Posted on 08/01/2016 8:27:01 PM PDT by LS
I am not a statistician. I'm not a mathematician. But I can read. And while I want to say from the outset that we should NOT ignore polls or automatically dismiss those we don't like, we do need to be reasonable about which ones are possibly trustworthy and which are not.
For example, in the last three weeks there have been two polls from VA with Trump leading, one from Hampton U. with him at .5% and another from an outfit I never heard of with him up 5. I don' think either of these is reliable. The second group at the same time they had Trump leading in VA by 5 had him losing nationally by 15!
But there are several things recently that are extremely troubling about the polls I'm seeing. Let's review what a reliable poll would look like: 1) it would have a D/R/I split close to that of 2012, or somewhere in the 35 or 36 D, 31 or 30 R, and 28 or so I. 2) it would have a 51-49 or 52-48 F/M split. 3) it would reasonably approximate different age groups. 4) it would be a four way race (because that is what we have) 5) it would have a good sized sample (at least 500) 6) Here's the kicker: it would be "likely" voters. As we have seen in the past, there is a D loss of about 1-2 from "registered" to "likely" voters. But if the poll uses "adults," usually you can subtract another 2 from the R side.
Now, here's where I think major caution is in order: recently I have been reading the methodologies---say, for the CNN/ORC poll today that has Cankles up 11. They had a sample of over 1000 (good) but of "adults" (horrible) but then said "800 [or so] of them were registered voters."
So, what do we know about who actually is being polled? Not much. Did CNN poll 600 "registered voters" and 200 "adults?" Or 799 registered voters and 1 adult? It makes a huge difference. If the former, you have tainted your sample by 25% to the left.
This unscientific mixing of groups of voters---without stipulating who is actually being polled---means that the real result could be 2-4 points off before even addressing the D/R/I and M/F splits.
We know about the Reuters "reweighting" to achieve the results they want---that's bias as blatant and obvious as can be imagined. But even then, their splits are off, skewing their polls even further. However, there is something else going on that I have not ever seen in polling before---so please inform me if you have seen this.
The Suffolk PA poll showing Cankles up 9 and the ABC national poll showing her up 3 had an interesting phrase at the bottom of their methodology. It was that they asked for the "youngest person in the household" (presumably able to vote, because they then said the sample was "registered voters"). Now, think about that: merely asking for the youngest voter means that de facto one is more likely to get liberal Republicans and extremely liberal Democrats, whereas asking for the "oldest person" in the home would de facto give you a more conservative group of respondents.
One person, trying to defend this practice, said that 73% of this group were 35-50 year olds. But that's a massive bias still. Give me a sample of 100% 50 year olds and I'll show you a much, much more Republican-leaning group than a group of 35 year olds.
So, to reiterate: this is not to ignore polls. In 2012, while most were off, most were off in the direction of Romney. Obama won by just under 4 points, the RCP average was Obama by .7, GWU/Battleground, CNN, and Monmouth were all ties (meaning they missed by 4); IDB Tipp was Obama +1, Rasmussen was Romney +1, and Pew and ABC actually came the closest, with Obama +3. All of these used "likely voter samples".
Part of the problem was that Gallup allocated all undecided voters (3%) equally, when in fact they broke heavy for Obama because "he cares about people like me"). Likewise, Battleground figured Romney was winning indies by 15, but in the key battleground states, his biggest margin was 11 (NV), with WI and CO at 9, and most of the other key states saw indies go to Romney only by 2 points.
So what does all this mean? 1) We won't know anything at all until they begin using "likely voter" samples, and even then, they have to be realistic splits. 2) Any poll asking for the "youngest person in the home" should be tossed, as should all Reuters polls. 3) Even the closest pollsters are probably off, but not necessarily in the D direction as they were in 2012. Rather, we saw that they simply could not figure out where "undecided" and independent voters would go. The two questions Rush Limbaugh points to a great deal---"Cares for someone like me" and blaming Bush for the economy---clearly drove these indies and undecideds toward Obama.
FWIW, as you know, minor swings in 10 states can mean a massive electoral college shift. I think the polls nationally are undercounting Trump/Republicans (as was seen in the primaries), and are not properly yet assigning indies and undecideds. I do NOT put much stock in the "Wilder" effect for Trump, where people are afraid to openly say they will vote for him (although there is some evidence of this according to pollsters who use phone vs. live methods.) We'll see. When the die is cast, far fewer people will be comfortable pulling the lever for Cankles. She is just too known a product. But, hey, I could be wrong.
