About

  • Mitch Harper, editor [contact via email]

    Original content, commentary and analysis © 2005 - 2016 Fort Wayne Observed

    Banner photo © Everett White. Used by permission, all rights reserved.
My Photo

Comments

  • Fort Wayne Observed welcomes reader comments as a way to facilitate discussion and debate.

    In order to leave a comment, you must also leave your full name and a working email address in the event Fort Wayne Observed contacts you for confirmation. You may request that your email address not be published when your comment is posted.

    Anonymous comments or those that include coarse language or personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Updates

Your Take

Indiana Blogs

statistics



  • eXTReMe Tracker

Become a Fan

« CNN Poll confirms Pence on the right track | Main | FWOB revisits a July post »

Comments

Kevin Whaley

I don’t necessarily think that this is good news for either candidate. Dr. Hayhurst probably hoped that there would be less undecided voters by now. At the same time, Mark Souder probably imagined that the definition of “very conservative area” included more than 52% of the vote.

The poll indicates that 8% of the likely voters are still undecided and that is where both candidates will have to focus their efforts. At the same time Dr. Hayhurst will have to continue to try to appeal to Republican voters who are perhaps dissatisfied with Souder but haven’t been offered a viable alternative in the past. Meanwhile Souder will continue to try and convince Republicans that he represents the party’s ideals and that voting for Hayhurst will lead to a liberal Congress.

This should be an interesting election.

Charlotte A. Weybright

In 2004, voter registration in the 3rd district was recorded as follows:

Allen County 226,006
DeKalb County 28,578
Elkhart County 99,035
Kosciusko County 49,735
LaGrange County 14,915
Noble County 29,021
Steuben County 22,480
Whitley County 19,975

Total number of registered voters = 489,745.

The News-Sentinel/WANE-TV poll was taken using 400 voters which is less than .001 of the registered voters. I have a couple of questions about how the poll was done, and, since I am not a pollster, I hope someone can explain the methodology.

First, were the selected registered voters pro-rated among the counties according to the percentage of total registered voters in each county? For example, according to figures I listed above, Allen County contains about 46% of registered voters in the district. If pro-rated, Allen County's representation should have been 184 voters of the 400 voters. Were approximately 184 "pollees" then called from Allen County with the remaining 216 drawn from the seven other surrounding counties? Or was this a random sampling from all 8 counties with the 400 voters evenly distributed among the 8 counties? The sheriff's poll listed a great deal of information about the methodology of the poll while the congressional poll listed a bare minimum of information.

I also tried to get some information about Research 2000. The only thing I can conclude from their website is that they have been around since 1986 - only 20 years. Most of their "clients" are newspapers and TV stations. And when they speak about how accurate they are, I only saw two congressional races out of 435 races listed from the 2004 election. One was the 2nd district in Indiana, and one was from Iowa.

The following statement is from the Research 2000 website:

"What separates us from other firms is that we “LISTEN” to our clients. By listening, and consulting with our clients we develop and design the most effective research strategy that will accurately define and measure what our clients need to know."

The poll was commissioned by WANE-TV and the News-Sentinel. The general consensus in this community is that the NS is republican oriented while the JG is democratic oriented.

Finally, how on earth can anyone claim an accurate poll when only using less than one thousandth of the registered voters?

The comments to this entry are closed.