Non-Gallup/Rasmussen tracking polls thread

[J. J.]

No, but I do know that defaulting to the Bradley Effect in every instance is dumb.

Perhaps the lack of any racial tension correlation whatsoever is indicative of something, hmm.

Yes, no black people in the state (well very few).

We have the nations polls, and frankly Gallup is behaving like Zogby.  We have two where Obama underpolled.  I'm interested in what, if anything, is in common between those two that isn't in common with Gallup or ABC/WP.

[Lunar]

Statistically Obama should overperform his poll margins 50% of the time

[Franzl]

Statistically Obama should overperform his poll margins 50% of the time

but beware if he doesn't, because in all 50% of the cases in which that doesn't happen...it's the Bradley Effect!

[J. J.]

Statistically Obama should overperform his poll margins 50% of the time

Actually, Obama should over perform about 1 in 20 times out of the MOE.  We have Zogby numbers on Gallup and ABC/WP.  Come on, a 2 point MOE and the polls are off 4.5 points.

We know two things about Rasmussen, that make it different from Gallup and ABC/WP, it pushes for answers, and it uses robocalls.  I'm wondering if Hotline does one (or both) of those things.

I frankly was expecting a slight overpolling for Obama, but within the MOE.  I would have expected TIPP like numbers across polls.

Does anyone actually have any information on how Hotline conducts it polls.

[Sam Spade]

So, I guess the cell phone effect doesn't really exist (or at least not yet).  (yawns)

[kevinatcausa]

As I mentioned above, Hotline, along with most of the firms the were within 1 point of the correct margin (Rasmussen being an exception), does not use robot polling. 

[J. J.]

As I mentioned above, Hotline, along with most of the firms the were within 1 point of the correct margin (Rasmussen being an exception), does not use robot polling. 

Okay, do they push as strongly as Rasmussen (or more strongly than Gallup)?

[Alcon]

Statistically Obama should overperform his poll margins 50% of the time

Actually, Obama should over perform about 1 in 20 times out of the MOE.  We have Zogby numbers on Gallup and ABC/WP.  Come on, a 2 point MOE and the polls are off 4.5 points.

1. Statistical error does not include artificial sampling error, which obviously exists in every poll.

2. How are you calculating a 2.0 MoE?

3. The national samples lag several days, being that they're rolling averages.

You can't just ignore these other variables and decide 'Bradley effect.'

[Sam Spade]

Minor observation:

I made the observation before the election that the number of undecideds was large and that therein would lie the polling issues.  Since most pollsters pushed the undecideds, we were left assuming that they would truly go where they did.

In the end, they did go where they did. 

However, the polls that didn't push them as hard as, say, Rasmussen or Pew did in the end, ended up underestimating him at the end by a couple of points.  That's the extent of the Bradley Effect now (not much).

Of course, Gallup f.ucked up the undecided pushing yet again.

[J. J.]

Statistically Obama should overperform his poll margins 50% of the time

Actually, Obama should over perform about 1 in 20 times out of the MOE.  We have Zogby numbers on Gallup and ABC/WP.  Come on, a 2 point MOE and the polls are off 4.5 points.

1. Statistical error does not include artificial sampling error, which obviously exists in every poll.

You're going have to go into greater detail.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both Gallup and ABC/WP had a 2 point MOE.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not ignoring that, but this occurs in white/white or black/black races, and we don't get these numbers.

However, the polls that didn't push them as hard as, say, Rasmussen or Pew did in the end, ended up underestimating him at the end by a couple of points.  That's the extent of the Bradley Effect now (not much).

I think the key is "not much." I was suggesting a 1-2 point Bradley Effect, which wasn't much, but present.  It was never, "Obama's polling will be like Doug Wilder's."  In 2006, it looked like 2-4 points in three races.  Maybe, if we could get into the minds of every voter in MO, it made a difference, but it is impossible to tell.  Right now, I'd say present, but only 1-3 points.  It also looks like it is declining over time.

I'd really like to know more about Hotline.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gallup and ABC/WP are now less than a half point off Zogby.

[Alcon]

1. Statistical error does not include artificial sampling error, which obviously exists in every poll.

You're going have to go into greater detail.

MoE assumes a perfectly representative sample.

[Lief 🗽]

Minor observation:

I made the observation before the election that the number of undecideds was large and that therein would lie the polling issues.  Since most pollsters pushed the undecideds, we were left assuming that they would truly go where they did.

In the end, they did go where they did. 

However, the polls that didn't push them as hard as, say, Rasmussen or Pew did in the end, ended up underestimating him at the end by a couple of points.  That's the extent of the Bradley Effect now (not much).

Of course, Gallup f.ucked up the undecided pushing yet again.

Late deciders split 50-50.

[J. J.]

1. Statistical error does not include artificial sampling error, which obviously exists in every poll.

You're going have to go into greater detail.

MoE assumes a perfectly representative sample.

It could be a weighting problem, but they would have to hugely overweight Democrats.  R2Kos did, but they got a better result than Gallup.

[Lunar]

Statistically Obama should overperform his poll margins 50% of the time

Actually, Obama should over perform about 1 in 20 times out of the MOE.  We have Zogby numbers on Gallup and ABC/WP.  Come on, a 2 point MOE and the polls are off 4.5 points.

Didn't Obama constantly overperform his polling number in MANY states by >4%?

What do you attribute that to?  Why is it that every time he underperforms it's because people are afraid of being racist to the interviewer?

