Republicans are pushing LIKELY voter poll results (like Gallup)...

[zaj]

Seems to me that the technique is flawed... maybe some DU pollsters can set me straight.

Likely Voter polling seems to be a flawed premise from the beginning. Pollsters talk about a likely voter by asking about past voting, but what they really what is a glimpse of the likely electorate on Nov 2. Those aren't the same thing, because many unlikely voters will show up to vote and many likely voters will stay home. The likely electorate is a hybrid of likely voters and registered voters.

Also, it seems likely voter determination is incredibly subjective, because of the problem with very ineffective screening techniques. Especially when we are so far away from election day.

There also seems to be an inherant bias in basing the "likely voter" label on prior voting experience... Likely voter techniques favor Republican candidates because wealthier, more educated, and older voters are much more likely to have voted last time (and regularly).

That's especially important in a year like this where there are likely to be a large number of newer and younger voters.

[soggy]

1. i always thought it was a funny term

i'm 27 and haven't EVER voted in any election for anything. thanks to monkeynuts, i'm finally registered and will cast my vote in a fucking hurricane if i have to. in a worthless state, nonetheless.

i have a hunch there are a great deal more unlikely voters who are incredibly likely to vote this year.

[DieboldMustDie]

6. So have you considered how beautiful (bleeding) Ohio is...

in October and early November? :shrug:

[soggy]

7. i'm from arkansas originally,

and honest to god, i've thought about transferring my citizenship back there for the election. in the end, it seems dishonest. i'll still be registering people to vote in AR though.

[kiahzero]

2. Likely voter polls have their use

When it gets into October, likely voter models can be superior to simply sampling registered voters. However, at this stage, it's suprising to me that likely voter polls are being commissioned at all - they're not that meaningful.

[hlthe2b]

3. Conventional "wisdom" has it that "likely voters" are more reliable

CLOSE to the election, but this far out registered voters is usually more reliable. This is even more important in races with unusally high voter turn outs-- as may well be the case come November. However, (and this is a big However) all bets may be off given how few "undecideds" there appear to be. So, it is possible that "likely voters" may end up being fairly reliable.

The bigger issue is the increasing unreliability of phone surveys and the sampling schemes that some pollsters are undertaking (which may well be oversampling repubs in some areas). Finally, one could argue that national polling trends aren't that telling on a close race that is based on electoral votes, rather than popular vote.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. Yes it is flawed, and they know that.

Also, each pollster uses their own methodology to determine who is a 'likely' voter, so it is also a good way to intentionally manipulate the results.

[Bush was AWOL]

5. If you have never voted you are not considered a likely voter

right? Well, if this is the case then it is just a case of wishful thinking for them. The young voters will be out this year in full force casting their votes for Kerry.