Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 10/17/2008 10:36:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2008 10:36:35 AM EST by KUpolo]
I've already stated my case on why I believe that ACORN's fraudulent registrations are not going to translate to many fraudulent votes but that is a discussion for another thread.


This question is only for all of those of you who mention ACORN as the reason when they see McCain trailing in the battleground state polls.


I do not understand how the fraudulent registrations could possibly be effecting the polls. Are you guys picturing an ACORN call center that is set up and manned strictly for the purpose of answering "Obama" when pollsters call? I live in a battleground state and I have never received a polling call. The cost of setting up many phone lines and manning them for the sole purpose of skewing a poll by 1% would seem to me to be an outrageous thing to do.

Please help me understand
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:37:28 AM EST
Answered you in the Missouri thread.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:37:29 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:39:16 AM EST
Didnt someone explain this shit to you in your last thread?

Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:40:51 AM EST
I really do not give a crap about polls, I do give a big huge stinking pile about an election being fair.

If elections where based on polls, then a republican would never win and a few thousand people would decide who runs our country.

If you do not care about fraud whether it helps your party or not, then I pity you.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:40:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2008 10:43:26 AM EST by Max_Mike]
Got beat up in the other thread so you run to a new one huh...

I believe what you are doing is called spamming the board.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:42:17 AM EST
As much as I'll get shitted on for trolling, I honestly wonder the same thing. How are invalid registrants going to have any significant impact on actual voters?
Oh, and

FUCK OBAMA
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:42:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By Nulllogik:
Didnt someone explain this shit to you in your last thread?



It didn't compute with his liberal mindset. He won't be satisfied until he receives the asnwer that fits with his liberal outlook on life.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:44:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Nulllogik:
Didnt someone explain this shit to you in your last thread?



No. Can you read?

This is specially concerning those who are saying that the polls are skewed because of ACORN.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:44:24 AM EST
Can we vote him off the island?
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:45:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By SoonerBorn:
I really do not give a crap about polls, I do give a big huge stinking pile about an election being fair.

If elections where based on polls, then a republican would never win and a few thousand people would decide who runs our country.

If you do not care about fraud whether it helps your party or not, then I pity you.


I clearly care about fraud. I think it is disgusting and hurts the nation. Read my other thread.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:45:42 AM EST
This guy seems to have no problem with fraud. Why does he keep throwing the same pitch to a conservative web site that's not going to give him the affirmation he seems to desperately need?
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:46:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By SoonerBorn:
I really do not give a crap about polls, I do give a big huge stinking pile about an election being fair.

If elections where based on polls, then a republican would never win and a few thousand people would decide who runs our country.

If you do not care about fraud whether it helps your party or not, then I pity you.


I clearly care about fraud. I think it is disgusting and hurts the nation. Read my other thread.


I'm sure you care about fraud-from the McCain campaign if you could find it.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:46:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By ryann:
This guy seems to have no problem with fraud. Why does he keep throwing the same pitch to a conservative web site that's not going to give him the affirmation he seems to desperately need?


I have a huge problem with fraud, however that is not answering my question regarding polling.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:47:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By SoonerBorn:
I really do not give a crap about polls, I do give a big huge stinking pile about an election being fair.

If elections where based on polls, then a republican would never win and a few thousand people would decide who runs our country.

If you do not care about fraud whether it helps your party or not, then I pity you.


I clearly care about fraud. I think it is disgusting and hurts the nation. Read my other thread.


I'm sure you care about fraud-from the McCain campaign if you could find it.


I don;t know how many ways I can say it. Fraud = Bad

That does not answer my question about how is skews polls.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:48:22 AM EST
in some areas it is possible to register then immediately file absentee ballot w/no real controls.

i have no doubt that helping people vote twice or more is seen by many of these people as completely justified.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:49:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By torstin:
in some areas it is possible to register then immediately file absentee ballot w/no real controls.

i have no doubt that helping people vote twice or more is seen by many of these people as completely justified.


I get that. What I don't get is how that skews polls.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:49:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By stoner63a:
Can we vote him off the island?


