Non-Gallup/Rasmussen tracking polls thread

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Still waiting to find out why a three-day tracker is different than a three-day poll, btw.

...wait, you mean that polling accuracy fluctuates up and down, possibly due to poor weighting, and it's stupid to apply analysis to tiny amounts of error without statistical significance, especially if it doesn't stand out from the overall sample?

Take your radical ideas back to Europe, scum

[J. J.]

OK.  While I'm working on this, you can explain to everyone how the Muhlenberg tracking poll (612 phone interviews conducted over three days) is worth excluding while Insider Advantage (588 phone interviews conducted over three days) should be included.

go!

I think it's a different purpose of the poll.  Tracing polls are, well, intended to track.  A state poll is intended to be a snapshot of the electorate.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

OK.  While I'm working on this, you can explain to everyone how the Muhlenberg tracking poll (612 phone interviews conducted over three days) is worth excluding while Insider Advantage (588 phone interviews conducted over three days) should be included.

go!

I think it's a different purpose of the poll.  Tracing polls are, well, intended to track.  A state poll is intended to be a snapshot of the electorate.

A three-day tracking poll is not different from a three-day state poll.  Both are a poll conducted over three days.  Their methodology is totally identical.  They are both a "snapshot" of three days.  There are actually non-tracking polls conducted over more than three days.

In PA, SurveyUSA, Zogby and Strategic Vision all fielded polls that are less of a "snapshot" than the Muhlenburg tracker.

[J. J.]

OK.  While I'm working on this, you can explain to everyone how the Muhlenberg tracking poll (612 phone interviews conducted over three days) is worth excluding while Insider Advantage (588 phone interviews conducted over three days) should be included.

go!

I think it's a different purpose of the poll.  Tracing polls are, well, intended to track.  A state poll is intended to be a snapshot of the electorate.

A three-day tracking poll is not different from a three-day state poll.  Both are a poll conducted over three days.  Their methodology is totally identical.  They are both a "snapshot" of three days.  There are actually non-tracking polls conducted over more than three days.

In PA, SurveyUSA, Zogby and Strategic Vision all fielded polls that are less of a "snapshot" than the Muhlenburg tracker.

I've given you my reason.  They basically have a different purpose.  Also, part of the same sample is included in another tracking poll. 

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I've given you my reason.  They basically have a different purpose. 

I pointed out how that reason is totally invalid.  A three-day tracking poll is conducted the exact same way as a three-day poll.  You could not distinguish the two.  Everything about them is the same.  Unless you can explain how the specific methodology is different, or demonstrate that it is, you're just making stuff up.

Also, part of the same sample is included in another tracking poll. 

Huh?

[J. J.]

I've given you my reason.  They basically have a different purpose. 

I pointed out how that reason is totally invalid.  A three-day tracking poll is conducted the exact same way as a three-day poll.  You could not distinguish the two.  Everything about them is the same.  Unless you can explain how the specific methodology is different, or demonstrate that it is, you're just making stuff up.

Also, part of the same sample is included in another tracking poll. 

Huh?

A tracking poll that takes a three day sample will only have two days in the prior day's sample. 

Poll released on November 1 includes these samples:

Sample from 10/31
Sample from 10/30
Sample from 10/29

Poll released on November 2 includes these samples:

Sample from 11/1
Sample from 10/31
Sample from 10/30

Two of the samples counted on 11/1 will be in 11/2.

Two non tracking polls taken in the same period, even by the same firm, will not use the same sample.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Yeah, but a tracking poll released on November 1st is the same thing as a poll conducted from October 29th to 31st.  So, since we're including polls from 10/28 otherwise, why throw a poll from the 29th-31st out?

[J. J.]

Yeah, but a tracking poll released on November 1st is the same thing as a poll conducted from October 29th to 31st.  So, since we're including polls from 10/28 otherwise, why throw a poll from the 29th-31st out?

Because there was also a tracking poll, with two days worth of the same sample, on 10/31.  If you include all those polls you are literally counting the same people over again.  I wouldn't have a problem comparing tracking poll to tracking poll, if we had a lot of tracking polls.

It's apples to oranges.

Now, will you answer my questions:

1.  Now, in what  states where Obama overpolled did McCain underpoll?

2.  In what states did McCain overpolled did Obama underpoll?

I'm interested in factoring out those states were both candidates either underpolled or overpolled.

