| Tweet |
http://ameblo.jp/warm-heart/entry-10065542514.html から転載。 2008-01-13 13:43:19 ========================================== http://mainichi.jp/select/world/news/20080112k0000e030034000c.html 米大統領選：涙でなく人種問題？ ＮＨ州予備選結果分析（毎日新聞） 【ワシントン及川正也】８日の米大統領選ニューハンプシャー州予備選をめぐり、民主党のオバマ上院議員の圧勝を予測した米メディアの事前世論調査が「大はずれ」した背景に、「人種問題」があったとの見方が出ている。高所得でなく、学歴も高くない白人層は黒人に投票しない傾向があり、これら白人層が調査への回答を敬遠しがちなことが理由という。 米大手世論調査会社ピュー・リサーチセンターのアンドルー・コハット代表が１０日付の米紙ニューヨーク・タイムズに寄稿した。 事前の世論調査では、ＵＳＡトゥデー紙とギャラップ社などが１３ポイント差、ＣＮＮテレビなどが９ポイント差の大差で「オバマ氏独走」と報じたが、ヒラリー・クリントン上院議員が３ポイント差で勝利した。 コハット氏は共和党では事前の予測がほぼ的中したため調査方法の問題ではないと指摘。投票前日のクリントン氏が涙をこらえる姿に同情票が集まったとの見方にも「事前の大差の理由を埋めるだけの説明はできない」と分析した。 そのうえで、出口調査では「年収５万ドル未満や最終学歴が高卒の白人」にクリントン氏支持が高かったとし、「こうした層は高所得・高学歴の人々に比べて世論調査に回答せず、黒人に好意的ではない」と指摘した。 コハット氏によると、過去の選挙からも事前調査では黒人候補に支持が高く出る傾向があるという。アイオワ州でこうした現象が起こらなかったのは「オバマ氏が首位走者ではなく、白人への脅威度が低かったからではないか」と分析した。 ------------------------------ ニューヨークタイムズ紙の英文元記事（該当部分は赤太字） ⇒ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/opinion/10kohut.html THE failure of the New Hampshire pre-election surveys to mirror the outcome of the Democratic race is one of the most significant miscues in modern polling history. All the published polls, including those that surveyed through Monday, had Senator Barack Obama comfortably ahead with an average margin of more than 8 percent. These same polls showed no signs that Senator Hillary Clinton might close that gap, let alone win. While it will take time for those who conducted the New Hampshire tracking polls to undertake rigorous analyses of their surveys, a number of things are immediately apparent. First, the problem was not a general failure of polling methodology. These same pollsters did a superb job on the Republican side. Senator John McCain won by 5.5 percent. The last wave of polls found a margin of 5.3 percent. So whatever the problem was, it was specific to Mrs. Clinton versus Mr. Obama. Second, the inaccuracies don’t seem related to the subtleties of polling methods. The pollsters who overestimated Mr. Obama’s margin ranged from CBS and Gallup (who have the most rigorous voter screens and sampling designs, and have sterling records in presidential elections) to local and computerized polling operations, whose methods are a good deal less refined. Everyone got it wrong. Third, the mistakes were not the result of a last-minute trend going Mrs. Clinton’s way. Yes, according to exit polls the 17 percent of voters who said they made their decision on Election Day chose Mrs. Clinton a little more than those who decided in the past two or three weeks. But the margin was very small — 39 percent of the late deciders went for Mrs. Clinton and 36 percent went for Mr. Obama. This gap is obviously too narrow to explain the wide lead for Mr. Obama that kept showing up in pre-election polls. Fourth, some have argued that the unusually high turnout may have caused a problem for the pollsters. It’s possible, but unlikely. While participation was higher than in past New Hampshire primaries, the demographic and political profile of the vote remains largely unchanged. In particular, the mix of Democrats to independents — 54 percent to 44 percent respectively — is close to what it was in 2000, the most recent New Hampshire primary without an incumbent in the race. To my mind all these factors deserve further study. But another possible explanation cannot be ignored — the longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor. In exploring this factor, it is useful to look closely at the nature of the constituencies for the two candidates in New Hampshire, which were divided along socio-economic lines. Mrs. Clinton beat Mr. Obama by 12 points (47 percent to 35 percent) among those with family incomes below $50,000. By contrast, Mr. Obama beat Mrs. Clinton by five points (40 percent to 35 percent) among those earning more than $50,000. There was an education gap, too. College graduates voted for Mr. Obama 39 percent to 34 percent; Mrs. Clinton won among those who had never attended college, 43 percent to 35 percent. Of course these are not the only patterns in Mrs. Clinton’s support in New Hampshire. Women rallied to her (something they did not do in Iowa), while men leaned to Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton also got stronger support from older voters, while Mr. Obama pulled in more support among younger voters. But gender and age patterns tend not to be as confounding to pollsters as race, which to my mind was a key reason the polls got New Hampshire so wrong. Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews. I’ve experienced this myself. In 1989, as a Gallup pollster, I overestimated the support for David Dinkins in his first race for New York City mayor against Rudolph Giuliani; Mr. Dinkins was elected, but with a two percentage point margin of victory, not the 15 I had predicted. I concluded, eventually, that I got it wrong not so much because respondents were lying to our interviewers but because poorer, less well-educated voters were less likely to agree to answer our questions. That was a decisive factor in my miscall. Certainly, we live in a different world today. The Pew Research Center has conducted analyses of elections between candidates of different races in 2006 and found that polls now do a much better job estimating the support for black candidates than they did in the past. However, the difficulties in interviewing the poor and the less well-educated persist. Why didn’t this problem come up in Iowa? My guess is that Mr. Obama may have posed less of a threat to white voters in Iowa because he wasn’t yet the front-runner. In New Hampshire, the ballots are still warm, so it’s hard to pinpoint the exact cause for the primary poll flop. But given the dearth of obvious explanations, serious consideration has to be given to the difficulties that race and class present to survey methodology.
gataro-cloneの投稿
米大統領選：涙でなく人種問題？ ＮＨ州予備選結果分析【NYTimes⇒毎日新聞】
テーマ：世界の動き
意表外だが、なるほどと思わせる分析だ。先日のニューハンプシャー州予備選の事前世論調査、大方はオバマ氏の圧倒的優位を伝えていたが、結果は大はずれでクリントン氏が接戦を制した。逆転の裏に涙を見せてのクリントン氏の必死になっての運動があり、それが効を奏したのだろうとも言われたりしたのだが…。
Op-Ed Contributor
Getting It Wrong
By ANDREW KOHUT
Published: January 10, 2008
Washington
Caucuses are also plainly different from primaries.
投稿コメント全ログ コメント即時配信 スレ建て依頼 削除コメント確認方法
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
掲示板,ＭＬを含むこのサイトすべての
一切の引用、転載、リンクを許可いたします。確認メールは不要です。
引用元リンクを表示してください。