"Number of Democrats Falls to Four-Year Low"

[racehorse]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... san_trends

Partisan Trends

Number of Democrats Falls to Four-Year Low

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

The number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats fell by nearly two percentage points in November. Added to declines earlier in the year, the number of Democrats in the nation has fallen by five percentage points during 2009.

In November, 36.0% of American adults said they were Democrats. That’s down from 37.8% a month ago and the lowest number of Democrats since December 2005. See the History of Party Trends from January 2004 to the present.

The number of Republicans inched up by just over a point in November to 33.1%. That’s within the narrow range that Republicans have experienced throughout 2009 - from a low of 31.9% to a high of 33.6%.

The number of adults not affiliated with either party grew half a point last month to 30.8%.

Despite the changes, there are still more Democrats than Republicans in the nation. But the gap is down to 2.9 percentage points, the smallest since December 2007.

Rasmussen Reports tracks this information based on telephone interviews with approximately 15,000 adults per month and has been doing so since November 2002. The margin of error for the full sample is less than one percentage point, with a 95% level of confidence.

Between November 2004 and 2006, the Democratic advantage in partisan identification grew by 4.5 percentage points. That foreshadowed the Democrats' big gains in the midterm elections. The gap grew by another 1.5 percentage points between November 2006 and 2008 heading into the election of President Obama. However, the gap is currently 4.7 percentage points smaller than it was in November 2008. It remains to be seen where the trend will head in 2010.

Keep in mind that figures reported in this article are for all adults, not likely voters. Republicans are a bit more likely to participate in elections than Democrats.

Obama's overall approval rating in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Approval Index fell below 50% for the first time in July. A month-by-month review of the president’s ratings shows that they held steady in August and September before declining over the past couple of months.

Data from our monthly partisan identification survey is used to set weighting targets for other Rasmussen Reports surveys. The targets are based on results from the previous three months.

In recent months, Republicans have gained ground on 10 key issues tracked by Rasmussen Reports and on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

[Rombaldi]

Rasputen gets the numbers wrong again and cherrypicks.. let's try some real information.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/party-id.php