[Nym90]

Ben, surely there must be some, ah, more interesting and amusing way of fulfilling your S and M fantasies than this.......

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Because there was also a tracking poll, with two days worth of the same sample, on 10/31.  If you include all those polls you are literally counting the same people over again.  I wouldn't have a problem comparing tracking poll to tracking poll, if we had a lot of tracking polls.

It's apples to oranges.

Um, no, they don't call back the same people.  It's a random sample each time.  Read their methodology PDF.  It's basically like a continuous three-day poll that rolls over.  So, in the end, it's just a three-day poll.

A tracker poll does not track by calling the same 300 people every day, lol.  Otherwise it would have a ridiculously large MoE.

Now, will you answer my questions:

1.  Now, in what  states where Obama overpolled did McCain underpoll?

2.  In what states did McCain overpolled did Obama underpoll?

I'm interested in factoring out those states were both candidates either underpolled or overpolled.

I posted a table of that!  Dude.

Ben, surely there must be some, ah, more interesting and amusing way of fulfilling your S and M fantasies than this.......

Not after that damn Craigslist crack-down

[Grad Students are the Worst]

J. J.,

Had someone clarify what you meant.

I posted a Spreadsheet with the poll data.  If you want to compare this to finals, to see where Obama and McCain under- and over-performed, be my guest.  It's useless information, though; it relates more to how hard undecideds are pushed, and how third-parties are managed.  Either way, the table I presented is the closest useful version of that.  I mean, really, what does both McCain and Obama under-polling say?  Double Bradley Effect?  Really:  Probably university pollsters, Mason-Dixon, and other non-pushy pollsters.

And I see your tracker point, but I'm only including the last tracker as if it were a three-day poll.  I'm not including any previous trackers, as you're right, that would be double-counting samples.  Theoretically, I could include multiple three-day periods, as long as they don't overlap.  But in the above, I included no trackers, per your request.  But I specifically said I'm including the last day only, so the problem you raise doesn't come up.

[J. J.]

Because there was also a tracking poll, with two days worth of the same sample, on 10/31.  If you include all those polls you are literally counting the same people over again.  I wouldn't have a problem comparing tracking poll to tracking poll, if we had a lot of tracking polls.

It's apples to oranges.

Um, no, they don't call back the same people.  It's a random sample each time.  Read their methodology PDF.  It's basically like a continuous three-day poll that rolls over.  So, in the end, it's just a three-day poll.

Ah, yes.  The sample in in the poll on November 1 includes 2/3's of the respondents in the October 31 sample (in a three day sample).  It's not a fresh sample each day; that's where we got all the pro - ________ sample dropping off.

Now, will you answer my questions:

1.  Now, in what  states where Obama overpolled did McCain underpoll?

2.  In what states did McCain overpolled did Obama underpoll?

I'm interested in factoring out those states were both candidates either underpolled or overpolled.

I posted a table of that!  Dude.

Alcon, I'm asking where both candidates where both undercounted or both overcounted. 

[Grad Students are the Worst]

You need to read my second post, it responds to both things you just said.

[J. J.]

J. J.,

Had someone clarify what you meant.

I posted a Spreadsheet with the poll data.  If you want to compare this to finals, to see where Obama and McCain under- and over-performed, be my guest.  It's useless information, though; it relates more to how hard undecideds are pushed, and how third-parties are managed.  Either way, the table I presented is the closest useful version of that.  I mean, really, what does both McCain and Obama under-polling say?  Double Bradley Effect?  Really:  Probably university pollsters, Mason-Dixon, and other non-pushy pollsters.

I don't have spread sheet.  However, the purpose to look at where both candidates underperformed or overperformed.  This is more to rule out true undecides, really bad polling.  If Obama had 48% and McCain had 46% in a state poll, and the result was 52% to 48%, both candidates underpolled.  That has to be taken into account.

And I see your tracker point, but I'm only including the last tracker as if it were a three-day poll.  I'm not including any previous trackers, as you're right, that would be double-counting samples.  Theoretically, I could include multiple three-day periods, as long as they don't overlap.  But in the above, I included no trackers, per your request.  But I specifically said I'm including the last day only, so the problem you raise doesn't come up.

