Friday, July 25, 2008

Still Sketchy at PPH

PPH runs with the Critical Insights poll in this morning's print edition, teasing it on A1 and slapping the article on B1.

This after having ignored a recent Rasmussen result and despite the fact that the Critical Insights numbers are, on average, six weeks old.

Of course, that PPH would make such a dubious editorial decision is, unfortunately, no longer surprising.

On a related note: MaryEllen Fitzgerald, president of Critical Insights, confirms in an e-mail that the poll surveyed registered voters, rather than a wider pool of Maine adults or Maine residents--as the poll's data release implied. So the 14-point number isn't completely worthless.

But relegating the ten point "likely voters" spread to a footnote still strikes me as questionable news judgment.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute


Anonymous said...

"questionable news judgment"?

What a hypocrite you are! You know CI oversampled Dems by 10 points, and undersampled I's by 16 points, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

This poll shows this to be a 21 point Collins lead. If you're such a gumshoe, you should have figured this out by now.

You, in fact, are far worse than the PPH. With them, they are most likely too stupid to do the math to figure this out. You, on the other hand, know this already but try to bury it so you can keep on shilling for your buds at the DNC.

Contrapositive said...

For the record, I don't know that Critical Insights oversampled Democrats and undersampled independents. Not sure where the 10 point and 16 point figures cited by Anonymous come from, but they're not in the data I've seen.

(If those are in fact the real numbers, this certainly casts some doubt on the poll's validity.)

In any case, earlier today I went ahead and e-mailed Critical Insights to ask about the poll's party ID distribution. No word back yet.

Anonymous said...

Gee anonymous - thank you for actually putting your name to your own disingenuous bullshit.

Did you fail to read all the survey data, or only put forth the parts that support your argument? Do you really think that 24% of Mainers have a household income of $75,000 or more, because that is what those survey said. Or why did CI include all 58% of the women surveyed - shouldn't they have added more men? And my goodness - 47% of the respondents were over the age of 55. Is this an accurate sample? 73% of the sample were over the age of 45 - three quarters of the friggin sample, and you're here blasting away about hypocrisy??

Dude - methinks you may be out of your league.

Turn Maine Blue

Anonymous said...

2006 figures for party affiliation in Maine are as follows:

dem - 32%
gop - 29%
ind - 39%

So yes, the survey over-sampled dems and under-sampled indies, but the gop numbers were pretty much spot-on. See the numbers here on page 45:

Two points, already highlighted, are that the polling is over a month (in some cases up to 7 weeks) old, and 8% of the sample were not registered to vote in Maine. Unbelievable.