Pollster Dates N/Pop Republican Democrat independent Undecided
Ipsos/McClatchy 11/20-22/09 1176 A 24 35 41 -
ARG 11/17-20/09 1100 A 23 35 33 -
ABC/Post 11/12-15/09 1001 A 21 35 39 1
AP-GfK 11/5-9/09 1006 A 21 35 24 19
AP-GfK/RWJF/Stanford 10/29-11/8/09 1006 A 21 30 44 -
Pew 10/28-11/8/09 2000 A 27 35 32 5
Ipsos/McClatchy 10/29-11/1/09 1077 A 22 34 44 -
Rasmussen 10/1-31/09 15000 A 32 38 30 -
NBC/WSJ 10/22-25/09 1009 A 17 30 44 9
University of Texas 10/13-22/09 2100 A 24 33 29 14
ARG 10/17-20/09 1100 A 24 36 32 -
ABC/Post 10/15-18/09 1004 A 20 33 42 1
Kaiser / PSRA 10/8-15/09 1200 A 27 39 27 8
CBS News 10/5-8/09 829 A 22 33 45 -
AP-GfK 10/1-5/09 1003 A 21 33 26 21
Ipsos/McClatchy 10/1-5/09 1096 A 19 33 48 -
USA Today/Gallup 10/1-4/09 1030 A 27 33 38 -
Pew 9/30-10/4/09 1500 A 23 34 37 6
Rasmussen 9/1-30/09 15000 A 32 38 30 -
Allstate/National Journal 9/24-28/09 1200 A 25 34 30 3
CBS/Times 9/19-23/09 1042 A 22 37 41 -
ARG 9/18-21/09 1100 A 23 37 31 -
Franklin and Marshall 9/15-21/09 1046 A 22 34 42 1
NBC/WSJ 9/17-20/09 1005 A 18 31 43 8
Pew 9/10-15/09 1006 A 23 34 34 6
USA Today/Gallup 9/11-13/09 1030 A 26 33 40 -
ABC/Post 9/10-12/09 1007 A 21 32 43 0
AP-GfK 9/3-8/09 1000 A 20 30 30 19
Gallup 8/31-9/2/09 1026 A 28 35 36 -
CBS News 8/27-31/09 1097 A 26 35 39 -
Ipsos/McClatchy 8/27-31/09 1057 A 22 34 45 -
Rasmussen 8/1-31/09 15000 A 33 37 30 -
Gallup 8/1-31/09 1031 A 28 34 - -
Pew 8/20-27/09 2003 A 26 32 36 6
ARG 8/16-19/09 1100 A 23 40 27 -
NBC News 8/15-17/09 805 A 20 33 39 8
ABC/Post 8/13-17/09 1001 A 25 35 34 1
Pew 8/11-17/09 2010 A 23 33 38 6
USA Today/Gallup 8/6-9/09 1010 A 28 35 35 -
Ipsos/McClatchy 7/30-8/3/09 1005 A 22 35 44 -
Rasmussen 7/1-31/09 15000 A 33 37 30 -
Gallup 7/1-31/09 1031 A 27 34 - -
Time 7/27-28/09 1002 A 23 34 32 11
CBS/Times 7/24-28/09 1050 A 20 34 46 -
NBC/WSJ 7/24-27/09 1011 A 22 30 41 7
Pew 7/22-26/09 1506 A 22 34 37 7
ARG 7/17-20/09 1100 A 26 37 28 -
AP-GfK 7/16-20/09 1000 A 23 34 40 1
USA Today/Gallup 7/17-19/09 1006 A 26 33 39 -
ABC/Post 7/15-18/09 1001 A 22 33 41 0
Kaiser / PSRA 7/7-14/09 1205 A 22 41 27 11
Ipsos/McClatchy 7/9-13/09 1007 A 21 35 45 -
USA Today/Gallup 7/10-12/09 1018 A 29 37 33 -
CBS News 7/9-12/09 944 A 23 35 42 -
Allstate/National Journal 7/5-12/09 1202 A 22 31 30 3
Rasmussen 6/1-30/09 15000 A 32 39 29 -
Gallup 6/1-30/09 1031 A 28 35 - -
ABC/Post 6/18-21/09 1001 A 22 35 37 0
ARG 6/18-21/09 1100 A 31 41 28 -
Gallup 6/14-17/09 1500 A 29 32 37 -
CBS/Times 6/12-16/09 895 A 24 38 31 8
NBC/WSJ 6/12-15/09 1008 A 21 31 37 11
Pew 6/10-14/09 1502 A 25 34 34 6
Ipsos/McClatchy 6/4-8/09 1023 A 21 37 41 -
AP-GfK 5/28-6/1/09 1000 A 23 36 40 1
USA Today/Gallup 5/29-31/09 1015 A 26 35 37 -
Rasmussen 5/1-31/09 15000 A 33 39 28 -
Gallup 5/1-31/09 1031 A 26 37 - -
Capstrat/PPP (D) 5/27-28/09 629 A 31 43 26 -
ARG 5/17-20/09 1100 A 31 45 21 -
CBS News 5/6-12/09 1874 A 24 35 41 -
Gallup 5/7-10/09 1015 A 32 32 34 -
Ipsos/McClatchy 4/30-5/3/09 1004 A 24 34 41 -
Rasmussen 4/1-30/09 15000 A 33 39 29 -
Gallup 4/1-30/09 1031 A 27 36 - -
SurveyUSA 4/27/09 1200 A 29 39 30 -
Capstrat/PPP (D) 4/24-26/09 684 A 33 38 29 -
NBC/WSJ 4/23-26/09 1005 A 20 30 42 8