No, but we can ignore him.

DON'T FEED THE TROLL
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:50:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By SoonerBorn:
I really do not give a crap about polls, I do give a big huge stinking pile about an election being fair.

If elections where based on polls, then a republican would never win and a few thousand people would decide who runs our country.

If you do not care about fraud whether it helps your party or not, then I pity you.


I clearly care about fraud. I think it is disgusting and hurts the nation. Read my other thread.


I'm sure you care about fraud-from the McCain campaign if you could find it.


I don;t know how many ways I can say it. Fraud = Bad

That does not answer my question about how is skews polls.


If fraud=bad, then ACORN=bad, and Barry=bad because they support Barry and Barry gave them $800,000 to throw the election.
Next topic.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:50:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By UH_SALT_RIFLE:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Trolling_drawing.jpg/800px-Trolling_drawing.jpg


By the way this is the best troll picture yet. You should get a prize.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:50:55 AM EST
Polls weight their results according to percentages of democrats and republicans registered.

ACORN's false democrat registrations make it appear that more dems are registered than actually are.

Therefore, the polls are more heavily weighted toward dems, thus skewing results.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:51:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By KUpolo:
I've already stated my case on why I believe that ACORN's fraudulent registrations are not going to translate to many fraudulent votes but that is a discussion for another thread.


This question is only for all of those of you who mention ACORN as the reason when they see McCain trailing in the battleground state polls.

I do not understand how the fraudulent registrations could possibly be effecting the polls.
Please help me understand


Personally, at this point I believe that polling data is being flat-out fabricated. The "undecided" and plain old dumbass who has not made up his mind yet is easily influenced by what the rest of the herd is doing.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:51:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By SoonerBorn:
I really do not give a crap about polls, I do give a big huge stinking pile about an election being fair.

If elections where based on polls, then a republican would never win and a few thousand people would decide who runs our country.

If you do not care about fraud whether it helps your party or not, then I pity you.


I clearly care about fraud. I think it is disgusting and hurts the nation. Read my other thread.


I'm sure you care about fraud-from the McCain campaign if you could find it.


I don;t know how many ways I can say it. Fraud = Bad

That does not answer my question about how is skews polls.



Even though you're a fucking troll, this isn't that hard.

When they do polls, they "adjust" the results to make sure their sample is adjusted to what they believe will be voter turn out.

One of the tools they use to make these adjustments is called "voter identification"

One of the sources of the adjustment for "voter identification" comes from information about the NUMBER of registered voters in an area, including the DELTA in such registrations over a period of time.

Ironically, the ACORN people's piles of fraudulent registrations result in the poll people over adjusting (in Dem favor) the voter identifications hashed against poll percentages.

This makes the polls all show Nobama way ahead of where he likely really is. The polls think there are more total democrats going to vote than there actually are.

This is designed to get the polls showing a bump lead, to dissuade the other side from bothering.

Plus the Acorn guys are now trying to actually cast VOTES using the fraudulent cards.

Ergo: Bad shit.

Now quit fucking trolling.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:52:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2008 10:52:45 AM EST by Frank_The_Tank]

Originally Posted By Mazeman:
Polls weight their results according to percentages of democrats and republicans registered.

ACORN's false democrat registrations make it appear that more dems are registered than actually are.

Therefore, the polls are more heavily weighted toward dems, thus skewing results.



KUPOLO read this, again, and again, and again. And after awhile, come back and read it again.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:52:58 AM EST
From a Post on here before....

Polls are WEIGHTED based on the # of Dems and Repubs. in the polled area.

So (might be oversimplified, but bear with me).

I'm from the AFARR poll service.

I call 100 people here in this area.

I get 50 people saying they are voting for McCain and 50 people voting for Obama (dropping the undecideds for simplicity's sake).

So, do I report 50% McCain and 50% Obama in my Poll? NO.

I then look at the registered Republicans (say 35% in this area).
Then the Democrats (say 45% registered).

That leaves 20% independents...so we throw them out.

