PA PrimD: Public Policy Polling: Obama Leads PA by 4%

[Sam Spade]

My only real support for that (it's more theorizing ) is that the undecideds have not gone down in the last few days as they tend to.  But that could simply be projection, or coincidence, or just general tomfoolery.

Example?

Shouldn't Zogby be crapping a new poll soon?

Of course.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I don't recall where I read this, Pollster.com I believe, but the PA primary polls are finding:

1. More undecideds than previous polls
2. A lesser rate of deciding in the last few days

They adjusted for different methodologies and all.

But damned if I can find the reference.  I'm reasonably sure I saw it though.

[Meeker]

Considering they have a pretty good track record, I'm holding out a little hope.  And that hope is anywhere from an Obama upset to Clinton by 5.

An Obama supporter with hope? Now I've seen everything

[Sam Spade]

I don't recall where I read this, Pollster.com I believe, but the PA primary polls are finding:

1. More undecideds than previous polls
2. A lesser rate of deciding in the last few days

They adjusted for different methodologies and all.

But damned if I can find the reference.  I'm reasonably sure I saw it though.

Ok, I believe you.  Of course, the RCP index says the opposite.

I wish in my comments I could be more vague or confusing.  I will try more often.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Sorry, I'm really sick right now and it's reflecting in my posts.  I'm not actively trying to be vague.

I don't see anything on the RCP index relating to undecideds.  Not even their chart includes undecideds.  Would you mind a link to whatever you're seeing?

[Sam Spade]

Sorry, I'm really sick right now and it's reflecting in my posts.  I'm not actively trying to be vague.

I don't see anything on the RCP index relating to undecideds.  Not even their chart includes undecideds.  Would you mind a link to whatever you're seeing?

Well, the chart shows a slight uptick in both sides' numbers over the past week.

[Sibboleth]

...soooooooooooooooooo...

[J. J.]

So, PPP really blew this one, 14 points off.  Zogby got it closer.

[Josh/Devilman88]

They missed Clinton results by 12 and missed Obama results by 2. If you give all the unsures to Clitnon then they were off by two.

[Hashemite]

The new ARG?

[Verily]

The new ARG?

No, not at all. PPP is still really good, they just had a very bad day. At least, that's all I can explain.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

PPP has some 'splaning to do, but they still have a solid record.  I guess they're entitled to their 1-in-20, even if this was more like a 1-in-40.  I still think they're promising--we should consider that this is their first year of being a big-league pollster and they're ranking #2.  That's impressive and they don't deserve to be lumped with ARG.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Quoted for PPP


Where did we go wrong?
 
The networks have called it for Hillary and I think after Florida in 2000 they're not going to make that mistake again, so obviously our polls were wrong.

First off, please do not call us or e-mail us and tell us we suck! We are well aware, and it does not feel good.

It's pretty easy, based on the exit polls, to see where we went wrong. We had the black vote at 18% when it turned out to be 14-15%, and we had the under 45 vote at 41% when it turned out to be 31%.

I reweighted the results from our final Pennsylvania poll to those figures for race and age, and the result of our poll was flipped- Hillary leading 49-46. Assume she pulled 60% of the undecideds and that gives her the 52-48 lead that the extrapolation from the original exit polls does.

So it's pretty easy to see where we went wrong. I'm glad that it was misweighting rather than some sort of systematic issue with our polls. Obviously we'll take some heat in the next few weeks for being so far off, and we certainly deserve it, but at the same time I don't think this should completely discount our credibility as a company- we've been pretty darn good a lot of other times this cycle.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

First off, please do not call us or e-mail us and tell us we suck! We are well aware

Haha.

It's pretty easy, based on the exit polls, to see where we went wrong. We had the black vote at 18% when it turned out to be 14-15%, and we had the under 45 vote at 41% when it turned out to be 31%.

I reweighted the results from our final Pennsylvania poll to those figures for race and age, and the result of our poll was flipped- Hillary leading 49-46. Assume she pulled 60% of the undecideds and that gives her the 52-48 lead that the extrapolation from the original exit polls does.

So it's pretty easy to see where we went wrong. I'm glad that it was misweighting rather than some sort of systematic issue with our polls. Obviously we'll take some heat in the next few weeks for being so far off, and we certainly deserve it, but at the same time I don't think this should completely discount our credibility as a company- we've been pretty darn good a lot of other times this cycle.

I'm not really satisfied with that explanation, but in fairness they made it when they were just looking at initial exit polls.  I hope they're going to (transparently) look more into what they did wrong, because they did something seriously wrong.  I do like their attitude, though .

[Umengus]

I don't understand a such mistake: this firm was the only to give an Obama win. Others (serious) companies gave a win for Clinton. The great majority on this forum did the same, without doubts. When you are against the mainstream, ask you some question about your methodology.

[Gustaf]

It's a bit sad that they show how they could have been in line with the exit polls...which were, in turn, too pro-Obama.