What is there to say about the third Chronicle poll, which shows Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison winning by a 61-27 margin over Barbara Radnofsky? Well, that poll was done by Zogby, which as it happens just released its latest batch of Zogby/WSJ Interactive polls. That poll pegs it as Hutchison 55, Radnofsky 36. Zogby says his interactive polls are valid, so it’d be nice to see him explain the differences between the two.
That same Interactive poll, by the way, has the Governor’s race as Perry 36.7, Bell 28.5, Strayhorn 15, Friedman 14. Like I said, it’d be nice to have Zogby explain why one set of results is so different from the other.
As with the CD22 poll, 90% of the respondents said they were “very likely” to vote, with the rest claiming to be “somewhat likely”. Either this means they also talked to a bunch of non-voters, whose results they then excluded, or it’s as much BS as the CD22 sample was. Whatever the case, taking the respondent’s word for it is highly suspect. You could screen by past voting history instead, for instance.
One interesting thing from the crosstabs, which are in popup windows that I can’t link to: The respondents were asked whether the US was going in the right direction or the wrong direction. By a 47.9-43.7 margin, they said “wrong direction”. Hutchison gets nearly 80% of the “right direction” voters, but Radnofsky wins the “wrong direction” folks by a slim margin, 41.6 to 40.9 (the Lib candidate gets 8.9% of these, with the rest being “other” or “not sure”). I didn’t see where they asked the same question for Texas, but they have data on that. People are more sanguine about Texas, with 52% percent saying “right direction” and 40% saying “wrong direction”. KBH gets 75% of these “right direction”ers, with Randofsky taking 45% of the “wrong”ers (to 39% for KBH). It’d be useful to know which of these groups is really more likely to vote, but alas, we don’t.
What’s the margin of error on the polls, especially the interactive? The interactive has GOT to have systematic errors larger than the traditional poll, and that might be enough to pull the two into agreement.
61 +/- 4 and 55 +/- 8 easily agree with each other.
GENERIC POLLS: The Democrats have won all 110 Generic Polls since September 2005
The following trend analysis is based on the 5-poll moving average based on polls at the PollingReport.Com The margin of error (MoE) for the moving average is 1.41%, assuming a combined sample size of 5000 (1000 per poll). The current Democratic moving average share is 57.8%, assuming a 60% Undecided Voter Allocation (UVA) to the Democrats.
Based on the MoE, UVA, current moving average share (and assuming zero fraud) there is a 97.5% probability that the Generic Democratic vote will exceed 56.4%.
from:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00493.htm
U.S. Election Fraud 2006 Risk Assessment Update
Tuesday, 31 October 2006, 7:19 pm
Opinion: Michael Collins
PROTECTING THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE 2:
Prospects for a 34 Seat House Pick Up Look Good
Election Fraud and Digital Disruption Take on More Importance
……….
from:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00233.htm
What is this secrecy in vote counting, really? To have the votes counted in secret by your political enemy is the picture of tyranny. To have the votes counted in secret by your political friend is the picture of corruption. To even desire such an unaccountable power is itself corrupt. So how is HAVA cramming this down the throat of American democracy?