I don’t buy Scot’s numbers. Last week he was -10. Too much fluctuation. Seen it as low as -21 from him.
Should be -85 at least.
An Asian guy walks into the New York City currency exchange with 2000 yen and walks out with $72. Next week he walks in with 2000 yen and gets $66. He asks the lady why he gets less money this week than last week. The lady says "Fluctuations". The Asian guy storms out, and just before slamming the door, turns around and says: "Fluc you Amelicans too!"
The trend is not good. Look at an average - like a simple moving average of say 6 weeks - to smooth out the bumps and you easily see that the trend for Zer0 is not good.
On any given day any given sample may have outliers. Averaging is one way to take out the volatility of the numbers without losing big picture accuracy.
“I don’t buy Scot’s numbers. Last week he was -10. Too much fluctuation. Seen it as low as -21 from him.
Should be -85 at least.”
The key to reading Scotts tracking polls lies in the approves/disapproves numbers that seem to be more stable (or show a slight trend downwards over time).
The strongly approve/disapprove are show more fluctuation because they measure intensity...which to my mind ties into the news cycle.
Overall Scott’s use of a rolling average tends to flatten out the daily news driven highs/lows. By using a larger daily number say 7 days instead of 3 he might flatten the intensity even more......
For me I think its ok as a methodology as it is.
85% given the level and intensity of support of the Black community for Obama is an impossible #........If a net of 85% of the population strongly disapproved of Obama he’d have been impeached and removed long ago........(not a bad idea to my mind)