I then Multiply my 50 responses for Obama by .45 (the Democrats) and get 22.5 (My Weighted numbers).

I then multiply my 50 responses for McCain by .35 and get 17.5.

Then I add 17.5 and 22.5 and get 40 as a total.

Then 22.5 divided by 40 gives me Obama's weighted numbers = 56.25
17.5 divided by 40 give me McCain's = 43.75

So I report Obama 56% to McCain 44%

That is how the polls get skewed by Voter registrations.

It doesn't take into account the cross-over voters (the Hillarists that will vote for Palin), etc.





Link Posted: 10/17/2008 10:54:30 AM EST
FUCK OBAMA
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:00:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wrekless:
FUCK OBAMA


+1
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:03:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By AFARR:
From a Post on here before....

Polls are WEIGHTED based on the # of Dems and Repubs. in the polled area.

So (might be oversimplified, but bear with me).

I'm from the AFARR poll service.

I call 100 people here in this area.

I get 50 people saying they are voting for McCain and 50 people voting for Obama (dropping the undecideds for simplicity's sake).

So, do I report 50% McCain and 50% Obama in my Poll? NO.

I then look at the registered Republicans (say 35% in this area).
Then the Democrats (say 45% registered).

That leaves 20% independents...so we throw them out.

I then Multiply my 50 responses for Obama by .45 (the Democrats) and get 22.5 (My Weighted numbers).

I then multiply my 50 responses for McCain by .35 and get 17.5.

Then I add 17.5 and 22.5 and get 40 as a total.

Then 22.5 divided by 40 gives me Obama's weighted numbers = 56.25
17.5 divided by 40 give me McCain's = 43.75

So I report Obama 56% to McCain 44%

That is how the polls get skewed by Voter registrations.

It doesn't take into account the cross-over voters (the Hillarists that will vote for Palin), etc.







Bold and Red so you cant miss it.

For your next topic, are you going to ask why this is a bad thing?
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:04:04 AM EST
Sorry I'm late


Originally Posted By sd_norske:

Originally Posted By sd_norske:

Originally Posted By KUpolo: Never been to DU, but have been reading on here for a while and have concluded that you guys go there far more than they come here.

Then this is a remarkable coincidence.


Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:06:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By AFARR:
From a Post on here before....

Polls are WEIGHTED based on the # of Dems and Repubs. in the polled area.

So (might be oversimplified, but bear with me).

I'm from the AFARR poll service.

I call 100 people here in this area.

I get 50 people saying they are voting for McCain and 50 people voting for Obama (dropping the undecideds for simplicity's sake).

So, do I report 50% McCain and 50% Obama in my Poll? NO.

I then look at the registered Republicans (say 35% in this area).
Then the Democrats (say 45% registered).

That leaves 20% independents...so we throw them out.

I then Multiply my 50 responses for Obama by .45 (the Democrats) and get 22.5 (My Weighted numbers).

I then multiply my 50 responses for McCain by .35 and get 17.5.

Then I add 17.5 and 22.5 and get 40 as a total.

Then 22.5 divided by 40 gives me Obama's weighted numbers = 56.25
17.5 divided by 40 give me McCain's = 43.75

So I report Obama 56% to McCain 44%

That is how the polls get skewed by Voter registrations.

It doesn't take into account the cross-over voters (the Hillarists that will vote for Palin), etc.








Thank you. You saved me the trouble.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:09:02 AM EST
"effect" is a noun. "Affect" is a verb. You mean "affecting."

I think "effect" can be used as a verb, but it means to cause. You "effect" a change.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:10:44 AM EST
Gee, why would ACORN think it were so important to get fraudulent voter registrations to the elections office? I mean, it doesn't make any difference right? Why spend all that money, since none of those fraudulent registrations end up as fraudulent votes right?

Busy work, that's all it is.

Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:11:15 AM EST
So DUpolo... do you get it now?
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:14:58 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:15:08 AM EST
Please go away.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:16:34 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:18:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
So DUpolo... do you get it now?


