[SfN] Gallup Poll

[Paul Riismandel]

You might take a look at a recent article in Salon on the Gallup Poll: 
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/16/pollsters/index.html

Specifically, some journalists and other political and poll observers are 
concerned about what seem to be too wide variances between polls that are 
held just days apart.  As you note, there has been what seems to be a 
continual flip-flop between Bush and Gore in the polls.  There is 
particular concern with Gallup because it's typically been looked at as the 
standard bearer for polls.

Especially when it comes to voting behavior, these polls can be problematic 
due to regional variability in voting behavior, not to mention the effect 
of the electoral college--two things are difficult to take into account 
when doing polls.  Another thing that can affect polls is how poll 
questions are phrased--even small differences can cause people to answer 
differently, ESPECIALLY if their minds are not made up.  There's lots and 
lots of research on the subject if it's something you're interested in.

My advice would be to take polls with a grain of salt.  Any single poll, 
especially the types you're concerned with, where small samples are used to 
turn over quick results, may have a margin of error  of 4% mathematically, 
but is probably not really an accurate snapshot of the mood of the 
nation.  It would take a more comprehensive poll to really do that.  Taken 
as a whole, I think you can believe polls to represent the general mood of 
the nation, and so I see them as indicating that the nation is still fairly 
split--that neither Gore nor Bush is guaranteed a victory.  It's really too 
close to call, no matter what the most recent poll says.

When it comes to Nader and other third party candidates, I think the 
numbers are even less accurate--think about it, a 4% margin of error on  a 
4% or 8% poll result is not insignificant.

Remember, polls are another device of mainstream politics, and do function 
to reinforce the status quo and two party system.  From the standpoint of 
the mainstream media and their pollsters, nothing is better than a closely 
split race, because it reinforces the illusion that there is real 
controversy and that some "real democracy" must be going on--when, in fact, 
the truth is entirely the opposite.

What would the result of this poll be:  "Do you want to be kicked in the 
left ass cheek or right ass cheek?"

--Paul

At 08:34 PM 10/21/2000 -0500, steven paul varel wrote:

>On CNN today, I saw the results of the latest Gallup Poll (taken after the
>last debate).  Bush led with 51%, Gore had 40%, Nader had 4%, and Buchanan
>at 1%; there was a 4% margin of error.  This is a shift from Gallup
>numbers reported by CNN at the beginning of the month that showed Bush
>with 47% and Gore with 44%.  That poll showed the race to be even with the
>difference between the candidates being less than the margin of error.
>While I am glad to hear that Nader's share of the vote was reported on
>CNN (for this is the first time I had heard polling data that included
>Nader reported on a national news station, it may not have been the only
>time it happen though), the reports on Bush and Gore are troubling to me.
>
>Now I am not a big fan of Gore, but it seems to me
>that this is a very negitive sign to see that a majority of Americans seem
>to be leaning towards voting for a Republican candidate for president.
>Even though we have information that shows that Gore seems to have
>attempted to make himself appear to be a person that is definitely
>pro-choice, a person that is an environmentalist, and a person that will
>make sure that all Americans enjoy in the "economic prosperity" (etc.)
>while this is not the case, it seems that many people do not know this
>(from what I have seen this information is not widely reported in the
>media, so this assumption seems valid).
>
>If most people do not know about
>this, then it would at least be comforting to know that most people were
>planning on voting for Gore because it would show us that most people
>would take similar positions as us on these issues.  It would show us that
>these people were merely tricked into voting for Gore while they actually
>hold some liberal/progressive opinions on the issues (I do not
>think that anyone who supports Gore knowing about how the welfare reform
>policies pushed through by Gore drastically increased the poverty rates of
>women and children could be considered progessive, but you know what I
>mean in using this term here).  For this reason, this poll seems
>particularly troubling.
>
>I have seen information that puts Gore in the lead not long ago.  One
>interesting thing that I heard on C-Span2 by some author talking about his
>book was that there exists some type of stock in which people can somehow
>invest/bet on who will win the presidency.  He said that Gore's stock was
>sold for $0.57 and Bush's for $0.43, and then confidently stated that Gore
>would win the election.  This information, however, like other relatively
>recent information that I have received that puts Gore in the lead seems
>to be from sources that I for some reason do not completely trust (I
>should probably note here that I really have trouble completely trusting
>any information from any source because I have experienced situations in
>which things that I felt quite certain about have been seemingly proven
>to be false leaving me with a higher degree of uncertainty about
>everything).
>
>On the other hand, I have been finding it increasingly difficult to trust
>sources such as CNN which seem to have proclaimed Bush to be the winner of
>all of the presidential debates despite the fact that it seemed fairly
>obvious in the last debate in that Bush does not even know what the
>supreme court's definition of affirmative action is.  It seems to me that
>this is something that a person running for president should know whether
>they are for or against the policy.
>
>Still, I am inclined to believe
>Gallup polls if for no other reason, that the fact that I was taught that
>they are a credible polling source in my statistics class.  I am, however,
>aware of the fact that you should not completely trust any information
>that you learn here in classes at the university because of the fact that
>the board of trustees has a certain degree of influence over what you
>learn through their influence on hiring and firing professors (there have
>been many reports of professors being fired even after their tenure
>because they expressed certain political beliefs or actions). If fact, in
>Illinois, the members that make up the boards of
>trustees of public universities are now appointed by the governor
>instead of elected by the people like they used to be (We can
>thank Jim Edgar for this change form elected boards to governor appointed
>boards.  An interesting side note about Edgar is that he has been granted
>an honorary professorship at this university.  I think the effects of
>money and power through political connections on oppurtunity are
>demonstrated perfectly by the fact that this man was given an honorary
>professorship).
>
>So what do you think, is the polling information reported
>by the media accurate?  I guess I got to this question simply because I
>find it hard to believe that a majority of the people could be stupid
>enough to be taken in by Bush's idiocy.  Talk about the blind leading the
>blind.
>
>Anyway, I guess the answer to this question is not that relavent to our
>activities.  What we need to know is whether it is true in Illinois that
>that people can safely vote for Nader without helping Bush win the
>election.  I have heard that this is true.  Many people that I have
>talked to recently, though, have expressed the concern that the
>information I have heard about this might be biased because I have heard
>it from people who want others to vote for Nader.  So because of this, I
>need to know of a source that I can convince people to believe which shows
>it is unlikely that Illinois electoral votes will be influenced by a few
>more people voting for Nader over Gore (this obviously only applies if it
>is true that there is a significant margin of victory in Illinois for one
>of the candidates, as I do not wish to present false information, but I
>assume this is true because that is what I have been hearing).  Does
>anyone know of such a source? (it would be helpful if it came from some
>credible source updated with new polling information frecuently online so
>it would be easily accessible
>for me to check it regularly and keep updated on the situation as the
>election day draws nearer, if such a thing exists).  This is very
>important because I know some
>people (who hold strongly to the fact the Gore is the lesser of two
>evils and that they are worried about what Bush will do to the
>country) that will definitely vote for Nader if they know that the race
>is not close enough for their vote to make the difference between Bush and
>Gore.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Nader-uiuc mailing list
>Nader-uiuc at lists.groogroo.com
>http://lists.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/nader-uiuc