It stands for Margin of Error. But that's not important right now.
Posted on 10/31/2008 11:52:31 AM PDT by tatown
October 31, 2008
Day 19: IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll
The race showed little change Friday, with Obama's lead ticking up 0.3 point and most internals stable. The Democrat's advantage with independents narrowed a bit, with 13% of them still undecided. McCain regained his advantage with investors, but Obama kept the 9-point lead he jumped to with seniors at midweek, and he's now in front for the first time with suburbanites.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
Thanks. I wish Gallup published the same “area type” internals so that I could more adequately deconstruct that poll as well.
Not looking good.
I expected more of a bump for the one after his infomercial. Still, given where we were a couple of weeks ago with the Wall Street meltdown I will take about 4% down with 8% still undecided.
Absolutely right on call!
LLS
for obamby
LLS
No I won't. I want a McCain win but am prepared for an Obama win. The election results aren't going to upset me like some people here are totally denying reality.
I'm not being a troll. Because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't make me one either. I just ain't sticking my hand in the sand and covering my ears and shouting "la la la la la la la" about how this election is probably going to end up.
In 2004, this poll showed undecideds dropping from 7.96% to 5.22% on the last day before the election. 2.0% went to Bush, 0.6% went to Kerry, and the rest went to Nader.
TIPP subsequently allocated the remaining "undecideds": 2.7% to Kerry, 1.5% to Bush, 0.2% to Nader, and 0.8% to Other.
The question is better asked to you. Does every new registered member or someone who posts something you don't like warrant a snippy comment from you?
what are you talking about? Obama always polled better than reality during the primaries... this poll has him at 48 percent... ergo--he's not at 48... McCain has a good chance of pulling this off...
if you know any GOPers who are feeling "down" because of the polls, and who think they may as well not vote, do all that you can to get them to vote... i would hate to lose this election by a measly percentage point because we felt too defeated to turn out and vote...
LLS
1. Who are you voting for?
Obama 48.9 %
McCain 45.6 %
2. No, really, who are you voting for?
McCain 53.3%
Obama 45.2%
Pretty much. I'm tenured.
McCain may lose... but you will still be a loser troll.
LLS
60-40 is not ‘at best’. Also there is a margin of error that must be accounted for.
IBD was accurate in 2004 but they were not in 2000. They may not be accurate in 2008, or they may be. No one knows, no one.
Daily polls are never based on a quality random sample. There is not enough money/time. Thus, each polling organization has built-in biases caused by their sampling plan and execution of the plan. Those biases can be considered a random variable among polling organizations. Thus again, some polling organizations will be ‘lucky’ to be accurate on election day. IBD was in 2004, and likely someone else this go-round.
The averages and error bands are not important because they are unreliable when some polling results show estimates within the MOE. What is reliable from a field of mixed results is ‘trend’, as it contrasts out base levels leaving uncorrelated differences. But then again each polling org’s built-in biases will either accurately detect trend or confound actual trend signal.
Treating each polling organzation as a cluster of random variable generation, an aggregate analysis of their trend signals and the strength of their trend signals via smaller error margins of trend estimates can be reliable (less biased) and useful.
So the fact that the McCain campaign is touting momentum detection of trend and the Obama campaign is worried is most telling information.
If none of this makes sense to you, then the take-away is that PhD statisticians know these polls are dismal examples of status and forecasting. Any statistician worth their salt would be reluctant to certify any of these polling results unless there was a large separation of the levels (averages) by a number of standard deviations and the sample was sufficiently random enough for accurate inference with respect to the number of standard deviations used to specify real separation.
Target marked. Fire one!
Right on!!! This troll would have been zotted by the Viking Kitties in 2004... but the mods do enjoy the banter these days.
LLS
Breath in through the nose and out through the mouth. 8.0% UNDECIDED! That is all you need to know. Those 8% are the folks who do not feel like telling who they were voting for which sounds like my demographic, rural voters who are tired of being either called racist or stupid for not voting for Obama.
On target... fire at will.
LLS
It stands for Margin of Error. But that's not important right now.
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.