I could deal with that, so long as there wasn't any double counting.  That was my concern. 

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I don't have spread sheet.  However, the purpose to look at where both candidates underperformed or overperformed.  This is more to rule out true undecides, really bad polling.  If Obama had 48% and McCain had 46% in a state poll, and the result was 52% to 48%, both candidates underpolled.  That has to be taken into account.

I can do that, but before I do, I want to know what methodology we're going to use to make conclusions from it.  I don't want to totally waste my time with what I suspect will amount to "where did low-push pollsters poll?"

I could deal with that, so long as there wasn't any double counting.  That was my concern. 

Good stuff.  Muhlenberg takes Obama's under-polling in PA up a notch, and down a notch with UNH in NH.  It does not change the overall rates or any statistical significance.

[J. J.]

I don't have spread sheet.  However, the purpose to look at where both candidates underperformed or overperformed.  This is more to rule out true undecides, really bad polling.  If Obama had 48% and McCain had 46% in a state poll, and the result was 52% to 48%, both candidates underpolled.  That has to be taken into account.

I can do that, but before I do, I want to know what methodology we're going to use to make conclusions from it.  I don't want to totally waste my time with what I suspect will amount to "where did low-push pollsters poll?"

What I'm looking at is a pattern.  If both candidates tended to underpoll in a state, it probably is more a function of the polling or of true undecided voters than anything else..  I've been looking more at cases where McCain underpolled and Obama didn't.  I'd like to knock out those states where both underpolled.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

What I'm looking at is a pattern.  If both candidates tended to underpoll in a state, it probably is more a function of the polling or of true undecided voters than anything else..  I've been looking more at cases where McCain underpolled and Obama didn't.  I'd like to knock out those states where both underpolled.

Even though you admit that's more of a function of polling techniques?  Be my guess  The Spreadsheet is there for you.  Tell me how it goes.

Preview: More McCain underpoll states get knocked out, nearly evening them up; statistical significance of the aforementioned states, obviously, is unaffected.  Obama's overall underpoll margin increases slightly.

So, where are we at?  No statistical evidence of a Bradley Effect for every single test you've had me undertake so far.  Beginning to get at all skeptical? 

edit: removed unintentional passive-aggressive language.  sorry.

[J. J.]

What I'm looking at is a pattern.  If both candidates tended to underpoll in a state, it probably is more a function of the polling or of true undecided voters than anything else..  I've been looking more at cases where McCain underpolled and Obama didn't.  I'd like to knock out those states where both underpolled.

Even though you admit that's more of a function of polling techniques?  Be my guest, bud.  The Spreadsheet is there for you.  Tell me how it goes.

I'm trying to what states both candidates underpolled it, which would be an indication of polling techniques. 

Second, I couldn't get on to the raw data site.  It won't load.

Preview: More McCain underpoll states get knocked out, nearly evening them up; statistical significance of the aforementioned states, obviously, is unaffected.  Obama's overall underpoll margin increases slightly.

So, what now J. J.?  No statistical evidence of a Bradley Effect for every single test you've had me undertake so far.  Beginning to get at all skeptical? 

So far, we have Obama overpolling, on average, in the tracking polls.  Three of those are out of the MOE (out of seven IIRC).  I did not expect that.

We have Obama overpolling in 21 out of 37 states.  I did not expect that, either, at least unless both candidates underpolled.  My question is, in these states, did McCain underpoll or overpoll?

Remember, I'm looking for a very tiny Bradly Effect.  I said I'd expect to be 1-2 points nationally, and that it would not be even state to state.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Why would one candidate underpolling not also potentially be an indication of polling techniques?  Why not use the method I developed, wherein you subtract one candidate's underpolling from the other?

Trackers are not better than state polls.  They're the same kind of poll, just done nationally.  The number of samples in the state polls greatly outweighs the national trackers.  The national trackers were not wrong to statistical significance.

You've ignored the fact that Obama under-polled overall, in favor of him overpolling in more states -- which I already told you does not meet statistical significance.  I told you which states statistical significance was met in.  Especially considering that winning presidential candidates tend to over-poll, that's meaningful.

And, yes, you are looking for a Bradley Effect.  Desperately.

[Lunar]

and there's still that pesky 538 site that managed to predict both Obama's and McCain's exact numbers (not margins) by weighting the polls based off of historical accuracy.  Well, it was 0.1% for one of them.

