Even reliably red Montana in play as Election Day looms.
Right.
Of course, I realize I could be the one that’s wrong.
Filed under: 2008, Elections, Polls and polling, presidential , 2008 presidential election, Polls and polling
October 31, 2008 • 10:18 pm 1
McCain Camp: It’s Not Over Yet
Here are a couple of stories to chew on:
DRUDGE REPORT ZOGBY: MCCAIN MOVES INTO LEAD 48-47 IN ONE DAY POLLING
AP poll: 1 in 7 voters still persuadable
DON’T BELIEVE THE POLLS!
Of course, an Obama loss will be blamed on racism. Erica Jong solemnly warns of Civil War, not the first time I’ve heard that.
Steven M. Warshawskyhas three separate posts at The American Thinker on this general topic, saying Don’t forget the undecided voters, Be skeptical of polls [Ed. - as I always am], and the signs pointing to a McCain victory.
DON’T BELIEVE THE POLLS!
At least, not entirely.
UPDATE: I neglected to include this post by Ace.
Filed under: 2008, Elections, Polls and polling, presidential , 2008 presidential election, Polls and polling
October 28, 2008 • 11:24 pm 0
Good advice on polls
Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics’ HorseRaceBlog
I would urge caution when interpreting all this polling data. We’re talking about disagreements among good pollsters. I take all of these firms seriously whenever they produce new numbers. They are disagreeing with one another in ways that can’t be chalked up to statistical “noise.” That gives me great pause.
Filed under: Polls and polling , Polls and polling
October 20, 2008 • 3:18 pm 0
What we would do without polls
August 29, 2008 • 2:47 pm 2
How Pollsters Affect Poll Results
Professor Charles Franklin of Political Arithmetik has an excellent post on “house effects,” or how different pollsters differ in their results. Any one interested in polls and polling should bookmark his site as well as Pollster.com where his posts are mirrored. The latter site has an electoral map up. Compare it to the one at RealClearPolitics.com
Who does the poll affects the results. Some. These are called “house effects” because they are systematic effects due to survey “house” or polling organization. It is perhaps easy to think of these effects as “bias” but that is misleading. The differences are due to a variety of factors that represent reasonable differences in practice from one organization to another.
He then gives the different variables that cause differences in results with a nifty graph (I’m a graph geek almost as much as a map geek).
Definitely worth a look.
Filed under: Polls and polling , Polls and polling
February 27, 2008 • 9:32 pm 0
Why have polls been so wrong
John Diaz, of the San Francisco Chronicle, had an piece in Sunday’s Crossroads asking why the polls have been so long.
As one who is skeptical of the value of polling, this, of course, held great interest for me. Some of his reasons mirror my own.
- Incorrect “weighting” of certain demographic groups. He notes one of John Zogby’s polls that was so off base in California was light on Latinos and heavy on younger voters.
- Absentee ballots. As much as 50% of California’s votes were cast absentee.
- Unprecedented turnout. “This year’s surge in participation, especially on the Democratic side, has made it extremely difficult to anticipate the allegiances and demographic makeup of those who cast votes.”
- The number of people who won’t talk to pollsters is going up.
- The influence of the 24/7 news cycle. He notes as an example the when Clinton had her tearful moment, “most pollsters had completed their work in the state.”
John Zogby said, “There is artwork involved here.”
More reason than ever to take polls with a grain of salt.
Filed under: Polls and polling , 2008 presidential election, opinion polls
January 7, 2008 • 6:30 pm 4
When will Fred begin to attract voters?
UPDATE: OK, the comments here go with the post above on Huckabee. I split this post up to separate the subjects. I thought of trying to copy the comments to that post, but didn’t want to risk it. That’s why they look out of place.
Most of the conservative Cheddarsphere here in southeastern Wisconsin is supporting Fred Thompson. I like Fred. I’ve said so before. I just wonder how long he will be in the race.
Let me back up a bit.
The blogosphere was all atwitter last week over a report that Fred would withdraw from the race if he didn’t do well in Iowa. This was denied by the Thompson camp and indeed was probably a dirty trick by some other campaign.
Or was it? Fred did OK in Iowa, good enough for encouragement among his supporters. South Carolina is the rallying cry.
But how is Fred doing? Actually?
OK, I don’t believe in polls either and in this environment they may quickly change and there’s no guarantee that any primary or caucus will turn out the way the polls are.
But just pretend with me that polls mean something. I mean candidates do. The media do.
According to Professor Franklin’s calculations, Fred is second in SC. Not great but within margin of errors. He’s no higher than third anywhere else. Looking at RealClearPolitics.com averages, Thompson is third in SC and no better than fourth anywhere else.
The numbers have to move sometime for Fred to stay in it. You can’t keep coming in third and win a nomination.
Most Fred heads seem believe that McCain, Romney and Huckabee will knock each other out. Huckabee won’t last and, presumably, McCain and Romney will fade because they’re not “true” conservatives.
Time will tell and it may start Tuesday.
Filed under: 2008, Elections, Politics, Polls and polling, presidential , Democratic Party, Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, presidential election of 2008, Republican Party
September 5, 2007 • 12:43 am 3
Obama campaign manager: Early polls don’t mean a thing
From an e-mail I received from the Obama for America team (also found here):
In mid-September 2003, national polls showed Joe Lieberman to be the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Then John Kerry won the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, and the shift in momentum carried him to a decisive victory.
The lesson: early polls don’t mean a thing and success in crucial early-state contests will win the Democratic nomination.
I think we’ve also found out that later polls don’t mean much either.
Filed under: Polls and polling
August 31, 2007 • 3:25 pm 2
Surprise!
A poll commissioned by a left leaning organization finds that a right leaning, as yet unannounced candidate may be vulnerable (PDF file) in the next election.
Coulda knocked me over with a feather.
Filed under: Milwaukee, Polls and polling
August 22, 2007 • 3:42 pm 0
Polls, schmolls
A poll conducted by a Democratic group favorable to Healthy Wisconsin discovered wide approval for the health care initiative, while a poll by a group opposed (PDF file) to it found widespread disapproval.
Surprise, surprise.
Now it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of Americans want everyone covered, even if it means higher taxes. The rub might come in how much tax, but that’s another question.
And health care reform is not the question here either. The question is our incessant dependence on polling numbers and the need to conduct dueling polls.
Filed under: Health care, Polls and polling