He gets it-he just needs a little attention, poor kid.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:19:08 AM EST
fucking troll
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:20:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By KUpolo:
I've already stated my case on why I believe that ACORN's fraudulent registrations are not going to translate to many fraudulent votes but that is a discussion for another thread.


This question is only for all of those of you who mention ACORN as the reason when they see McCain trailing in the battleground state polls.


I do not understand how the fraudulent registrations could possibly be effecting the polls. Are you guys picturing an ACORN call center that is set up and manned strictly for the purpose of answering "Obama" when pollsters call? I live in a battleground state and I have never received a polling call. The cost of setting up many phone lines and manning them for the sole purpose of skewing a poll by 1% would seem to me to be an outrageous thing to do.

Please help me understand


First of all, you aren't trying to understand anything. You're just trolling.

But since I am bored and feel like biting, here's an answer.

Many of those on the left have been trying to say that this issue with ACORN is politically motivated and is disenfranchising inner city voters that would have voted for Obama.

It makes just as much sense to say that those on the right in battleground states feel disenfranchised because they perceive ACORN's blatant fraud gives them little hope of their side winning. They might say to themselves: "Why should I even try considering that my vote can't possibly outnumber all the fraudulent ones out there?".



Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:20:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By fenderfreek:
As much as I'll get shitted on for trolling, I honestly wonder the same thing. How are invalid registrants going to have any significant impact on actual voters?
Oh, and

FUCK OBAMA


There's more to this than just fraudulent registrations - inform yourself.

Here's another Ohio example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2onRgtgXkc

FUCK OBAMA & that DU poster around here
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:21:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By KUpolo:
I've already stated my case on why I believe that ACORN's fraudulent registrations are not going to translate to many fraudulent votes but that is a discussion for another thread.



Please help me understand


Dan the troll.



Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:22:15 AM EST
Why does anyone even feed this troll anymore?


When you see he is the poster just don't click.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:24:57 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:26:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2008 11:37:18 AM EST by KUpolo]

Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:

Even though you're a fucking troll, this isn't that hard.

When they do polls, they "adjust" the results to make sure their sample is adjusted to what they believe will be voter turn out.

One of the tools they use to make these adjustments is called "voter identification"

One of the sources of the adjustment for "voter identification" comes from information about the NUMBER of registered voters in an area, including the DELTA in such registrations over a period of time.

Ironically, the ACORN people's piles of fraudulent registrations result in the poll people over adjusting (in Dem favor) the voter identifications hashed against poll percentages.

This makes the polls all show Nobama way ahead of where he likely really is. The polls think there are more total democrats going to vote than there actually are.

This is designed to get the polls showing a bump lead, to dissuade the other side from bothering.

Plus the Acorn guys are now trying to actually cast VOTES using the fraudulent cards.

Ergo: Bad shit.

Now quit fucking trolling.


I know it's hard for you to believe, but this was an honest question and I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

I took a class on polling methodology while working on my political science degree and while I don't remember much, I do remember that in fact this is not how a lot of polling works.

The use of political party in polling questions is a subject of big contention among the polling community. Many feel that it skews results so it is certainly not used in all polls.

_________________________________________________________________________________

So I just did a bit of reading on the subject and I found a really interesting article that covers this exact discussion. It says that polls conducted by academics do not like to use party affiliation but that many pollsters do use it. This would explain why in my class it was not used. It's an interesting read and I thank you for bringing up this point even though the anger wasn't really necessary.


Pre-election polling presents particular challenges. As Election Day approaches, these polls are most relevant and accurate if conducted among voters. Yet actual voters are an unknown population — one that exists only on (or, with absentees, shortly before) Election Day. Pre-election polls make their best estimate of this population. Our practice at ABC News is to develop a range of "likely voter" models, employing elements such as self-reported voter registration, intention to vote, attention to the race, past voting, age, respondents' knowledge of their polling places and political party identification. We evaluate the level of voter turnout produced by these models and diagnose differences across models when they occur.

