Polling, and how people pick their party

Today's poll story showing Barack Obama with a 12-point lead over John McCain drew almost as much reaction from readers for what it had to say about voters' party affiliation as for what it said about the candidates' popularity.

The questions centered on this passage in the story: "In this national poll's random sample of voters, 39% identified themselves as Democrats, 22% as Republicans and 27% as independents. In a similar poll a year ago, 33% identified themselves as Democrats, 28% as Republicans and 30% as independents."

Susan Pinkus, director of the Times Poll, and Doyle McManus, Washington bureau chief, respond to the readers' concerns:

The result for self-described Democrats seems high, acknowledged Pinkus, but, she wrote in an e-mail to readers, “This is what the poll got from a random sample of 1,233 adults nationwide, including 1,115 registered voters (which includes listed, unlisted and cell phone users)."

McManus, who reported the poll results in the front-page article, explained it in an e-mail he sent to readers who asked. He wrote, "Please note that this question is not about how people are registered. It's about how voters identify themselves when asked, ‘Regardless of your party registration or how you have voted in the past, do you think of yourself today as a Democrat, or a Republican, or an independent, or as something else?’" The answers to that question often ebb and flow depending on the popularity of each political party.”

The article itself put it this way: “After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, for example, when President Bush's popularity soared, the number of voters who described themselves as Republicans rose as well. During the last three years, as Bush's popularity has slumped, the number of voters who describe themselves as Republicans has also dropped."

As the fine print explained to readers, this poll was weighted slightly, where necessary, to conform to the Census Bureau’s proportions of sex, race, ethnicity, age and national region. However, Pinkus emphasizes, "The poll is NOT weighted for party identification, since party ID is a moving variable that changes from one election to another, or when one party may be favored more than the other."

On that point, McManus' went on: "There's a long-running debate among pollsters on how to handle the ebbs and flows. In one camp, you go out and poll a random sample, and report whatever number you get. (We're in that purist camp.) In the other camp, you 'adjust' the sample to bring it closer to whatever number you think is the right one -- but that means the pollster is inserting his/her judgment into the process. And there's a margin of error -- in this case, plus or minus three. So our 2007 poll with 28% Republicans and our 2008 poll with 22% Republicans could reflect "real" numbers that were constant at 25%. Again, those aren't registration numbers; they are 'how do you think of yourself' numbers."

Pinkus concurs, "This number fluctuates over time.  Comparing other polling organizations’ party ID numbers, CBS News/N.Y. Times had Democrats 14 points more than Republicans,  Democracy Corps had a 12-point gap in favor of the Democrats and ABC News/Washington Post had Democrats with 14 points more than Republicans."

(Some readers also thought that the total -- 39% identifying themselves as Democrats, 22% as Republicans and 27% as independents -- didn't seem to add up. What the article didn't note was that 8% said they consider themselves as something else, and 4% refused to say.)

Of the results published in today's Times, Pinkus concludes: “It is early in the election and many things can happen that could shift party loyalty, but as of today, this is where the country stands."

Comments

[xbjlllb]

ANY poll that utilizes cell phone users is going to be skewed towards young people. A great majority of voters over 50 don't carry cell phones regularly, and many of those over 60 not at all. Those are overwhelmingly Hillary and McCain's people.

That's going to give Obama a tremendous advantage in these erroneous polls that will not be playing out in November.

Thanks for explaining one of the easiest and best ways to skew the results to con ObamaNation into thinking they're ahead and rallying the GOP against him by conning them into thinking McCain is way behind.

[Note from Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus: Cellphones may be owned more by young people, but cellphone only users are weighted to their proportion of the population, so there would not be a skew toward younger people. It is increasingly important to include cellphone-only populations in national surveys, so that the views of that population are not excluded from the public discourse and so that surveys are not biased away from members of that group. Cellphone-only users may differ than landline-only users and putting this population in the survey is necessary to get accurate results.]

[warf33]

It just seems strange to me that there are only two polls out that show Obama ahead by a double digit margin.This within two days of all the other polls showing the candidates either running 3 to 6 points of each other or tied. Makes me wonder if those with influence and money are trying to sway public opinion again.

[Max Moser]

Basically the writer of this article is saying there is no real way to tell what goes on inside a voter's head.

It's not just true for party identification, but ultimately which candidate will get their vote. Do you think voter's are totally honest with pollsters? Giving your opinion and pulling the lever are two different things.

[bmrowe23]

Party identification shifts because issues and solutions shift. Technology is becoming available to create a direct democracy, rendering political parties, political polls and political poll analysis superfluous. At least I feel that way 52% of the time. I certainly wouldn't mind getting in on free lunch from a lobbyist now and then. Each to his own party. I'd vote for conversion to the metric system, solar power and working from home 2 days a week.

[Gordito Mojito]

THREE THINGS:

1) There is a great deal of peer pressure from the media and anti-bush crowd towards the "Change" story so the answers given may not reflect how people actually pull the lever. Race is enough of a hot-button issue for people to say one thing and do another to avoid conflict.

2) How Pennsylvania goes from 70% Hillary to 55% Obama in a split state is either Miraculous or proves point number 1. The pollsters have been way off so far so don't expect that to change.

3) Would it be racist if 92% of the whites voted for McCain because he was white? (see def. of Racism) Reverse racism is alive and thriving, so if I'm a polster I'd certainly account for this when speaking with big blocks like the Hispanic, Jewish and or rural voters.

Equality at the Expense of Liberty is Communism. Careful what you wish for.

[Objective Observation]

The reason for this poll and the other 15% poll is to throw off the actual statistics that show Obama fading. If it were not for these two polls, the 12% and the 15%, they McCain and Obama would be tied. Then in a week or two McCain would be ahead. Look for more of these outrageous polls.

[Peter Principle]

The chorus of whining from conservatives about this poll mainly reflects the fact that many of them are as ignorant about statistics as they are about virtually every other field of human knowledge. But then, I don't know what else we should expect from the folks who gave us creation "science."

Or maybe it's just pure circular rationalization -- like the guy above who's decided that because polls onlly measure what people say, and because people can always lie, or change their mind, all polls are meaningless. Or all polls that show a Democrat in the lead, anyway.

Either way, a lot of conservatives just don't seem to able to get it through their heads: a majority of the voters aren't buying what they're trying to sell. C'mon guys: Before you can fix the problem, you gotta admit there's a problem.

[John]

This is consistent with something that came to light in 2004: Many individuals characterized as swing voters make up their minds well ahead of election day. They may change their stripes every election, once the nominees are decided, but that doesn't mean they self-identify as independent.

[Nancy Hanks]

I agree with bmrowe23 -- "Party identification shifts because issues and solutions shift. Technology is becoming available to create a direct democracy, rendering political parties, political polls and political poll analysis superfluous." What's significant here is that independent voters are being counted. That's a shift by the media to keep up with a rapidly shifting political terrain brought about by an increasingly nonpartisan, anti-partisan, independent electorate. Yooray!