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.
Great report!
Thanks for that informative post.
I think Trump will win if he backs off this Kahn guy and let him—not Donald—step in it. This applies for all other “bait” the democrats use to lure him with, at least until November.
Bump
I love me some Larry.
To take it a step further, how do you know anyone is even being polled at all? Because someone in the liberal cabal says so? We rejected so-callled “climate science” yet we accept any and every poll as if it were gospel.
For all we know they could simply be making stuff up.
What is your take on the USC/LA Times daybreak poll?
but the crooks cook the books so it looks like the witch will win, that way no one will point to vote rigging and fraud...
Pat Caddell, liberal, professional pollster, thinks Reuters is full of it...
“To take it a step further, how do you know anyone is even being polled at all? Because someone in the liberal cabal says so? We rejected so-callled “climate science” yet we accept any and every poll as if it were gospel.
For all we know they could simply be making stuff up.”
I completely agree! What do we know? We know the MSM will do anything in its power to elect cankles. We know the truth is not an important virtue to them. Look at every single headline and how it is written to help Hilary. Really, we have no idea if the polls are accurate or not.
Trump should just say “After seeing the credentials and history of this Kahn guy, I have nothing else to say about him...That all speaks for itself...”
Currently Trump is ahead in the poll by about 4 points.
They ask questions to assess the likelihood that the participant will vote and balance their results based on fixed demographic and voting pattern factors.
It's as fair a scheme as I have found at least at this point in time. By the nature of the methodology, changes to the polling results happen very slowly. You don't see the volatility that you see in phony polls like Reuters and NBC/WSJ. Voters change their minds but they don't do it overnight.
I have been a registered voter since 1971 and I have NEVER been polled...
There are also many adults who never have voted and did so in the primaries because they are inspired by Trump (who understands them—blue collars).
That is EXACTLY what I think!
This concern over the “youngest person” question is silly.
POLLSTERS DON’T GET ENOUGH YOUNG PEOPLE TO RESPOND SO THEY’RE TRYING HARDER.
The CNN/ORC poll omits the 18-34 age group in their internals because they didn’t get enough respondents to meet an 8.5% MOE:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/08/01/2016.post-dem.convention.pdf
While it’s dangerous to single out any one poll, I too think these guys are coming the closest to getting it right.
I think it’s the best out there because it’s a daily, rolling poll of a LOT of people.
Gallup got of the polling business because its shady.
Today, polling is done to push an agenda rather than give us a true reading of where the electorate happens to be.
Hillary is probably leading. But by 11 points? Doubtful.
We won’t know the true state of the race until after the debates and when pollsters began sampling likely as opposed to registered voters.
In the meantime, expect the polls to be inaccurate because the MSM is using them to sell a narrative not to advance the truth.
I forgot to mention that today’s CNN poll has just 24% Republicans . . . and 48% Independents.
HUH?
Remember that the media gets its orders from the DNC.
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.