Non-Gallup/Rasmussen tracking polls thread

[J. J.]

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.

First, I couldn't even get to the file.  I couldn't even connect to it.

Second, I quoted the results (which had a count of McCain underperforming in more states).  I wanted to see a "natural" undercounting, where both candidates udercounted. 

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? 

Oh, the comparisons of the 2006 polling, which I've never seen you looking at.

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

No, Alcon, polling results, compared to actual results are witchcraft. 

I see you god is back, science.  You know, this is the second time I've ask you for data; and the second time you've invoked the name of your god, "science" and not provided the data.

What I am looking for is a trend, like in all polling.  Not if something is statistically significant, because we are dealing with what I expected to be a very small variation.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I'm trying to provide you with data.  I've linked to it, but you say your computer is not able to open it.  Why are you accusing me of not providing data, and mocking me, because of your technical issues?  You haven't even told me what format you can open.

That's not a rhetorical question, by the way.  Why are you mocking me because of your own technical issues?  I want that answered before I do any further data processing for you.

(P.S. I'm an agnostic.  calling 'science' my god is just stupid, not offensive to me.  it doesn't even really make sense as an insult.)

[So the Heroes Fall]

Where was the Bradley Effect in Tennessee in 2006?

Something like that isn't just going to temporarily disappear in a state like Tennessee for one election. Its absence shows that there were other factors at work: factors that could be at work in any case where a candidate over or underpolls.

Let's look at other examples in 2006. Phil's least favorite election ever was even worse for his hero than polling indicated. Also ignoring garbage uni polls, Doyle looked to be a lot less safe in Wisconsin than he actually was, and the garbage uni polls had him way too safe. Based on polling the Idaho gubernatorial race looked possibly close, it wasn't.

So why were they wrong? There's plenty of reasons that can be discussed. And this applies in every race. The Almighty Bradley Effect is not some unshakable truth of American politics that overrides everything else. It's just one of many factors, and a factor that doesn't appear to be too major in recent years, and is somewhat dubious in ever existing.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Obama now leads nationally by 6.7%

[J. J.]

I'm trying to provide you with data.  I've linked to it, but you say your computer is not able to open it.  Why are you accusing me of not providing data, and mocking me, because of your technical issues?  You haven't even told me what format you can open.

That's not a rhetorical question, by the way.  Why are you mocking me because of your own technical issues?  I want that answered before I do any further data processing for you.

(P.S. I'm an agnostic.  calling 'science' my god is just stupid, not offensive to me.  it doesn't even really make sense as an insult.)

Alcon, I've asked you to provide the data.  I cannot get it from you, so I'm doing it myself.  And yes, so far there does seem to be a pattern that looks like a Bradley Effect on the state level in some states, I've just gotten across the Mississippi, so bear with me.

[J. J.]

Obama now leads nationally by 6.7%

Which is still out of the MOE.

Where was the Bradley Effect in Tennessee in 2006?

Something like that isn't just going to temporarily disappear in a state like Tennessee for one election. Its absence shows that there were other factors at work: factors that could be at work in any case where a candidate over or underpolls.

Let's look at other examples in 2006. Phil's least favorite election ever was even worse for his hero than polling indicated. Also ignoring garbage uni polls, Doyle looked to be a lot less safe in Wisconsin than he actually was, and the garbage uni polls had him way too safe. Based on polling the Idaho gubernatorial race looked possibly close, it wasn't.

So why were they wrong? There's plenty of reasons that can be discussed. And this applies in every race. The Almighty Bradley Effect is not some unshakable truth of American politics that overrides everything else. It's just one of many factors, and a factor that doesn't appear to be too major in recent years, and is somewhat dubious in ever existing.

No, but it looks like thre was one in OH, MD, and MA in 2006, but not in PA or TN.  Wait until I finish, but a good clue is AZ.    And keep this in mind, the Bradley Effect is not a voting phenomenon, but a polling phenomenon.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

So, J. J., are you going to explain why you were mocking me because you had computer issues?  And claiming that I refused to provide you the data, when in fact you just did not know how to open it?

[I left.]

Obama now leads nationally by 6.7%

Which is still out of the MOE.

Where was the Bradley Effect in Tennessee in 2006?

Something like that isn't just going to temporarily disappear in a state like Tennessee for one election. Its absence shows that there were other factors at work: factors that could be at work in any case where a candidate over or underpolls.

Let's look at other examples in 2006. Phil's least favorite election ever was even worse for his hero than polling indicated. Also ignoring garbage uni polls, Doyle looked to be a lot less safe in Wisconsin than he actually was, and the garbage uni polls had him way too safe. Based on polling the Idaho gubernatorial race looked possibly close, it wasn't.

