Non-Gallup/Rasmussen tracking polls thread

[Nym90]

This thread is for all tracking polls not named Gallup or Rasmussen.

Hotline:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=82344.0

DailyKos:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=82809.0

Battleground:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=83590.0

Zogby:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=84780.0

[Nym90]

So when McCain underpolls within the MOE it's the Bradley effect, when Obama underpolls within the MOE, it's just the MOE. Ok, I got it.

[Nym90]

Obama did end up doing slightly better in the national polls than he did on election day. It could well have just been the MOE, or maybe the undecideds broke for McCain for millions of other reasons other than race, or perhaps Democratic enthusiasm, as high as it was, was still overestimated.

No evidence at all though that the state polls overall were biased to one candidate or the other.

[Nym90]

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

[Nym90]

Bottom line on the Bradley effect is even if we could prove it has existed for every black candidate (which of course we can't) the sample size would still be too small to prove it was because of race as opposed to the 50 million other reasons why polls can be wrong. We'll have to wait until there's been several hundred black candidates all with sufficient polling data on their elections before we can reach any definitive conclusions one way or another.

If I was cynical, I'd say that the people who invented the concept of a "Bradley effect" did so because they didn't want black candidates to be nominated for office by the political parties. Since I'm not, I won't say that.

[Nym90]

It's Nym's pseudo-conspiracy theory that the Bradley Effect was invented to discourage black people from running for office.  Wilder won, but underpolled.

Now I don't believe in the "conspiracy theory", but the fact that Wilder managed to win has nothing to do with the theory behind it. The mere fact the he underpolled...assuming that was due to race...could be enough to scare parties enough to refrain from nominating black candidates, in theory.

Nym's comment was this:

If I was cynical, I'd say that the people who invented the concept of a "Bradley effect" did so because they didn't want black candidates to be nominated for office by the political parties. Since I'm not, I won't say that.

No, the Bradley Effect was observed, not invented.  It was also observed decreasing in 2006 (and continuing to decrease in 2008).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, since I'm looking at polls that scored outside of the MOE, and states where the candidates both underpolled and overpolled.  Poll A was still bad, and that would put it well below the MOE, even if Smith won.

Part of my point was that it isn't actually observed (in any scientific sense). The sample size is far too small to prove it exists in any scientific manner whatsoever, even if it could be proven that the relatively few black candidates with solid polling statistics to analyze in their races have consistently underpolled (of which the evidence is very mixed at best anyway).

So, given the fact that a couple black candidates underpolled, someone creates the theory that black candidates always underpoll, in the hopes of discouraging parties from nominating them. I actually was being honest in saying that I don't believe this to be true, however I don't completely discount the possibility either. It's either that or just people being highly illogical in their poll analysis in terms of ignoring sample size.

If I found 2 or 3 left handed candidates who underpolled, no one would take me seriously if I tried to claim that left handed candidates tend to underpoll. Everyone would of course understand that it was just a coincidence and wasn't meaningful.