The use of political party identification in likely voter models is a subject of debate among opinion researchers. It's used commonly by campaign pollsters, less so among academic researchers. After an extensive evaluation of the issue, ABC News began employing party ID as a factor in our likely voter modeling for our tracking poll in 2000, and we continue the practice in our 2004 tracking poll. (A tracking poll is a series of consecutive, one-night, stand-alone polls reported in a rolling multi-night average. Ours is conducted among 600 general population respondents per night, using a nightly mix of fresh and redialed random telephone numbers.)

We made a detailed presentation on our 2000 tracking poll, including an examination of the effects of party ID as a factor in modeling, at the 2001 annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). It showed that party ID factoring in 2000 had essentially no effect on our estimate of vote preferences — no more than a single point on any given day.

Proponents of using party ID in likely voter modeling point out that party ID has been remarkably stable in exit polls conducted in presidential elections since 1984 — Democrats accounting for either 38 percent or 39 percent of voters, Republicans 35 percent and independents 26 percent or 27 percent. (That stability is impressive given the differing vote margins in these elections — Rep +18, Rep +8, Dem +6, Dem +9, tie.) Opponents of the practice note that party ID can and does change, and that polls measuring the dynamics of the race — rather than simply attempting to predict its outcome — need to measure and report this change, not suppress it.

Our practice is informed by the fact that, in all our polling, we see night-to-night variability in party ID that appears to represent trendless sampling variability rather than actual changes in partisan self-identification. It also appears to us that some likely voter models (although not ones that we use) may accentuate this short-term variability in party ID. This affects portrayals of the race, given the very high correlation between party ID and vote preference. Rather than reporting actual changes in opinion, these surveys instead may be reporting who's moving into and out of their likely voter models. That's meaningful if it represents true movement of potential voters into and out of the pool of presumed actual voters, but not if it only represents an artifact of the likely voter model itself. Claims that this movement is meaningful seem to be contradicted by its trendless variability and by the remarkable consistency in party ID in actual turnout in the last five presidential elections.


We do not use party ID as a factor in our pre-election polls before tracking begins. These polls, done well in advance of Election Day, are not predictive, and do not seek to model actual turnout. The shifts in allegiance they record often appear as consistent, multi-night, event-based changes, rather than trendless, night-to-night variability. We noted and reported, for example, shifts in party ID around the 2004 conventions — more Democratic self-identification after the Democratic National Convention, more Republican self-identification after that party's convention.

Tracking polls, done in the final weeks of the campaign, are seen as more predictive. They need to sharpen their best estimate of actual likely voters, and not let the accuracy of their portrayal of the race fall victim to sampling variability or model-induced fluctuations.

Keeping in mind that actual change can occur, but also that random movement can distort, our solution is to compute an average of party ID as measured in our nightly tracking poll, and party ID as measured in recent presidential elections. This averaging approach allows us to pick up real movement in party ID while constraining random variability. It reflects our conclusion that, on one hand, the stability in party ID in the last five elections is persuasive, but not necessarily fully predictive; and, on the other, that some variability in party ID in tracking polls may be real, but that it also can reflect sampling or modeling variability, rather than true movement in voter attitudes.

Some critics of using party ID from exit polls in likely voter modeling point out that it's the equivalent of weighting a poll to a poll, which increases sampling error. It still, however, may improve the estimate. Exit polls are based on much larger samples than tracking polls — at least 13,000 voters in each election since 1992 — with correspondingly low margins of sampling error, less than one percentage point. Exit polls also are based on samples of actual voters, rather than likely voter estimates. And they're post-stratified to actual vote, which is highly correlated with party ID. All these increase the reliability of exit poll estimates. Opponents of using party ID in modeling also note that it introduces judgment into the process. However, judgment is required across all components of likely voter modeling — what elements to include, how to compute them, what turnout to anticipate.

While our modeling is intended to produce the best possible estimate, we reject the myth of pinpoint accuracy in pre-election polls. A good final poll, rigorously conducted and with accurate modeling, should come within a few points of each candidate's actual support. Any more indicates a problem, but any closer is the luck of the draw. Winning the horse-race lottery is not sufficient grounds for a substantive evaluation of the quality of any pre-election poll.

