link to the data, (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1126979&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1#Post1127181) if you are interested.

Adjusting numbers to suit your critics... that gives me a lot of confidence in their numbers. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[adios]

But wait it can't be, grey assured us that Gallup was a biased in favor of the Republicans when it showed Bush was winning by 13. Now it shows Kerry winning in a few weeks? WOW maybe Kerry's really winning by 13 since Gallup is so obviously biased.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I don't think Gallup is biased at all. Whatever their poll says I am more likely to believe because they have been doing it the longest and probably have the most accurate system. I would say this with confidence regardless of who was winning.

[tolbiny]

Gallup has changed some of their polling methods since then. A nation wide poll doesn't really mean much (except in attempting to galvanize your voters) because all but a few key states are set. Individual state polls are much more important to predicting the winner IMo- except no one seems to agree on a decent polling system.

[tolbiny]

"Adjusting numbers to suit your critics... that gives me a lot of confidence in their numbers"

Your right GWB, we should all ignore our critics because we are all infallible and therefor should never
1 admit we were wrong
2 never stray from the course

They may very well have changed their polls because they had been convinced that there was a more accurate way to predict the outcome.

[adios]

I agree with your reasoning. It's grey that had the problem with Gallup and now not a word from him when it shows Kerry is doing much better.

[adios]

How accurate were the polls in 2000? If memory serves me correctly not all that accurate and the margin for error seems that it's impossible to glean a lot of useful information since the race is so close.

[ThaSaltCracka]

When George Gallup developed his system of polling people, everyone said he was wrong and that it was inaccurate, but remarkably it is an incredibly accurate and unbiased polling system. I can bet that the Gallup Company has refined their system greatly to where it is now. I would trust their polls over just about anyones, especially all these little dinky companies called "Freedom Polls for America" or whatever the hell their names are.

[tolbiny]

Hence the last line of my post-

I really don't think polls are important in close races, they seem to be more for entertainment value and rateings.
In fact this whole election seems like a ratings stunt more and more. (on both sides, not to mention the nader crap going on)

[anatta]

Grey HAD a problem and spoke up about it. Gallop corrected the problem. Why would grey complain now that the poll is accurate. The fact that Gallop changed the way they did things indicated that they realized they were doing something wrong, just like grey told you.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
A Sept. 15 Gallup poll showed Bush leading by 13 points, prompting some to conclude the election was over. Today's NY Times has a story about newly worried GOP operators and Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=13567) just released a new poll showing Kerry leading by a point, with Bush's popularity on the plummet again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really watch Gallup to tell ya the truth. I put my money on Zogby since he was the best in predicting the last election.

Zogby's WSJ poll (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04-frameset.html)

[adios]

grey stated that Gallup was in the Republicans camp and that Gallup was intentionally using the poll results to promote the Bush campaign.

[Cyrus]

Until I see a shift in the money lines, I'm not buying.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
grey stated that Gallup was in the Republicans camp and that Gallup was intentionally using the poll results to promote the Bush campaign

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. My mistake. Still, in his defense, he was correct that Gallup was oversampling Republicans. The buzz around liberal circles was that they were doing this intentionally. It is possible that they really were doing this to help Bush, but the heat that Moveon and others put on Gallup made them change out of fear of losing all legitimacy. I admit this is far-fetched, Gallup is probably doing their best. Still, you can see how liberal might get upset with 55-40 for Bush with 38 rep/ 31 dem sample sizes.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Still, you can see how liberal might get upset with 55-40 for Bush with 38 rep/ 31 dem sample sizes.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I can't when there's a lot of other polls indicating something much different and the only poll that counts is November 2, 2004. Never was the reaction the poll is flawed due to a sampling error, it was the poll is flawed due to a right wing conspiracy. I would think that someone with some intellectual honesty might actually post and admit that there was another possible explanation that is more plausible than the one they presented.