So why were they wrong? There's plenty of reasons that can be discussed. And this applies in every race. The Almighty Bradley Effect is not some unshakable truth of American politics that overrides everything else. It's just one of many factors, and a factor that doesn't appear to be too major in recent years, and is somewhat dubious in ever existing.

No, but it looks like thre was one in OH, MD, and MA in 2006, but not in PA or TN.  Wait until I finish, but a good clue is AZ.    And keep this in mind, the Bradley Effect is not a voting phenomenon, but a polling phenomenon.

Arizona was a Bradley Effect state? HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

[Lunar]

What, are you saying there might be another reason McCain overperformed in Arizona besides race?

[I left.]

What, are you saying there might be another reason McCain overperformed in Arizona besides race?

actually...I think it was the "Grandpa Effect" (you heard it here first!): people couldn't admit that they would vote for someone old enough to be their grandfather...but on Election Day....they just couldn't restrain themselves....

[Lunar]

I actually think it's the left-handed effect.  Obama is left-handed and most people aren't, so they lie to pollsters but only in Arizona and Iowa.

It makes perfect sense, shutup!

[I left.]

I actually think it's the left-handed effect.  Obama is left-handed and most people aren't, so they lie to pollsters but only in Arizona and Iowa.

It makes perfect sense, shutup!

perhaps because both states include the vowels "a, i and o"?

    We need to review Idaho...that MAY be a potential left-handed effect state....of course very minor...maybe 1-2 points.

[Lunar]

Yeah whatever is statistically insignificant is what I'm going to rely on to base my opinions on.

Idaho here I come!

[muon2]

I actually think it's the left-handed effect.  Obama is left-handed and most people aren't, so they lie to pollsters but only in Arizona and Iowa.

It makes perfect sense, shutup!

perhaps because both states include the vowels "a, i and o"?

    We need to review Idaho...that MAY be a potential left-handed effect state....of course very minor...maybe 1-2 points.

Not to mention the whole South Atlantic coast from the Carolinas through Georgia to Florida.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Obama now leads nationally by 6.7%

Which is still out of the MOE.

Where was the Bradley Effect in Tennessee in 2006?

Something like that isn't just going to temporarily disappear in a state like Tennessee for one election. Its absence shows that there were other factors at work: factors that could be at work in any case where a candidate over or underpolls.

Let's look at other examples in 2006. Phil's least favorite election ever was even worse for his hero than polling indicated. Also ignoring garbage uni polls, Doyle looked to be a lot less safe in Wisconsin than he actually was, and the garbage uni polls had him way too safe. Based on polling the Idaho gubernatorial race looked possibly close, it wasn't.

So why were they wrong? There's plenty of reasons that can be discussed. And this applies in every race. The Almighty Bradley Effect is not some unshakable truth of American politics that overrides everything else. It's just one of many factors, and a factor that doesn't appear to be too major in recent years, and is somewhat dubious in ever existing.

No, but it looks like thre was one in OH, MD, and MA in 2006, but not in PA or TN.  Wait until I finish, but a good clue is AZ.    And keep this in mind, the Bradley Effect is not a voting phenomenon, but a polling phenomenon.

...and there's the problem. You just can't cherry-pick results like this to show the almighty power of the Bradley Effect. It either happens across the board, under certain verifiable factors, or not at all and discrepancies are explained by other factors. It can't just pop up at random like some weather pattern.

As for the states you mentioned:

OH-Last four polls: Blackwell gets 38, 37, 31 and 37
Result: Blackwell gets 36.65%

MA-Patrick gets 55, 54, 53 and 56
Result: Patrick gets 55.56%

MD-Steele gets 46, 44, 47 and 45
Result: Steele gets 44.2%

So in none mentioned did the black candidate overpoll outside the MoE. Even your cherry-picked results fail.

[Lunar]

Don't debate the historical bits, even if they are arguable.  That just gives him leeway and the ability to dodge the fundamental facts. 

Lack of information is the basis of his argument.  Whenever there are less polls and lesser quality polls (say, Arizona '08 or all of the SUSAs '06 which all favored the Democrats by 5%, black Republican or not), that's when polling error is most likely to show up.  Iowa's overpolling could largely be explained by the fact that McCain completely ignored the conservative base there and some small percentage of them felt compelled to answer "Undecided" to poll questions -- or that they were afraid of being labeled racist!

[© Tweed the Younger]

was the Bradley Effect even ever intended to be applied to black Republicans?

[Lunar]

was the Bradley Effect even ever intended to be applied to black Republicans?

