I’ve learned of a new way for polls to be rigged with justification (as opposed to just, uh, rigged). The Gallup poll is apparently oversampling Republicans in their polls in a way that is out of line with voter turnout in the last 3 Presidential elections. As a result, they’re getting Bush leads with significant margins while many other polls are seeing an even, too-close-to-call race.

Gallup is arguing that more Republicans will turn out to vote, thus justifying their oversample (40% republican, 33% Democrat, rest Independent). The problem is that more registered Democrats have turned out for the past 3 elections. Unless there is some major shift in party registration or an unusually significant voter turnout drive, this is unlikely to change enough to put the Democratic turnout at 7% below the Republicans. In 2000, it was 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents. Independents have been the group shrinking in overall turnout from their “heyday” in 1996 with Perot.

My real question is whether this is significant and to whom? Do people change who they’re going to vote for based on one national poll? Does a candidates base get more or less enthusiastic (with donations and support and volunteerism) when he’s ahead or behind in the polls?

My gut feels like being behind helps a candidate when it’s a small margin like today, because catching the other candidate is in sight. It motivates me, for example, to give more when I see a candidate falling behind than it does when they’re ahead by a good bit. I wonder if there are any studies of these type of trends…