Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:36 PM Oct 2012

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall Gallup having Bush up by 10 close to the 2000 election...

But on election day morning they had Gore winning by about half a point...which was about his actual margin of victory...does anyone else recall this?

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

WhollyHeretic

(4,074 posts)
1. They had some wild swings that year
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:40 PM
Oct 2012
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/

Apart from Gallup's final poll not having been especially accurate in recent years, it has often been a wild ride to get there. Their polls, for whatever reason, have often found implausibly large swings in the race.

In 2000, for example, Gallup had George W. Bush 16 points ahead among likely voters in polling it conducted in early August. By Sept. 20, about six weeks later, they had Al Gore up by 10 points instead: a 26-point swing toward Mr. Gore over the course of a month and a half. No other polling firm showed a swing remotely that large.

Then in October 2000, Gallup showed a 14-point swing toward Mr. Bush over the course of a few days, and had him ahead by 13 points on Oct. 27 -- just 10 days before an election that ended in a virtual tie.

In 1996, Gallup had Bill Clinton's margin over Bob Dole increasing to 25 points from nine points over the course of four days.

After the Republican convention in 2008, Gallup had John McCain leading Mr. Obama by as many as 10 points among likely voters. Although some other polls also had Mr. McCain pulling ahead in the race, no other polling firm ever gave him larger than a four-point lead.
 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
4. Thanks...there has got to be problems not only with their sampling...
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:49 PM
Oct 2012

But with their methodology...

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
2. All the polls were screwy that year. The state polls showed a close race , yet the national...
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:46 PM
Oct 2012

... polls had Bush up 4-7%

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
6. I recall in the early 80's when polls weren't so ubiquitous...
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 03:01 PM
Oct 2012

People worried the polls would become the story...and they now have done so.

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)
8. I still contend that these polls are off 'cause they aren't keeping up with tech
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 03:14 PM
Oct 2012

and their sample groups are too narrow. For example, who is home during the day when some calls go out? Are the people participating in the polls being honest? Are the majority of polls sampling cell phone users? There are too many variables in play to have accurate polls these days, in my opinion.

Mutiny In Heaven

(550 posts)
9. I think that some appear to be underestimating women.
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 03:18 PM
Oct 2012

Take PPP, for instance: One of their recent polls (which was tied overall) had Obama up by 6 with women and down 5 with men. Now, over 8m more women than men voted in 2004 and four years later, the difference was a shade under 10m. Do I seriously see the gender gap reaching parity this year? Do I fuck!

Taken out into the real world, unless the expectation is that women are going to be chained to the kitchen sink this year, Obama should be up by about 2-3 points in such a poll.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Correct me if I'm wrong, ...