Going for the black vote is a waste of time. He should go after Hispanics with small business and job opportunities.
Kahn is a lawyer, a democrat and a muslim...
I wouldn’t pee on him if he was on fire.
The reason we should ignore ALL polls, good or bad, is because they make us complacent.
Bred it consistently polled as losing. Massive voter turn out changed that. That is all that counts
Get Out The Vote
Fred, your post is a great explanation of polling. Every Freeper should read it. I personally think the turnout models this year are going to be way off. I’m sure most pollsters think that a 2008/2012 based turnout model is the way to go, but I don’t think Hillary is going to get anywhere near the black/hispanic support Obama did. Not saying it’s going to go for Trump. I think a lot will stay home. Also, Trump is going to get support from white voters, especially middle aged and older white voters, in unprecedented numbers. Groups like Bikers for Trump and the alt right are registering old white guys who’ve never voted before by the tens of thousands. Those guys aren’t the type to answer a poll and, even if they do answer, are unlikely to make make it through a traditional likely voter screen, so they won’t be counted.
2008 was hard to poll because of the first black candidate, so polls using 2000/2004 turnout models oversampled McCain’s support. 2016 will be even more difficult.
As you know, a poll is only as good as its turnout model, and recent polls have done a lousy job at predicting who is actually going to vote, Brexit being the most recent example.
Good post, LS...
I have gotten to the point that I simply don’t even look at poll results any more. Looking at the internals of polls (when they are available) is enough to make me invalidate nearly all of them.
I see polls as being political tools, commissioned to give a certain result, knowing full well that the vast (overwhelming) majority of people who read the results of them don’t have any idea of what the internals of a given poll mean with respect to results.
People like us look at the poll that came out today, take it apart, and say “Hey! This poll is no better than an stupid Internet poll on a website!” and 95% of the people we might say that to simply show signs of having their eyes glaze over before squinting their eyes and saying “Now, what poll was that?”
You realize they don’t have any idea how the poll was run, and often don’t even remember where it came from. All they remember is “X is leading in the polls”.
Sigh. I have tried as hard as I can to remain educated on the issues, studied as much history as I can to build logical and historical underpinnings for my stance on issues, only to realize I am living in a fantasy world.
For every one of me out there, there are 20 people casting votes who have been glued to the tube watching CBC Nightly News, and that is their reality.
This isn’t a knock on your analysis, which is on the money and appropriate. It is just me being frustrated.
LOL. The love is great with this one...
Good memory. And my post analysis on turnout was exactly right. OH was lost by less than 300,000 votes after Bush won it in 224 by 117,000 votes. So really a mere 135,000 vote flip occurred.
Where did they come from?
A good indicator was the very numbers several of us were told over and over again were the key—”early votes.”
These were up about 5% for Rs in OH, down about 3% for Ds. But OH has a little known law that anyone who doesn’t vote in a primary is automatically put into “independent” status. No other states that I know of do this. So large numbers of independents were really Dems who didn’t vote in the non-competitive primaries.
Even with all that, the undecideds broke for Zero at the last minute. ROMNEY LED in one of the final polls, was tied in two, was only down one in others.
Pretty much validates my post. Thanks for supporting it.
Well, Trump down about 4 with women. All he needs from “minorities” is 10% of blacks to beat McCain, Romney, and pretty much tie Bush in 2004 (11%). He needs about 27% from Hispanics.
So it’s not like Cankles has all these voters.she has a percent lead.
Agree but it sounds like this poll, then, better captures true “likely” voters than any other. That’s the key. We’ll see.
Since 1996, almost every cycle ONE poll was pretty good at really capturing the race. One year it was Zogby, another year Rasmussen, another 538. Maybe this is USC’s year.
Yep-—but whet’s interesting is that going back to 1996 it seems a different pollster captures the right formula.
I think polls also have a new bias that is not understood yet. What demographic is most likely to still have a land line telephone?
I used to get polling calls on my land line. I no longer have a land line and I do not answer cell phone calls from unknown numbers. In effect, I can no longer be polled.
Correct. I got polled 2-3 times when I had a land,ine. Not once since (5 years).
“Kahn is rapidly becoming a liability to Killary as the hits on him keep on coming. He is getting torn apart.”
I hope that Kahn is getting ripped apart in places where low info voters will see it. If he’s only being dissected on talk radio and in conservative cyberspace, it’ll do little good.
“Kahn is rapidly becoming a liability to Killary as the hits on him keep on coming. He is getting torn apart.”
By whom?
Britebart?
Daily Caller?
Conservative Treehouse?
Hannity is running with this.
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.