Wow. That piece seems like a load of crap to me, but I look foward to Vorlen's take on it.
The LA Times polls are historically, structurally, so F^&%ed up, it is hard to know where to begin.
A few quick notes on party ID.
Firstly, both she and the author of the article acknowledge that 13% is high, their argument is that a combination of random error and a democratic surge make it high, but not absurd.
No where in the entire poll, anywhere in the news articles written, or anywhere in the publically available information, did they mention ANYWHERE that this poll contained 13% more Democrats than Republicans.
I am no news editor, but I think that was a relevant fact. Especially when the result was totally at odds with a typical result.
They go into the many, many tiny details of the poll, the 3% change in Iraq approval, Kerry's 2%gain in "strong leader" etc.. etc... The fact that Democrats outnumbers Republicans by a 1.58 to 1 margin slipped their minds...? I think not.
She quotes
ONE ABC news poll where the Dems were +10 in party ID. (which ABC weighted down in the reported result - another fact she forgot to mention)
This is a graphic of what ABC pollings says, as a trend, about party ID. (From pollingreport.com)
Doesn't look like an average of +10 to the Dems to me...
Gallup, over their last 40,000 interviews has found party ID to be within 0.3% of equality, PEW, over their last 15,000 interviews found the Dem's to have a 1.5% advantage.
The LARGEST democratic self identification advantage I could find over a large sample size was +5 from Harris
http://www.forrelease.com/D20040227/nyf126.P2.02272004181556.07849.htmlHarris even notes that the reason they have a few more democrats is that they ask the question a bit differently..
Some other polls report that the Democrats and the Republicans are now virtually equal. We believe the small differences between their numbers and ours reflect the use of slightly different questions; the trends are very similar.Regarding party ID, I guess you have to ask, are Gallup, ABC, Harris, and Pew all wrong and LA Times right, or the other way around.?"
I invite you to compare the polling record and reputation of the various organizations and make up your own mind
Structural Problems with LA Times PollThey just simply draw their samples wrong - it is a fundemental flaw in the way they do things.
This is part of an email I got from the LA Times deputy Polling Director:
From: Richardson, Jill [mailto:Jill.Richardson@latimes.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 2:17 PM
To: 'Ken Bosman'
Subject: RE: Request for additional information on recent LA Times poll
Ken,
- We purchased the state samples from Scientific Telephone Samples – www.stssamples.com, and we generated the national sample internally. This was accomplished by creating a series of replicates of 200 numbers each. These replicates are generated randomly from the pool of all exchanges in the nation. The only exclusions from the sample (post generation) are numbers we have called within the last year. We keep our database of area codes and exchanges updated via a subscription to Telechordia Technologies Active Code List.
- We do not adjust for marital status.What she is saying is a fancy talk for having a computer take all the phone numbers in the US and generate a random sample of PHONE numbers.
A random sample of PHONE NUMBERS is NOT the same as a random sample of actual VOTERS
Here is just one HUGE systemic bias towards the Democrats this method creates.
Married couples (two voters) usually have 1 phone line.
Single people (one voter) ALSO usually usually have 1 phone line also.
(Not a perfect 2 to 1 ratio, some singles have roommates, some families have more than 1 phone line, but roughly speaking true - The ratio of phone lines to voters among single people is much higher than the ratio of phonelines to married people)
Result? - In the LA Times poll, which is a random sample of TELEPHONE numbers, a non-married person has a dramatically(about 65% according to Survey Sample Int, who does the phone lists for Gallup, Harris, Rasmussen, Survey USA, etc) higher chance of being contacted as a married person.
Single people vote VERY differently from married people.
According to the 2000 Exit polls:
Married people voted 53/44 for Bush
Single people voted 57/38 for Gore
Again according to exit polls form 2000, Single people made up 35% of the electorate in 2000.
Do you think a poll that systemically and structurally has a dramatically higher chance of reaching a single people (Who voted 28% more Democratic than Married people) versus a married person might just maybe be a tad skewed?
Bottom line:
35% of the electorate (single people) who voted 57/38 Democratic are structurally OVER sampled
65% of the electorate (married people) who voted 53/44 Republican are systemically UNDER sampled...
