Posted on 02/11/2016 1:52:47 PM PST by Riflema
Countless News Organizations refer breathlessly to the Real Clear Politics "RCP Poll Average" as the go-to source for the big picture view of the candidates' standings. But did anyone take a look at that source and figure out how they come up with their numbers? With some trepidation, in fear of what I would find, I did.
Here's today's RCP Average and the individual polls it summarizes:
|
Poll |
Date |
Sample |
Trump |
Cruz |
Rubio |
Carson |
Bush |
Kasich |
Christie |
Fiorina |
Spread |
|
RCP Average |
1/22 - 2/4 |
-- |
29.5 |
21 |
17.8 |
7.8 |
4.3 |
4 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
Trump +8.5 |
|
QuinnipiacQuinnipiac |
2/2 - 2/4 |
507 RV |
31 |
22 |
19 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
Trump +9 |
|
Rasmussen ReportsRasmussen |
2/3 - 2/4 |
725 LV |
31 |
20 |
21 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
Trump +10 |
|
PPP (D)PPP (D) |
2/2 - 2/3 |
531 LV |
25 |
21 |
21 |
11 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
Trump +4 |
|
IBD/TIPPIBD/TIPP |
1/22 - 1/27 |
395 RV |
31 |
21 |
10 |
9 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Trump +10 |
Now take a look at any candidate's column and do their math, RCP style:
e.g., Trump: 31%, 31%, 25%, 31%, add 'em up and divide by 4 to get the mean, bingo!, 29.5%!!
I'll simplify the problem with this:- suppose one of those polls was a sample of 2000 voters and one was 100 voters and they came in as follows:
|
Poll |
Date |
Sample |
Trump |
|
RCP Average |
1/22 - 2/4 |
-- |
22.5 |
|
Poll 1Quinnipiac |
2/2 - 2/4 |
2000 RV |
30 |
|
Poll 2Rasmussen |
2/3 - 2/4 |
100 LV |
15 |
But are you ready to buy that? What Real Clear Politics is actually demonstrating here is innumeracy.
If 30% of 2000 voters and 15% of 100 voters favor Trump, the correct average is:
(30% x 2000) + (15% x 100) = 600 + 15 = 615 voters out of 2100 = 29.3%
It's called a weighted average, RCP. The poll of 2000 voters has way more weight than the one of 100 voters. Get it?
I guess since the majority of consumers of this junk are journalists we should not be surprised that it is swallowed and regurgitated so readily. Over all my years of reading their junk, I long ago ceased to be amazed at their fundamental inability to master any of the hard sciences, you know, the ones that involve math. Sheesh.
As John Huang used to say, that's just my 2c. (and excuse the crude HTML!)
>> The poll of 2000 voters has way more weight than the one of 100 voters <<
You obviously know little or nothing about mathematical statistics and sampling theory. The size of a sample has no significant bearing on the predicted mean, only on the standard deviation. It’s one of the first things you’re taught in any introductory statistics course.
(30% x 2000) + (15% x 100) = 600 + 15 = 615 voters out of 2100 = 29.3%
One can normalize the percentages by making an assumption that 15% of 100 could be extrapolated to 15% of 2000 to give 300.Then 600 + 300 = 900 out of 4000. And 900/4000 = 22.5%
Given your attitude, I am glad your as old as you are too. Wish you were older.
Often, the world as we perceive it, is not so much a reflection of the world, but of ourselves.
You should think on that, old man. You are old, but you are not wise, nor helpful. Much of what you say is partially true, but so is it also true if I stand over your toilet and declare that everything you've produced here is sh*t.
Still time to change though! It's going to be an awesome century.
What a nasty piece of work you turned out to be - and indeed you are tiny ...
I read yours to be a blanket smear on everything in the universe, that was my point, it was 100% negative about everything.
But so was what I wrote, or at least what it communicated, and I take responsibility for that, not a productive post. If I thought what you wrote was bad, then so was mine, perhaps worse in that I tried to top your negativity - I apologize for the personal attack.
