User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 3:49:29 AM EDT
[#1]
Why...that would be dishonest!
Sgatr15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 3:53:02 AM EDT
[#2]
Polls are never accurate, they reflect the consensus of a group that is normaly found at that site/news station.
A good example would be to post a poll of ARFCOMers that support the second amendment. Post the same poll at both Fox News, and CNN and see how the numbers change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 4:08:01 AM EDT
[#3]
My understanding is these are random phone polls - i.e. somewhat more representative than asking a HCI convention if guns are bad. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 5:01:43 AM EDT
[#4]
Good polls will release all their data. I don't know if this ABC poll did that. Most or all of the polls "weight" their results by likely voter and party affiliation, but both of those weights can introduce errors. I suspect this could be part of the Wash Post's story line that "Kerry is a good closer". It's actually "Kerry is a hoser".
GunLvr |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 5:03:25 AM EDT
[#5]
"Eh, hoser....."  I think that's what I'm getting at. Introducing even a few statistical adjustments pretty much turns polls into crap shoots at best, and ideologically based shilling at worst. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 5:08:44 AM EDT
[#6]
Introducing statistical adjustments can actually make the poll much more accurate, IF the adjustments are done for valid reasons. These adjustments should only be used to remove know sample bias, i.e. getting a sample that is very unrepresentative of the population (like one containing 80% Republicans). That is why you need to know what the raw numbers were, as well as what adjustments were made and why. If the poll will not divlulge this information, be VERY wary of the results. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 6:07:39 AM EDT
[#7]
Yup, without the methodology and internals I can't judge whether they skewed the results to a desired end or not. It is possible to adjust numbers both to bias the poll and remove bias... but without access to the core data it is impossible to know.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 6:12:03 AM EDT
[#8]
Are you a dyslexic typist, Sarge? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 7:14:46 AM EDT
[#9]
OK. Nother ? - Is that type of "adjustment" standard procedure in polling, or are we usually just receiving raw data ? (i.e. 540 voted for Kerry 570 voted for Bush) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 7:27:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Most polls that are doing adjustments seem to be weighting the samples to mirror party turn out in previous elections. This is problematic because 2002 saw superior turnout with Republicans, 2000 showed low turnout in general. We know there will be higher turnout this time akin to 2002, but will a surge in dem registrations and voter fraud overcome the party advantage republicans enjoyed in 2002.
Pollsters have two choices right now. Work off of previous models and run the risk it might not be a valid assumption, or they can try to guess what the turnout rates are likely to be and poll accordingly. I know nobody wants to hear this, but we are making the best guesses that we can right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 7:28:26 AM EDT
[#11]
My feeling is that without seeing the poller's actual methodolog, I would go with the number of different polls and who they favor. Most of the polls in my opinion don't same a big enough sample size to make an accurate inference on the entire population. Polls such as the LA Times to me has a history of being wrong because of their political bias for the Dems.
Check out HiramRanger's Electoral Vote Map October 26. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 7:42:23 AM EDT
[#12]
I said this earlier as far as how much I am relying on the polls:
In the past 100 years, the electorate consisted of about 35%-40% of the total people eligible to vote. They are now estimating that it can be upwards of 60% of people eligible to vote who will be casting ballots this year. No pollster or political pundit knows how to even read this. Could it be that the electorate is desperate for change? Can it be because the electorate wants to ensure that we maintain consistent leadership in a time of war? Who knows but something is motivating the populace. Unless there is some drastic and explainable shift in the poll numbers, I will patiently wait 8 more days |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 7:43:55 AM EDT
[#13]
I don't know whether typical political polls in a non-election year use raw data or not. Most of the studies the government (or academics) release which involve surveys include weighting of the data. My PhD dissertation weighted the data of the survey I did and I did not choose the weights, it was done by by survey "experts" and out of my hands (although I could dump the weighting factor if I chose). GunLvr |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 7:44:27 AM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 7:49:43 AM EDT
[#15]
A quick look-see at -Absolut-'s link shows that the majority of the polls has Bush ahead.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
