Posted on 10/31/2008 6:57:12 PM PDT by Illinois Rep
Edited on 10/31/2008 6:59:35 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The reason polls appear to be reliable is that in the vast majority of cases they are highly accurate. It's sort of like quantum mechanics - science is based in part on observation, yet at the quantum level observation effects the results. Likewise, polling is statistically valid, yet if we introduce the concept of "moral hazard", all bets are off. Here's a comment I posted the other day that expands on this theme.
olling is statistically sound; where it can be corrupted is if a choice has a high (perceived/actual) sanction value. If there is no or limited sanction value, as in the 2006 mid-term elections or various state & local choices, then polling can be highly accurate.
But, introduce the concept of (personal) moral hazard, and results can be widely skewed. For example, how many attendees of the Colosseum waited until the emperor gave his thumb up/down before roaring their approval? Likewise, how would you answer if asked during the period Galileo was imprisoned whether you believed the earth revolved around the sun?
In our current era, there are certain moral imperatives that are expected to be widely embraced, including gay rights & affirmative action. The inherent danger in opposing this "cultural norm" can range from implied rebuke to ostracism to outright violence. That's why polling results for both Prop 8 out here in Calif (opposition to gay marriage) and Obama are horribly corrupted.
And it's not just lying - it's decline-to-answers & hang-ups. If a pollster calls 1,000 people and only 900 were willing to answer, what can we surmise about the 100 (10% - actual estimates are 80%) who declined? If they are split 75/25 for McC, then that's a net of 5 pts.
Right now, the shorthand for this effect is called the "Bradley (or Wilder) Effect", but it is really much greater than that - these candidates are merely symptoms of the phenomenon. Mark my words, many doctoral theses are going to be written analyzing/explaining situations where polling results can be invalidated when the environment for personal expression of opinion has an associated high risk factor.
Yeah, he said that on Oct 20:
"Believe me, there is someone in the Obama campaign who is deathly afraid of the 'McCain pulls even or goes ahead' poll ... That Obama strategist knows how much depends on the whole Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel approach —.work with the media to demoralize conservatives, and keep the perception of a juggernaut going. But a day or two of a few bad polls, and that strategy backfires."Smart little Jedi, that Obiwan!
Amazing how effective the Obama strategy has been. It's had me depressed over the last few weeks. It didn't seem possible that he would be so far ahead, but there it was, day after day: the margins varied but Obama's lead never vanished. Now it seems the O-man's campaign was based on one of the biggest bluffs in political history.
One reason the blog postings of that "Sarah P" were credible is that she accurately described the way the polling et al affected me. Now it looks like McCain really has a shot (which in reality he had all along). The Obama "phenomenon" turns out to be part real, part Potemkin Village. I'm jazzed--we can pull this out!!
That said, I'm going to have my final analysis up tonight sometime, and there might be more possibilities here than we've considered.
Ping alert to self to read analysis.
This Drudge headline needs to hit the mainstream media today. It will energize the McCain base like nothing else. That said, I’m sure the MSM will try to bury it.
My Father believes McCain has no chance. Then I explained to him that all McCain has to do is hang onto the strong Bush States (likely) and win PA, OH, FL, and MO.
That’s it. Win those four states. McCain can lose CO, VA, NM, and IA if he picks up PA.
I think we’ve got a shot at an electoral college win here with a popular vote loss.
“Considering how many people are afraid to admit they will vote for McCain-Palin and the oversampling of Democrats, McCain +1 in any of these polls in astounding. This means McCain-Palin is probably leading by 5-10%. With all that said, we still need to get out to vote as if this race was tied.”
Exactly right.
It has about 2 1/2!
I wouldn't look either, but I imagine it's full of predictions/warnings/threats of riots, civil war and bloodshed.
Probably, the Mother Ship is circling overhead beaming down inside information directly to DU.
or to put it another way
Obama’s chances are crumbling fast. A little bit of accurate news about him is circulating.
So what renumeration you expect from Barack Hugo Obama should he become POTUS?
Many here slam Zogby and rail agianst his biased polls and “secret sauce”. If his polls are crap when they go against your guy, they’re still crap when they go for your guy. Bottom line is this is too close to call and all the polls are meaningless.
My thoughts were similar to yours, but when I sat back and thought about I wondered about how I had missed it? Then I came to a realization about what the 0-machine has now brought into the American Political system.
I wouldn't have even considered, let alone expected, that I was being played at this level. Do Politicians stretch the truth, you bet, but I do not expect that they could have a systemic strategy of "psychological repression" thought control that would span them, pollsters, and the media.
I also expect the media to biased, but in in that to separate themselves from a single party's attempt at the control of our thinking.
If true, and I'm certain this will be 100% confirmed or disposed after the election, then just how is this "psychological" voter repression at all different than the "Voter Repression" that the Dems insist that the people, law, media be on vigil to stop?
Have we all REALLY been victimized by a preplanned, systematic, engagement of voter repression?
McCain PinG!
IMO, the explanation for the polls is much more innocuous than a conspiracy theory by all pollsters (left or right leaning).
I think there are so many variables going on here in this election that pollsters don’t know what they’re doing.
Therefore, it’s in their best interest to have (roughly) the same result, even if they have to keep increasing D/R margins to do so.
If all of them give the same answer and fail, none of them fail. Where are you going to find another polling company?
But, on the other hand, if a pollster decides to buck the trend, it’s a huge gamble. They risk being embarrassed to the point of going out of business.
They’ll take the “safe” choice, keep their business, and keep running with the herd.
I convinced an Obamabot yesterday to vote for McCain.
Hehe. Even Eurotwits are trying to help save America.
Cheers.
Agreed the polls are crap, however, the reason Freepers get excited over a poll showing McCain with a lead is simple: Despite the oversampling of Dems, ignoring the Pumas, ignoring Bradley Effect, and just plain overt LYING, the pollsters are having a tough time making the numbers for the ObamaChrist...
So - if your a campaign strategist this is EXACTLY what you count on happening.
Then you alter those inputs that will skew the results but knowing that there is no real correlation of (input x - say its phony voter registration) to a real change to probable outputs.
I'm not necessarily saying your wrong, I'm pointing out (in light of the evidence of this note ostensibly written from within the 0bama campaign) that a stragey like this is a real possibility given the assumptions that you point out.
Yeah. For real. Unbelievable.
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.