CBS/Times 4/22-26/09 973 A 20 38 36 6
ABC/Post 4/21-24/09 1072 A 21 35 38 0
Gallup 4/20-21/09 1051 A 27 36 36 -
Pew 4/14-21/09 1507 A 22 33 39 6
ARG 4/17-20/09 1100 A 32 45 23 -
AP-GfK 4/16-20/09 1000 A 18 36 44 0
Allstate/National Journal 4/8-14/09 1200 A 24 35 29 8
Gallup 4/6-9/09 1029 A 24 35 40 -
Ipsos/McClatchy 4/2-6/09 1138 A 23 34 44 -
Pew 3/31-4/6/09 1506 A 21 33 40 6
CBS/Times 4/1-5/09 998 A 26 36 32 5
Time 4/1-5/09 1000 A 27 37 23 13
Rasmussen 3/1-31/09 15000 A 33 39 28 -
Gallup 3/1-31/09 1031 A 27 36 - -
USA Today/Gallup 3/27-29/09 1007 A 28 35 35 -
ABC/Post 3/26-29/09 1000 A 25 36 33 1
CBS News 3/20-22/09 949 A 24 37 39 -
ARG 3/16-19/09 1100 A 33 44 22 -
CBS News 3/12-16/09 1142 A 23 39 38 -
Pew 3/9-12/09 1308 A 24 34 35 7
Ipsos/McClatchy 3/5-9/09 1070 A 19 38 43 -
Gallup 3/5-8/09 1012 A 25 38 38 -
NCSC 2/17-3/8/09 1200 A 24 40 30 2
NBC/WSJ 2/26-3/1/09 1007 A 20 31 42 7
Rasmussen 2/1-28/09 15000 A 34 41 26 -
Gallup 2/1-28/09 1031 A 27 37 - -
USA Today/Gallup 2/20-22/09 1013 A 27 34 36 -
ABC/Post 2/19-22/09 1001 A 24 36 34 1
CBS/Times 2/18-22/09 1112 A 26 36 32 5
ARG 2/15-18/09 1100 A 32 45 23 -
AP-GfK 2/12-17/09 1001 A 22 38 39 0
Gallup 2/9-12/09 1022 A 29 33 36 -
Ipsos/McClatchy 2/5-9/09 1042 A 22 37 40 -
Pew 2/4-8/09 1303 A 24 36 34 5
CBS News 2/2-4/09 864 A 25 38 37 -
USA Today/Gallup 1/30-2/1/09 1027 A 27 36 35 -
Rasmussen 1/1-31/09 15000 A 33 41 27 -
Gallup 1/1-31/09 1031 A 27 38 - -
Ipsos/McClatchy 1/15-18/09 979 A 21 38 41 -
ABC/Post 1/13-16/09 1079 A 23 35 36 1
CBS/Times 1/11-15/09 1112 A 21 39 31 8
AP-GfK 1/9-14/09 1001 A 21 39 39 1
NBC/WSJ 1/9-12/09 1007 A 21 33 37 9
USA Today/Gallup 1/9-11/09 1031 A 30 36 33 -
Pew 1/7-11/09 1503 A 25 37 33 5
Rasmussen 12/1-31/08 15000 A 33 42 26 -
USA Today/Gallup 12/12-14/08 1008 A 26 37 35 -
ABC/Post 12/11-14/08 1003 A 24 37 35 1
NBC/WSJ 12/5-8/08 1009 A 20 34 39 7
CBS News 12/4-8/08 1390 A 24 43 33 -
AP-GfK 12/3-8/08 1000 A 26 36 37 1
Gallup 12/4-7/08 1009 A 27 37 33 -
Pew 12/3-7/08 1489 A 26 39 30 5
Rasmussen 11/1-30/08 15000 A 34 42 25 -
Gallup 11/13-16/08 1009 A 26 39 35 -
AP-GfK 11/6-10/08 1001 A 24 40 35 1
USA Today/Gallup 11/7-9/08 1010 A 28 33 37 -
Ipsos/McClatchy 11/6-9/08 1000 A 23 35 43 -
Rasmussen 10/1-31/08 15000 A 33 40 26 -
CBS/Times 10/25-29/08 1439 A 30 37 27 5
Pew 10/23-26/08 1500 A 24 39 32 5
Gallup 10/23-26/08 A 33 34 32 -
CBS/Times 10/19-22/08 1152 A 26 41 28 5
AP-GfK 10/16-20/08 1101 A 22 35 44 1
Pew 10/16-19/08 3016 A 27 35 31 7
CBS/Times 10/10-13/08 1070 A 28 36 29 7
USA Today/Gallup 10/10-12/08 1269 A 30 35 33 -
Pew 10/9-12/08 1485 A 26 36 31 7
ABC/Post 10/8-11/08 1101 A 26 36 31 2
USA Today/Gallup 10/3-5/08 3000 A 27 33 38 -
AP-GfK 9/27-30/08 1160 A 25 38 36 1
Rasmussen 9/1-30/08 15000 A 33 39 28 -
ABC/Post 9/27-29/08 1271 A 26 34 31 2
Pew 9/27-29/08 1505 A 25 35 34 5
USA Today/Gallup 9/26-27/08 A 28 35 35 -
CBS/Times 9/21-24/08 936 A 28 34 32 6
ABC/Post 9/19-22/08 1082 A 26 36 31 2
NBC/WSJ 9/12-22/08 1157 A 26 32 37 5
CBS/Times 9/12-16/08 1133 A 28 39 26 7
Pew 9/9-14/08 2982 A 28 35 32 5
Gallup 9/8-11/08 1007 A 32 35 31 -
USA Today/Gallup 9/5-7/08 A 30 35 34 -
ABC/Post 9/5-7/08 1133 A 26 35 33 2