0.1% reverse Bradley effect?

[J. J.]

Why would one candidate underpolling not also potentially be an indication of polling techniques?  Why not use the method I developed, wherein you subtract one candidate's underpolling from the other?

One think I noticed in 2006 (3 out 5 times) was that the Black candidate didn't overpoll as much as the white candidate underpolled

Trackers are not better than state polls.  They're the same kind of poll, just done nationally.  The number of samples in the state polls greatly outweighs the national trackers.  The national trackers were not wrong to statistical significance.

I didn't say trackers were "better."  I said something occurred on trackers (and frankly something I was not expecting).

I would say 3 out of 7 outside the MOE was significant.

You've ignored the fact that Obama under-polled overall, in favor of him overpolling in more states -- which I already told you does not meet statistical significance.  I told you which states statistical significance was met in.  Especially considering that winning presidential candidates tend to over-poll, that's meaningful.

And, yes, you are looking for a Bradley Effect.  Desperately.

I'm not ignoring anything, in fact, I'm asking a question about it.  I would expect that on some polls, both would underpoll; that could be due to undecides.  I'm interested in cases where both candidates did not underpoll.

Remember, I thought it would be very weak, but present.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

One think I noticed in 2006 (3 out 5 times) was that the Black candidate didn't overpoll as much as the white candidate underpolled

ok?

I didn't say trackers were "better."  I said something occurred on trackers (and frankly something I was not expecting).

Yea, but trackers are just one different sort of poll.

I would say 3 out of 7 outside the MOE was significant.

Which were those?  What were the MoEs, and ho  did the candidates track?

I'm not ignoring anything, in fact, I'm asking a question about it.  I would expect that on some polls, both would underpoll; that could be due to undecides.  I'm interested in cases where both candidates did not underpoll.

Remember, I thought it would be very weak, but present.

So, you're comfortable with using data that doesn't reach statistical significance to make a determination which could have alternative explanations.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

J. J., sincerely, here's why people don't especially take you seriously as an analyst.

3/5 races with black candidates in one year = You bring up multiple times

The 538 thing Lunar mentioned (and I have, several times) = You've totally ignored

Coincidentally, #1 justifies your theory and #2 rejects it.  #2 is, by any reasonable mathematical and scientific measure, more significant.  And yet, which one gets the air time?

Just a thought.

[J. J.]

J. J., sincerely, here's why people don't especially take you seriously as an analyst.

3/5 races with black candidates in one year = You bring up multiple times

The 538 thing Lunar mentioned (and I have, several times) = You've totally ignored

Coincidentally, #1 justifies your theory and #2 rejects it.  #2 is, by any reasonable mathematical and scientific measure, more significant.  And yet, which one gets the air time?

Just a thought.

1.  Alcon, frankly, I don't care if you take me seriously as an analyst.

2.  If you recall correctly, I expected a very slight effect, 1-2 points.  It is higher than I expected in the tracking polls (on average), things that we really shouldn't have been seeing; the MOE's was 2 points on two of those polls.  I've also noted two things:

A.  It isn't even state to state.

B.  It tended to manifest itself by an undercounting of the white candidate.

3.  This is the second time, when you've claimed something, invoked "science," and I ask for data, that I will look at.  I never see the data.  I hear a lot of complaints, but no data.

I'm looking for something that I think is not a major effect, but is present; I said that going into this.  Can you provide that data?

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I provided you with the data.  You need to download a spreadsheet program and parse it for yourself.  I don't think your test is meaningful; I think it relies more on pollster methodology differences.  I already performed one test you asked me to do.  It came back with data that disputed your thesis, which you seem to have summarily ignored.  But I already spent an hour doing a meaningful test; you need to spend fifteen minutes getting the software, and then doing your own test.  Especially considering I dispute the meaningfulness of this test, and a test whose meaning we agreed on you've outright ignored.

You never see the data?  I posted a table of data and the full source spreadsheet.  How is that not seeing the data?  Because you don't have spreadsheet software?  That's not my responsibility.  In fact, I've never seen you do a single mathematical test.  Where's your science? 

(Reminder: Checking three races from 2006 and not even bothering to do statistical significance checks = not scientific!  The information you ignored = scientific!)