Vorlon, I just read

[The Vorlon]

that Democratic pollster Mark Mellman doesn't think much of Gallup's likely voter numbers this far out.  If I'm not mistaken, I think this jives more or less with what you have said.  I seem to remember you saying that it's not designed to work well this long before the election - that it's only accurate at election time.

Point #1

Mellman works for Kerry, any poll showing a Bush lead is fatally flawed.

Bush pollster Matthew Dowd however is of the opinion that all polls showing Bush ahead are methodologically perfect.

But serioulsy, Mellman works for Kerry, what did you expect him to say "Ya, Gallups right, we're getting F$%king killed in Ohio and Missouri, we're thinking of pulling out of those states..."

Point #2

Re Gallup's likely voter screen.

2 months out ANY likely voter screen, by any company, is, well, a crap shoot.

Every reputable pollster, including Gallup, will tell you that 2 months out ANY LV screen is a shot in the dark.

Gallup's model screens for BOTH past voting intentions AND current level of interest/excitement about the race.

This can, and often does, produce larger swings than actually occur in the electorate when you are 2 months out.

Here is an example:

I am doing a poll to determine if the St Louis Rams or SF 49ers have the most have the most fans, but I am limiting my survey to "Likely" football fans - those fans who are in the top 55% of all fans in terms of "excitement" about their team.

It is the 2nd week of the season and the 49ers just beat the Rams 57-0.

Needless to say, 49er fans are more excited, Ram fans are not.  If I did a poll just after the game, I bet the 49ers would do well, the Rams, not so well.

Fast Forward to just before a big 49ers/Rams playoff game.

Here one could reasopnable expect before the big game (ie just before the actual election) that a "likely" voter screen would worh much, much more accurately as both teams fans would have similar levels of excitement not artificailly pumped up or down by a good/bad regular season game.

Gallup has changed the way the have done things versus 2000.

In 2000 they were using the same 55% turnout assumption many months out for the actual election date, and Gallup showed huge week to week swings that just were not there as Gore and Bush alternately had good weeks and supported popped in and out of the "likely" voter pool.

In 2004 Gallup has extended their likely voter screen out to 75% or so which is a reasonable "possible" voter poll level this far out.

Bottom Line....

Gallup is indeed a bit more volitile this far out than other polls due to the way they do their screening.  

I would note however that the interest levels being shown by the electorate right now are very close to where they typically are in say mid October by historical standards.

Gallup is a very very good poll.

I never take any ONE poll as the sole and only truth.  When Gallup says Bush is up 8 in Ohio - that means something, but it doesn't mean the race in Ohio is over.

I think, as I have previously posted, Bush has a "real" lead of 3-4% Nationally, and right now an extra 3-4% of lead that is post convention froth that will likely fade away pretty fast.

These Gallups are likely a bit high in Ohio and Missourri.  

I think Bush is up 4% or so in Ohio, maybe 6% or so in Missouri.  Pennsylvania is indeed close and behaving pretty much as I expected, Washington baring a Chernobyl style meltdown goes to Kerry

[The Vorlon]

Interesting also, is that I read Gallup will not be doing a daily tracking poll this election as they did in 2000.  They are saying that instead they will be coming out with weekly state polls.

Fine with me.  That daily tracking poll last time out was swinging all over the place.  Plus 10 for Gore and then plus 8 or 9 for Bush two wks later.  Talk about a making your head spin...

Gallups methodolgy is not built to do a tracking poll.  Its designed to do a three day snapshot.

Their state polls were very good in 2002 doing senate and gov races.

[The Vorlon]

I think we strongly disagree on the efficacy of a voter screen for likely voters.

While (from what I have read of your postings) we agree that "interest" and "following the election closely" techniques constitute a poor screen, I believe that historical voting is a very good screen (i.e. most of those who voted in 2000 and are still alive to vote in 2004 will vote in that election, and most of those who did not vote in 2000 but are legally eligible to vote in 2004 will not vote).

The 'historical' screen is of course NOT perfect, for a number of reasons, mosty prominently, that people LIE about whether they actually voted in the previously cited election.

Adding a demographic screen to the 'historical' screen provides a vast improvement.  

Now, instead of playing football with the matter, lets look at relevant hard data.

First, the highest turnout in a Presidential election in the past 50 years (using VAP) was in 1960 of about 50%.  The lowest turnout about 49% in 1988 (about the same in 1996).  Since the voting age was dropped nationwide to 18 in 1972, the turnout has never exceeded 56% nationwide (of VAP).  So, a screen showing more than 60% of VAP turnout is is a little hard to believe.

Second, the data is very clear that turnout is highly correlated with SES.  This is well established.  The University of Michigan SRC has a large amount of data on this.  So do a number of other sources.

Third, you are correct that polling does become a little more accurate in the last month before the election.  One of the factors is that in most states, voter registration cuts off about a month before the election.  

I think you re over-stating the degree to which we disagree.

Of course you try to narrow your poll down to people who will actually vote, this falls under the catagory of "bloody %^%&ing obvious"

The problems is in the screen, and while I agree you must have a screen, exactly how you screen is far from clear.

There are basically 4 groups of voters:


1) The hard core partisans who always show up - this gets you to about 35% Turnout

2) Add in the the "Good Citizens" who are not particularly political, but usually vote beacuse they are, well, "Good Citizens" - This gets you to +/- 43% turnout or so.

3) The "intermittent voters" these folks represent about 20-22% of the population and about half of these folks vote.  Adding in the 10-11% actual turnout gets you to about a 53% or so turnout.

This is thre group that is a real bugger to screen.  Extending your turnout model to say 75% or so will get you all of these voters, but you also get a lot of voters who will not in fact actually vote.

The other option is to ask a variety of interest questiosn to sorth the half of this group who will vote from the half who will not.

2 months out, this is, in my view, a crapshoot.  

It's still better than NOT trying to do it, but I think any fair minded person has to acknowledge there are substantial uncertainties associated with it 2 months out.

These uncertainties diminish substantially the closer you get to the actual election.

4)  The final group are the un-registered and un motivated.  These folks almost never vote and you can pretty safely screen them out.

We don't know what turnout is going to be.  55% or so seems a reasonable guess, but hey if it was 58% or 52% I would not be stunned.

We know it's not going to be 40%, and we know it's not going to be 70%.

We do the best we can to sort out the "true" 55% who will vote, and generally speaking the good firms do a pretty decent job.

But 2 months out, it's still a crapshoot

[The Vorlon]

It seemed to me that in your previous post (responding to another poster) that screening was pretty iffy.

It ***IS*** pretty iffy, it's just better than the alternative