Rasmussen polls New Jersey, too bad they use an imaginary electorate

by: Hopeful

Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 02:54:32 PM EDT

Rutgers-Eagleton recently polled 953 New Jersey Adults including 845 Registered Voters. The results were that amongst adults, 48% support the new health care law and 40%, and amongst registered voters it was 47-41. This was an improvement on their previous poll.

Now Rasmussen has released a poll of New Jersey -- not of adults, or even registered voters, but of "500 likely voters." Ramussens finds 51% support and 45% oppose repealing the law.

Why the difference? I'm looking right at the "likely voter" sample. In what election? We don't even have a statewide election this year, and November is a half a year away anyway. Perhaps the "likely voters" are for a fictional recall election, where supposedly 38% would vote to recall Menendez and 34% would vote against it.

I think it's clear that this is a propaganda piece. I'll be the first to say Rasmussen has an excellent record in predicting election in the final weeks, but right now they are plainly excluding Democrats from their samples, to advance their conservative views.

Hopeful :: Rasmussen polls New Jersey, too bad they use an imaginary electorate

Tags: Rasmussen, poll, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Rasmussen polls New Jersey, too bad they use an imaginary electorate | 3 comments

Good catch (0.00 / 0)

someone needs to explain to me how you can be a "likely voter" in an election that is ~~"unlikely"~~ absolutely not going to occur.

by: Jason Springer @ Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 03:11:25 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

It depends on the polling model (4.00 / 1)

Identifying a "likely voter" can be as simple as asking if they "intend to vote in the next election." It doesn't matter when the election is, if they respond correctly; then they are counted as "likely" to vote. More sophisticated models ask things about how often they have voted in the past.

Generally speaking, if their model is sound for other elections, it should be sound for this one - unless there is reason to believe otherwise. Where Menendez is concerned, I don't doubt that it is fairly accurate. He always polls high in unfavorability. There are two problems for the recallers - first, even this poll doesn't show them with enough support to get an election on the agenda; and second, a special recall election would most likely have a very different turnout than a regular election. Add to this the fact that Menendez hasn't been running any kind of campaign...the only thing in the news cycle is negative, and people respond likewise.

That is probably the same sort of thing going on with health care. When was the last time you heard anything positive about it? The Tea Party gets fifteen minutes per hour on cable news, Republican opposition gets another five or ten, and President Obama's rebuttal gets sixty seconds.

by: Thurman Hart @ Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 12:25:52 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I don't think it is wildly off (0.00 / 0)

I agree that it may not be wildly off. Perhaps a 5 point swing. The Eagleton poll got lower ratings for Christie than some others so it's not like it's necessarily right.

If you were trying to predict if Adler or Lance or whoever would be re-elected a likely-voter model might be appropriate.
But I do think as an "issues" poll it's inappropriate.

PPP gets similar results to Rasmussen (in general) and has been discussing what's going on. Their "likely voter" screens are finding electorates in which McCain would have beaten Obama nationwide. Now maybe that is the type of voters that will turn out this year (2009 sure didn't go well here) but as a poll of public sentiment, parrticularly in New Jersey, it's misleading in the extreme.

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

by: Hopeful @ Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 18:07:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]