So Public Policy Polling puts out its poll on the Massachusetts Senate race, and gives us Brown +1. The Boston Globe puts out a poll on the same race, and comes up with Coakely +15. WTF, you ask? Me to0. Some thoughts from Pollster.com:
Both [polls] show a dead even race among the most interested and certain voters, while Coakley leads by huge double-digit margins among all other voters.
...My assumption is that the "if you do not intend to vote...please hang up" automated methodology employed by PPP produced an effectively tighter screen and, thus, a likely voter sample closer to the "certain" or "extremely interested" subgroups of the Boston Globe and Rasmussen polls.
Not to be obnoxious, but if you don't vote, you don't count. Your opinions do not matter and your complaints fall on deaf ears. The polling of "all adults" almost always provides a huge advantage in the results for Democrats, and while the Globe did not poll that way, it certainly appears as if they could have screened their subjects better.
And much like in the recent Republican win in New Jersey, this race could actually be decided by the independents, who make up 51% of the state's electorate - a group the Globe vastly undersampled:
...it turns out the Globe only polled 81 independents, while PPP polled about 290. Such a difference in sample size could explain the wide difference in results among independents, and perhaps lend more credence to the PPP numbers among this group...
Bottom line: Turnout, turnout, turnout....and lines. These two lines in particular, and getting them to cross:
No comments:
Post a Comment