.

[ajb]

Actual data from poll here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/NBC%20News-Marist_Poll_Florida.pdf

Which makes clear what is implied in the blog post, which is that this is a poll of registered voters.
Actual voter registration numbers in Florida as of April 2012:

D 41
R 36
Minor 3
Other 21

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/nvra/affiliation.asp

[ajb]

Actual data from poll here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/NBC%20News-Marist_Poll_Florida.pdf

Which makes clear what is implied in the blog post, which is that this is a poll of registered voters.
Actual voter registration numbers in Florida as of April 2012:

D 41
R 36
Minor 3
Other 21

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/nvra/affiliation.asp

Interesting, so based on actual 2008 turnout, AND state party registration, the sample is still a little over DEM.

Actual 2008 turnout is, of course, irrelevant to a poll of registered voters.

[ajb]

Actual data from poll here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/NBC%20News-Marist_Poll_Florida.pdf

Which makes clear what is implied in the blog post, which is that this is a poll of registered voters.
Actual voter registration numbers in Florida as of April 2012:

D 41
R 36
Minor 3
Other 21

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/nvra/affiliation.asp

Interesting, so based on actual 2008 turnout, AND state party registration, the sample is still a little over DEM.

Actual 2008 turnout is, of course, irrelevant to a poll of registered voters.

A poll of registered voters is, of course, irrelevant to life on Earth.

Less so than a poll of likely voters six months before an election. Voters themselves don't know if they're going to vote in November (at least those on the margins of voting/not voting).

[ajb]

Actual data from poll here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/NBC%20News-Marist_Poll_Florida.pdf

Which makes clear what is implied in the blog post, which is that this is a poll of registered voters.
Actual voter registration numbers in Florida as of April 2012:

D 41
R 36
Minor 3
Other 21

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/nvra/affiliation.asp

Interesting, so based on actual 2008 turnout, AND state party registration, the sample is still a little over DEM.

Actual 2008 turnout is, of course, irrelevant to a poll of registered voters.

Says who? But even if I agreed with you, then this poll of registered voters has still produced a sample that is D+8, which is still much more Democratic than actual 2008 turnout, and hugely more Democratic than '04. Also more Democratic than actual party registration, as you pointed out.

Because a poll of registered voters polls registered voters. If you weighted the poll according to 2004 turnout, or even 2008 turnout, then called it a poll of registered voters, you'd be guilty of a gross distortion.

[ajb]

Actual data from poll here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/NBC%20News-Marist_Poll_Florida.pdf

Which makes clear what is implied in the blog post, which is that this is a poll of registered voters.
Actual voter registration numbers in Florida as of April 2012:

D 41
R 36
Minor 3
Other 21

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/nvra/affiliation.asp

Interesting, so based on actual 2008 turnout, AND state party registration, the sample is still a little over DEM.

Actual 2008 turnout is, of course, irrelevant to a poll of registered voters.

Says who? But even if I agreed with you, then this poll of registered voters has still produced a sample that is D+8, which is still much more Democratic than actual 2008 turnout, and hugely more Democratic than '04. Also more Democratic than actual party registration, as you pointed out.

Because a poll of registered voters polls registered voters. If you weighted the poll according to 2004 turnout, or even 2008 turnout, then called it a poll of registered voters, you'd be guilty of a gross distortion.

Whether it's of registered voters or not, the number of Democrats polled exceeds the number that turned out in 2008. That fact isn't dependent on whether the poll is of registered voters or anything else. So yes, the poll is of  registered voters. And yes, the registered voter sample is 5 points more Democratic than '08 turnout was

So the question is, what do you think about polls of registered voters? That's the only question at issue here. I think there's value to such polls six months out. Do you?

[ajb]

Bawlexus, not everything is wrong if the party sample doesn't match the 2008 one. Stop reading on party ID, please, it's becoming annoying. Are you umengus or what??

 

Not everything is wrong, but the poll is considerably less accurate.

In fact, most likely the actual electorate will be less +D than 2008 in most states, and the most accurate pollsters will correctly predict this. However, more +D than 2008, a blowout Democratic year, is a highly unlikely scenario. Without accounting for this unaccountable methodology, the polls employing it become actively misleading.

The trouble with this is that it involves circular reasoning. A pollster has a hunch about which voters will and won't turn out in November, and weights their sample accordingly. The results appear to confirm the original hypothesis about turnout -- but they don't, since the sample was constructed according to that hypothesis.

2008 provides concrete evidence that ignoring this logical fallacy can have real consequences. Pollsters who assumed all year that the turnout in Nov. was going to look like 2004 either got burned, or had to make last-minute adjustments to their methods in order to account for what was obviously a very different year.

I'm not saying that 2012's turnout will look like 2008. Nor am I saying it will look like 2004, or 2010, or that it will be more Democratic than 2008. All of these are possibilities, and it's far too early simply to guess. Much better to poll registered voters for now and then apply a rigorous likely-voter screen come Labor Day or so.