[© tweed]

I don't want to encourage anyone to continue to engage JJ in conversation, but perhaps you should wait for the final votes from the PacCoast to trickle in before resuming 'debate.'  Cali, Oregon, and Washington all have plenty of votes outstanding.  the latter two would appear to be concentrated in urban areas, so Obama's PV margin is bound to increase by a handful of tenths of a percentage point.

[Sam Spade]

Minor observation:

I made the observation before the election that the number of undecideds was large and that therein would lie the polling issues.  Since most pollsters pushed the undecideds, we were left assuming that they would truly go where they did.

In the end, they did go where they did. 

However, the polls that didn't push them as hard as, say, Rasmussen or Pew did in the end, ended up underestimating him at the end by a couple of points.  That's the extent of the Bradley Effect now (not much).

Of course, Gallup f.ucked up the undecided pushing yet again.

Late deciders split 50-50.

Late deciders (per the exit polls) is not what I'm observing.

[J. J.]

Statistically Obama should overperform his poll margins 50% of the time

Actually, Obama should over perform about 1 in 20 times out of the MOE.  We have Zogby numbers on Gallup and ABC/WP.  Come on, a 2 point MOE and the polls are off 4.5 points.

Didn't Obama constantly overperform his polling number in MANY states by >4%?

What do you attribute that to?  Why is it that every time he underperforms it's because people are afraid of being racist to the interviewer?

Actually, no on the national polls.  Do you have some state polls were this this occurred?

I found a one, someplace, where Obama and McCain both over performed their poll numbers out of the MOE.  I did attempt to look at that as well.

[Lunar]

Pennsylvania?  Nevada?  New Mexico?  Michigan?


He beat the MoE of the polls in all of these states.  Why is it the fricking Bradley Effect whenever the polls are wrong in the inverse?

*hand trembles*

[J. J.]

Pennsylvania?  Nevada?  New Mexico?  Michigan?


He beat the MoE of the polls in all of these states.  Why is it the fricking Bradley Effect whenever the polls are wrong in the inverse?

*hand trembles*

PA:

From the 30th two Rasmussen, 1 ARG and a crap tracking poll  out of the MOE, 3 out of 12.

NV:

3 polls in the last week, two were out of MOE one was on.

NM:

3 polls in the last week, two in MOE, one out.  One overcounted Obama.

MI:

Five polls in the last week.  4 were in the MOE.

*suggest Lunar puts down the crack pipe*

[© tweed]

Lunar, don't bother.  please.

[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.

[Alcon]

*suggest Lunar puts down the crack pipe*

Ugh.

[J. J.]

Lunar, don't bother.  please.

*suggest Lunar puts down the crack pipe*

Ugh.

Alcon, if Lunar's going to make the comments, I'll make the comments.

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.

No, we're getting some that are outside of the MOE even at the state level.  We definitely do at the national level, beyond question.

[Lunar]

Pennsylvania?  Nevada?  New Mexico?  Michigan?


He beat the MoE of the polls in all of these states.  Why is it the fricking Bradley Effect whenever the polls are wrong in the inverse?

*hand trembles*

PA:

From the 30th two Rasmussen, 1 ARG and a crap tracking poll  out of the MOE, 3 out of 12.

NV:

3 polls in the last week, two were out of MOE one was on.

NM:

3 polls in the last week, two in MOE, one out.  One overcounted Obama.

MI:

Five polls in the last week.  4 were in the MOE.

*suggest Lunar puts down the crack pipe*

So if 9 out of 12 polls are out of MoE, it's nothing notable and these polls have a solid methodology.  But if a few polls that show the inverse, it's caused by race.

You know what disproves you more than anything else?  The fact that 538's model, which weights polls by their accuracy during the primaries, and that used all of the national polls, simply averaged them and ran an regression model and *gasp* came up with exactly McCain's number and 0.1% off Obama's number.  Why did they end up with the perfect national number without accounting for the Bradley Effect. Compare that to your hilariously stupid rule of just adding 1.5% to McCain's number because people don't like to appear as racist.   What you do is you twist and twist the numbers and cherrypick where you like to support your predetermined conclusions.

Whenever you're wrong, you just keep digging.  Nothing phases you.  You make hilariously bad predictions time and time again and your analysis is so bone-headed and hackish, but you never back off it, you just get more and more convinced that you're right when the evidence piles up against you.  Your Pennsylvanian prediction was only what, 9% off? You were still listing the race as 50/50 a week out?  Your predicted margins (copying Josh's but shifting North Carolina) were one of the worst in the forum.  There were at least a dozen predictions you made during the primaries that did not happen.

I give up.

Let me say this one time:  Lying to pollsters to not appear racist is a source of error but it's not the dominant source of error and nothing you have ever said gives evidence otherwise.        I could list two dozen things that are logically more likely to be a source of error.

*blocks for a week in order to maintain my own sanity* 

[J. J.]

So if 9 out of 12 polls are out of MoE, it's nothing notable and these polls have a solid methodology.  But if a few polls that show the inverse, it's caused by race.

Lunar, in PA, most of the polls undercounted both candidates, but all of them did so in the MOE.  That's why I'm saying that there was not a B.E. in PA.  I frankly expected there to be one, but it wasn't there.

In MI, we have one poll where Obama did better than the MOE, out of five.  It that poll McCain did worse that he did in the election.  I'm not calling that a Bradley Effect either.

In NM, one poll had McCain one point lower and Obama one point higher than actual.  I'm not calling that a Bradley Effect, because the other polls don't show it.  There is not consistent overcounting.

In NV, you have the only state where Obama was consistently undercounted.  On the last poll, McCain was undercounted as well (I'm wondering if the Latino vote might be in play there).

In other states, there is consistent overcounting and/or results out of the MOE.