[racehorse]

Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster for both the 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections, as has previously, and more than once been documented on this forum!

[Rombaldi]

Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster for both the 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections, as has previously, and more than once been documented on this forum!

And funded by the reich-wing... 2004 the fix was in so it was easy, 2008 overwhelming plurality so how could them miss.. other than that, reich wing mouthpiece

(and they don't look very 'accurate' here)

[Psychicwolf]

It's statistics. Numbers can be made to look like whatever the purchaser of the poll wants them to look like. I put very little stock in any of them.

I am on the Gallup call list. The poll last week (these calls take about 20 min of my time 2-3 times a month) was about healthcare. About 10 minutes in...

Pollster: Are you happy with your current healthcare?

PW: Am I happy with my healthcare coverage or the healthcare I receive at my docs, etc????

Pollster: I am sorry ma'am. Are you happy with your healthcare?

So we who are polled answer an ambiguous, subjective question and the purchaser gets to make of it what they will.

[racehorse]

And funded by the reich-wing

According to who "The Democratic Underground"?

2004 the fix was in so it was easy, 2008 overwhelming plurality so how could them miss.. other than that, reich wing mouthpiece

(and they don't look very 'accurate' here)

Of course the "fix was in" in 2004. I must remember that.

Well in 2008, they were the closest to the actual results. Many of the other pollsters OVERSTATED Democratic strength, some badly!

They look accurate to me.

Out of curiosity, How many seats do you think the GOP will lose in Congress next year, Rom?

I think Democratic control in the House is in real danger and the GOP is poised for major gains in the Senate, as well.

[racehorse]

Pollster.com which you cited averages of, does not have a problem with Rasmussen. Here is their explanation to some questioning Rasmussen's numbers.
--

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/why_is_ra ... ferent.php

Articles and Analysis

December 1, 2009

Why Is Rasmussen So Different?

By Mark Blumenthal

Hardly a week goes in which I do not receive at least one email like the following:

Although I really appreciate you continually adding this "outlier" poll for your aggregated data, I do wonder why Rasmussen polling numbers are ALWAYS significantly lower and different than every other poll when measuring the President's job approval rating (with the exception of Zogby's internet poll)? How do Rasmussen pollsters explain this phenomenon and, more importantly, what is your explanation for this statistically significant ongoing discrepancy between Rasmussen and pretty much every other poll out there?

We have addressed variants of this question many times, but since this questions is easily the most frequently asked via email, it is probably worth trying to summarize what we've learned in one place.

Let me start with this reader's premise. Are Rasmussen's job approval ratings of President Obama typically lower than "every other poll?" The chart that follows, produced by our colleague Charles Franklin, shows the relative "house effects" for organizations that routinely release national polls based on the approval percentage. Rasmussen's Obama job approval ratings (third from the bottom) do tend to be lower than most other polls, but they are not the lowest.

Before reviewing the reasons for the difference, I want to emphasize something the chart does not tell us. The line that corresponds with the zero value is NOT a measure of "truth" or an indicator of accuracy. The numeric value plotted on the chart represents the average distance from an adjusted version of our standard trend line (it sets the median house effect to zero, producing a line that is usually within a percentage point of our standard trend line). Since that trend line is essentially the average of the results from all pollsters, the numbers represent deviations from average. Calculate house effects using a different set of pollsters, and the zero line would likely shift.

A related point: Readers tend to notice the Rasmussen house effect because their daily tracking polls represent a large percentage of the points plotted on our job approval chart. For the daily tracking polls released by Rasmussen and Gallup Daily, we plot the value of every non-overlapping release (every third day). As of last week, Gallup Daily and Rasmussen represent almost half (49%) of the points plotted on our charts (each organization claims 24% each). As such, their polls do tend to have greater influence on our trend line than other organizations that poll less often (see more discussion by Charles Franklin, Mike McDonald and me on the consequences of the greater influence of the daily trackers).

So why are the Rasmussen results different? Here are the three possible answers:

1) LIkely voters - Of the twenty or so pollsters that routinely report national presidential job approval ratings, only Rasmussen, Zogby and Democracy Corps routinely report results for a population of "likely voters." Of the pollsters in the chart above, PPP, Quinnipiac University, Fox News/Opinion Dynamics and Diageo/Hotline report results for the population of registered voters. All the rest sample all adults. Not surprisingly, most of the organizations near the bottom the house effect chart -- those showing lower than average job approval percentages for Obama -- report on either likely or registered voters, not adults.