When I read it, I took yours to mean all the candidates are terrible, and so is all of the electorate - which includes me an other good and smart and caring people, and anyone who thinks there is any hope is stupid, and anyone who supports Trump has been fooled by him and worships him.
No so.
But more than likely you were just expressing frustration, and it came out that everyone but you on earth is an idiot. Whether that's what you meant or not, that's what I hit back at, and that notion deserves to be hit back at.
But if all I did was insult a person expressing frustration, then I'm sorry, it was a pretty graphical and cutting response by me. Not productive, aimed at words on a screen and probably not you, let me rephrase:
Not every candidate is bad although the general situation is not good, Not everyone in the electorate is an idiot. You should not be glad you are older, because the world is a beautiful place, if not the political landscape. I support Trump's candidacy, don't worship him, and I'm not an idiot - I think those who can only insult Trump's supporters should reflect on whether they are missing something, and are perhaps guilty themselves of the same simplistic thinking of which they accuse his supporters. One thing I notice about me and Trump supporters is that we make a case for him despite his shortcomings - those against Trump don't have much to say except that we are stupid and fooled. In these simple insults, those who make them can count themselves in the company of the media and democrats. Their insults implicitly insult themselves. Some make a coherent case, backed by past actions that Trump is a risk. I'm aware of his past not-so-conservative life.
I am a supporter, and I took it personally. Fair game to insult back? Yes. Was it perhaps overkill? Probably.
I'll reflect on my response though. I don't know who you are, probably you are just frustrated like I am, and perhaps I just lashed out at the first bit of negativity I came across after myself crossing a line of weariness and frustration. Like you, I am amazed at the dimwittedness of the electorate, and while most likely my response, at least the harshness, was inappropriate or overboard, perhaps you'll find that your words were not beautiful either, which is not to excuse mine if they were wrong.
I wish you a good weekend, and assume both of us are probably wrong about the other at least in part, and I'll take the hit for giving you some reason to be wrong. I can at times be tiny, sometimes due to being tired or angry, sometimes due to misinterpreting something I read - a danger with email and Mr. Internet in general, sometimes just because I can be tiny, hopefully those times are not often or defining.
HEY!!!!!
I'm a nasty piece of work, and NOT EVEN A *MENTION*??!?
And I'm trying unsuccessfully to get tiny, but I'm still YUGE.
tiny lifeforms make tiny comments without thinking, leading others to see that the rest of their thoughts are also and equally unthinking and tiny.
Sorry your universe is so small, but that might be just because you live in a tiny universe which would rightly seem huge to you, but microscopic to ordinary sized people.
And so when someone else makes a comment or has an opinion differing from your own, you feel compelled to shut them down and stifle free speech - are you sure you are not a BS or HRC supporter in disguise?
The trouble is certain tiny lifeforms cannot read (perhaps the letters are too large), but just skim over the surface without pausing to reflect for a microsecond - but that’s to be expected from a tiny lifeform living in a tiny universe ... tiny lifeforms are easily injured by anything bigger then themselves (which is most things), tending to take most ordinary of things personal while displaying total ignorance (from the length of the response, I’ll have to forgo the qualifier ‘stupid”) of the actual nature and origins of the US system of governance which could rightly be attributed to the long-failed US educational system (assuming you did pay attention on those long hot days in class and not fall asleep or pass notes about that funny kid over in the other row).
I stopped being frustrated after Nixon because there was no longer a free and wealthy country to get excited about. It became a county of lies and deception ruled by unaccountable laws and power seeking regulations designed to keep people ignorant of who they were and were they came from politically. All of which were swallowed whole-cloth by various and sundry ignorant, over-sensitive, metrosexual, tiny lifeforms ... who best stay out of the kitchen.
Laz, we know you are Yuge and so do the girls ... or so they say.
I don’t know who you are but I tried to be nice, thinking I’d hurt you. My mistake, done with conversation.
A lot of times I'll say that to a beautiful woman on the street, followed by ... "whenever I look at you."
But you are then old, large, and wise. So, what is this "A equals A?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.