To those of you who wanted a ping
Mark for reading.
Bump......
i don’t know what to believe.. i come here and every thing seems optimistic about Romney... i live in the Central Valley California, and again, optimistic Romney... i come to visit my parents in the Bay Area—San Jose, California, and i listen to the news, and it sounds like Romney has no chance! there is no way he can win... ugh!
Thank you very much..
Will watch for your next installment...very interesting
Your two pieces on polling have been some of the most compelling reading I have done during this election. Polls are so pervasive, yet no one ever looks at the whole polling system. 10 out of 10, and ping me for further installments. Clear, concise and compelling. You confirm many of my suspicions, but also give me insights that I hadn’t even considered. Once again, FreeRepublic draws on the vast experience of our members and shows why we are among the most informed citizens in America.
Thanks again Flack - happy softball.
Many thanks for these two compelling posts. I imagine the internal polls must be what the campaigns react to. Two weeks out and CA Gov Jerry Brown is at Sac City Community College touting his tax hike proposal....polling out today shows it indeed in trouble. I must say the “Losing Your Virginity” ad from Obama feels the same......if they are trying to light a fire under the most inconsistent voters, what in their data told them to risk that faint reward and face a potential backlash of middle class parents with daughters? Biden, Binders and Bu11$#itter doesn’t seem like they are getting a lot of return on the message polling, but that’s just me.
Please shoot me a ping for part three. Forgot to ask for this one. Glad I saw it!
Thanks for the interesting insight!
Thank you very much.
Please include me on your ping list.
Thank you for taking the time to help educate “the great unwashed” out here across the fruited plain.
Something that has never made sense to me is “weighting” of polls.
If there is a population of 1,000 people, and if 600 of them have one stance on a topic and 400 of them have another stance, wouldn’t calling 100 of them randomly give something like a 6 to 4 result?
If I were to do a poll of that fictional 1,000 people, and I knew about this imbalance but purposely called more of the people who were in the larger group, it seems to me that the result would be incorrectly “skewed” toward that larger group. This would result in something like a 7 to 3 correlation.
Why not just randomly call enough people to get a result within an acceptable margin of error, and let the chips fall where they may, unless there is an ulterior motive to make the poll come to a predetermined conclusion?
Wow a fellow traveler I also really study polling data internals everything I can get my hands on people on FR
they despise polling data unless it agrees with their opinion
this was a really great vanity and I appreciate it
My doctor likes to tell about his daughter playing softball when my brother was the coach. She was playing “short fielder” - actually a fifth infielder between first and second base - when the batter hit a line drive and she caught it. My brother called, “Tag the runner,” and she put out the runner off of first base. Then he called, “Run to second” - and she did so, and the runner off of second was out.An unassisted triple play - and she still has that softball as a memento. :-)
Excellent read! The poll numbers are all over the place especially when you start looking at the Senate races. Now I know why. They are just trying to sell a narrative. Even the trends are getting hard to see through the crud.
thanks for the ping on part ii; please ping me again on part iii.
PS Keep me on your ping list.
Please ping me on part III, this is great stuff.
Please ping me on part III, this is great stuff.
Thanks very much for this; informative and comforting.
Please also include me on your ping list, if you would.