Why does that matter? As Scott Rasmussen explained two weeks ago, likely voters are less likely to include young adults and minority voters who are more supportive of President Obama.

2) Different Question - Rasmussen also asks a different job approval question. Most pollsters offer just two answer categories: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?" Rasmussen's question prompts for four: "How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President... do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he's been doing?"

Scott Rasmussen has long asserted that the additional "somewhat" approve or disapprove options coax some respondents to provide an answer that might otherwise end up in the "don't know" category. In an experiment conducted last week and released yesterday, Rasmussen provides support for that argument. They administered three separate surveys of 800 "likely voters, each involving a different version of the Obama job approval rating: (1) the traditional two category, approve or disapprove choice, (2) the standard Rasmussen four-category version and (3) a variant used by Zogby and Harris, that asks if the president is doing an excellent, good, fair or poor job. The table below collapses the results into two categories; excellent and good combine to represent "approve," fair and poor combine to represent "disapprove."

The 4-category Rasmussen version shows a smaller "don't know" (1% vs. 4%) and a much bigger disapprove percentage (52% vs 46%) compared to the standard 2-category question. The approve percentage is only three points lower on the Rasmussen version (47%) than the traditional question (50%). As Rasmussen writes, the differences are "consistent with years of observations that Rasmussen Reports polling consistently shows a higher level of disapproval for the President than other polls" (make of this what you will, but three years ago, Rasmussen argued that the four category format explained a bigger "approve" percentage for President Bush).

We can see that Rasmussen does in fact report a consistently higher disapproval percentage for President Obama by examining Charles Franklin's chart of house effects for the disappprove category. Here the distinction between Rasmussen, Harris and Zogby -- the three pollsters that ask something other than the traditional two-category approval question -- is more pronounced.

The Rasmussen experiment shows an even bigger discrepancy between the approve percentage on the two-category questions (50%) and the much lower percentage obtained by combining excellent and good (38%). This result is similar to what Chicago Tribune pollster Nick Panagakis found on a similar experiment conducted many years ago (as described in a post last year).

Variation in the don't know category also helps explain the house effects for many of the other pollsters. The table below shows average job approval ratings for President Obama by each pollster over the course of 2009 (through November 19). It shows that smaller don't know percentages tend to translate into larger disapproval percentages. With live interviewers and similar questions, the differences are usually explained by variations in interviewer procedures and training. Interviewers that push harder for an answer when the respondent is initially uncertain obtain results with smaller percentages in the don't know column.

3) The Automated Methodology - Much of the speculation about the differences involving Rasmussen and other automated pollsters centers on the automated mode itself (often referred to by the acronym IVR, for interactive voice response). Tom Jensen of PPP, a firm that also interviews with an automated method, offered one such theory earlier this year:

[P]eople are just more willing to say they don't like a politician to us than they are to a live interviewer because they don't feel any social pressure to be nice. That's resulted in us, Rasmussen, and Survey USA showing poorer approval numbers than most for a variety of politicians.

Other commentators offer a different theory, neatly summarized recently by John Sides, who speculates that since automated polls "generate lower response rates" than those using live interviewers, automated poll samples may "[skew] towards the kind of politically engaged citizens who are more likely to think and act as partisan[s] or ideologues," even after weighting to correct demographic imbalances.

A lack of data makes evaluating this theory very difficult. Few pollsters routinely release response rate data (and even then, technical differences in how those rates are computed makes comparisons across modes challenging). And, as far as I know, no one has attempted a randomized controlled experiment to test Jensen's "social pressure" theory applied to job approval ratings.

But that said, it is intriguing that the bottom five pollsters on Franklin's chart of estimated house effects on the approval rating all collect their data using surveys administered without live interviewers: Rasmussen and PPP use the automated telephone methodology and Harris, Zogby and You/Gov Polimetrix survey over the Internet (using non-probability panel samples). Of course, with the exception of YouGov/Polimetrix, these firms also either interview likely or registered voters, use a different question than other pollsters, or both.

As such, it is next to impossible to disentangle these three competing explanations for why the Rasmussen polls produce a lower than average job approval score for President Obama, although we can make the strongest case for the first two.

P.S.: For further reading, we have posted on the differences between Rasmussen and other pollsters in slightly different contexts here, here and here and on my old MysteryPollster blog here, here and here. Also be sure to read Scott Rasmussen's answer last week to my question about how they select likely voters. Finally, Charles Franklin posted side-by-side charts showing the Obama job approval house effects for each pollster last week; he has posted similar house effect charts on house effects on the 2008 horse race polls here, here, here and here.