Indeed, while good polling produces the best available estimate of the candidates' standing at any point in time, that is not the sole or even the main reason ABC News engages in pre-election polling. We conduct these surveys as part of our effort to cover the election fully and well, by independently measuring the concerns and interests of likely voters and voter groups, and reporting how these inform their decisions in the deliberative process under way.

Response Rates

Response rates are a complex issue. Rates are computed for "contact," that is, the number of households reached out of total telephone numbers dialed (excluding an estimate of nonworking and business numbers); and "cooperation," the number of individuals who complete interviews out of total households reached. The two together produce the "response rate." There is no single, agreed-upon means of calculating response rates (including, for example, how to estimate nonworking and business numbers).

Even given a probability sample, it cannot be assumed that a higher response rate ensures greater data integrity. Research over many years, including a variety of studies reported at the annual meeting of AAPOR in May 2003, has found no significant biases as a result of response rate differences. As far back as 1981, in "Questions & Answers in Attitude Surveys," Professor Howard Schuman of the University of Michigan, describing two samples with different response rates but similar results, reported, "Apparently the answers and associations we investigate are largely unrelated to factors affecting these response rate differences." (p332.) For more details on response rate issues, click here.

In spring 2003 ABC News and the Washington Post produced detailed sample dispositions for five randomly selected ABC/Post surveys at the request of Professor Jon Krosnick, then of Ohio State University, and his associates for their use in a study of response rate differences. The cooperation rate calculations produced by Krosnick's team for these five surveys ranged from 43 to 62 percent, averaging 52 percent. The response rate calculations produced by Krosnick's team ranged from 25 to 32 percent based on what the AAPOR describes as a "very conservative" estimate of the number of business and nonworking numbers in the sample; it would be 31 to 42 percent based on a less conservative estimate reported in the June 2000 issue of Public Opinion Quarterly. The difference underscores one of the many factors that make the issue so complex, and response rate comparisons so tenuous.


what this shows is that most pollsters are using the stable number of Democrats vs Republicans that has not changed since 1984 instead of a new number that ACORN could influence. It really takes the wind out of the sails of your argument I think.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:26:25 AM EST
Here’s how…

Suppose you take a poll about what everyone’s favorite toy as a child was. Your poll has two choices

* Tonka Truck
* Barbie Doll.

You get 4,000 responses and find out that about 3,000 people preferred the truck and 1,000 preferred the doll. BUT you also find out that 3/4th of the people responding were men. Men 100% preferred the truck and women 100% preferred the doll. So, your poll is flawed, right?

Not really. All you have to do is to correct for the numbers. 50% of the people are men and 50% are women. So you can conclude that it’s a 50/50 split.

Make sense?

Now, suppose you ask about everyone’s favorite holiday? 90% say Christmas and 10% say Hanukkah. Once again you have split right down religious lines with all Christians answering “Christmas” and all Jews answering “Hanukkah.” If Jews make up 10% of your population then the numbers are good. But what if they don’t? Suppose they make up 1% of your population. (Perhaps you did your survey on a night when many Christians were attending a church function.)

If you know the ratio of Christians to Jews you can easily calculate the correct answer. But if you use an inaccurate estimate of the ratio your poll will be wrong.

So, you take a poll and find out that…

Claim to be Republican on the phone… 100% McCain
Claim to be Independent on the phone… 33/33/33/1 (Obama/McCain/Undecided/Mickey Mouse, in that order.)
Claim to be Democrat… 100% Obama.

(Keep in mind that many people will screw with the pollsters just on general principles… The principle in this case being that it ain’t nobody’s business how you voted. Democrats might claim to be Republicans for Obama and Republicans might claim to be Democrats for McCain.)