J.J. would often like to argue that black Republicans might lie and say they are voting for the socially acceptable candidate (Obama), but blacks have always been pressuring their social group to be Democratic.  I think it's more likely that long-time black Republicans would claim to be for McCain when actually secretly for Obama than the inverse.

[So the Heroes Fall]

I think he's referring to black Republican CANDIDATES. It is a valid point though.

[Lunar]

oops, my mistake

Well J.J. says it doesn't matter whether he's Republican or Democrat.  If he overpolls and he's black it's because voters lie to pollsters motivated by race.


Also, it doesn't apply to primaries.

[So the Heroes Fall]

oops, my mistake

Well J.J. says it doesn't matter whether he's Republican or Democrat.  If he overpolls and he's black it's because voters lie to pollsters motivated by race.


Also, it doesn't apply to primaries.

Also it happens in states at random, and there's no discernible pattern to the states it pops up in. That's just the crazy power of the Bradley Effect!

[So the Heroes Fall]

Something just hit me as to how even more inane J. J.'s arguments are. His three referenced examples of the Bradley Effect in 2006 are all states where no one would argue it happened in 2008. So basically apparently these states changed so much in only two years that the Bradley Effect disappeared. But it then popped up again in states like Iowa and Arizona for some mysterious reason.

That is beyond laughable.

[Lunar]

Something just hit me as to how even more inane J. J.'s arguments are. His three referenced examples of the Bradley Effect in 2006 are all states where no one would argue it happened in 2008. So basically apparently these states changed so much in only two years that the Bradley Effect disappeared. But it then popped up again in states like Iowa and Arizona for some mysterious reason.

That is beyond laughable.

There is 0% change that polling in Iowa happened because of dissatisfied Republicans in the primaries claiming to be undecided or bad polling weights and 100% chance it happened because Obama was back and people were afraid of appearing racist.

Arizona, I don't have any idea what could be up with that.  I suppose with any same size of 50 there are guaranteed to be outliers, especially those polled by only a few firms and most of them are god-awful, creating automatic error.  Other than that, any ideas as to why Arizona might underpoll McCain?  Any at all?  Any kind of connection with McCain they might have to sway undecideds?  Ok, nevermind, I'll assume it's because of race.

[Gustaf]

Something just hit me as to how even more inane J. J.'s arguments are. His three referenced examples of the Bradley Effect in 2006 are all states where no one would argue it happened in 2008. So basically apparently these states changed so much in only two years that the Bradley Effect disappeared. But it then popped up again in states like Iowa and Arizona for some mysterious reason.

That is beyond laughable.

There is 0% change that polling in Iowa happened because of dissatisfied Republicans in the primaries claiming to be undecided or bad polling weights and 100% chance it happened because Obama was back and people were afraid of appearing racist.

Arizona, I don't have any idea what could be up with that.  I suppose with any same size of 50 there are guaranteed to be outliers, especially those polled by only a few firms and most of them are god-awful, creating automatic error.  Other than that, any ideas as to why Arizona might underpoll McCain?  Any at all?  Any kind of connection with McCain they might have to sway undecideds?  Ok, nevermind, I'll assume it's because of race.

I assumed that there were a lot of CarlHaydens who hated McCain but grudgingly voted for him anyway. There may also have been some moderate/Democrat voters who liked McCain and wanted to vote for their guy but didn't like to admit it in polls or something. But I honestly wasn't surprised at McCain over-performing in Arizona. It was one of the few things I saw coming...

[So the Heroes Fall]

Something just hit me as to how even more inane J. J.'s arguments are. His three referenced examples of the Bradley Effect in 2006 are all states where no one would argue it happened in 2008. So basically apparently these states changed so much in only two years that the Bradley Effect disappeared. But it then popped up again in states like Iowa and Arizona for some mysterious reason.

That is beyond laughable.

There is 0% change that polling in Iowa happened because of dissatisfied Republicans in the primaries claiming to be undecided or bad polling weights and 100% chance it happened because Obama was back and people were afraid of appearing racist.

Arizona, I don't have any idea what could be up with that.  I suppose with any same size of 50 there are guaranteed to be outliers, especially those polled by only a few firms and most of them are god-awful, creating automatic error.  Other than that, any ideas as to why Arizona might underpoll McCain?  Any at all?  Any kind of connection with McCain they might have to sway undecideds?  Ok, nevermind, I'll assume it's because of race.

I assumed that there were a lot of CarlHaydens who hated McCain but grudgingly voted for him anyway. There may also have been some moderate/Democrat voters who liked McCain and wanted to vote for their guy but didn't like to admit it in polls or something. But I honestly wasn't surprised at McCain over-performing in Arizona. It was one of the few things I saw coming...

What, you're saying there are reasons other than race that a black candidate can overperform in the polls? No, that can't be!