OK, but you gotta go with what you got. So, if 33% of your population is Republican, 33% is Democrat, and 33% independent, your numbers indicate a dead heat. But when you look at voter registration roles and see…

Clark Kent – D
John Doe – D
Seymore Butts – D
Tim Madison – R
Wendy Madison – R
Enormous Johnson – D
Gerald Washington –D
Betty Washington – D
John Morgan – I
Sarah Morgan – I
Homey D’Clown – D
Wang Chung – D
Dick Smoker – D
Jack Mehoff – D

You then conclude that there are far more Democrats than Republicans or independents. So, you drastically over compensate and come up with a totally inaccurate result.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:27:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2008 11:27:56 AM EST by danno-in-michigan]
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:30:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By danno-in-michigan:
DUPE
www.jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=771656


Lockdown on aisle 4.


Actually no, this deals with polls, not votes. It's an entirely different question.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:31:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
So DUpolo... do you get it now?


He gets it-he just needs a little attention, poor kid.


I know.

DUpolo reminds me of the "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer" skit that the late great Phil Hartman use to do on SNL.

listoftheday.blogspot.com/2008/08/classic-snl-clip-of-day-unfrozen.html
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:32:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By Thuban:
Here’s how…

Suppose you take a poll about what everyone’s favorite toy as a child was. Your poll has two choices

* Tonka Truck
* Barbie Doll.

You get 4,000 responses and find out that about 3,000 people preferred the truck and 1,000 preferred the doll. BUT you also find out that 3/4th of the people responding were men. Men 100% preferred the truck and women 100% preferred the doll. So, your poll is flawed, right?

Not really. All you have to do is to correct for the numbers. 50% of the people are men and 50% are women. So you can conclude that it’s a 50/50 split.

Make sense?

Now, suppose you ask about everyone’s favorite holiday? 90% say Christmas and 10% say Hanukkah. Once again you have split right down religious lines with all Christians answering “Christmas” and all Jews answering “Hanukkah.” If Jews make up 10% of your population then the numbers are good. But what if they don’t? Suppose they make up 1% of your population. (Perhaps you did your survey on a night when many Christians were attending a church function.)

If you know the ratio of Christians to Jews you can easily calculate the correct answer. But if you use an inaccurate estimate of the ratio your poll will be wrong.

So, you take a poll and find out that…

Claim to be Republican on the phone… 100% McCain
Claim to be Independent on the phone… 33/33/33/1 (Obama/McCain/Undecided/Mickey Mouse, in that order.)
Claim to be Democrat… 100% Obama.

(Keep in mind that many people will screw with the pollsters just on general principles… The principle in this case being that it ain’t nobody’s business how you voted. Democrats might claim to be Republicans for Obama and Republicans might claim to be Democrats for McCain.)

OK, but you gotta go with what you got. So, if 33% of your population is Republican, 33% is Democrat, and 33% independent, your numbers indicate a dead heat. But when you look at voter registration roles and see…

Clark Kent – D
John Doe – D
Seymore Butts – D
Tim Madison – R
Wendy Madison – R
Enormous Johnson – D
Gerald Washington –D
Betty Washington – D
John Morgan – I
Sarah Morgan – I
Homey D’Clown – D
Wang Chung – D
Dick Smoker – D
Jack Mehoff – D

You then conclude that there are far more Democrats than Republicans or independents. So, you drastically over compensate and come up with a totally inaccurate result.


So what pollsters are doing according to the polling methodology article I cited is that they use the number of Dems at 38-39% and Republicans at 35% because this is the number that polls have shown to be steady since 1984. In other words, they are not altering their percentages in their tabulation data this year despite any new registrations from ACORN.
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:34:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2008 11:34:42 AM EST by KUpolo]

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
So DUpolo... do you get it now?


He gets it-he just needs a little attention, poor kid.


I know.

DUpolo reminds me of the "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer" skit that the late great Phil Hartman use to do on SNL.

listoftheday.blogspot.com/2008/08/classic-snl-clip-of-day-unfrozen.html


I know I'm going to end up typing this a hundred times because you only read direct replies, but pollsters are using set percentages for Dems and Repubs that they have been using since 1984 and have proven year after year to be accurate. They are not changing these percentages becasue of ACORN.

What does that do to your argument?
Link Posted: 10/17/2008 11:36:46 AM EST
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top