Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 20, 2019, 01:04:23 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
  AK-Lake Research (D): Trump +1
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: AK-Lake Research (D): Trump +1  (Read 2910 times)
kyc0705
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,379


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 16, 2016, 09:59:18 pm »

Wow, nothing like a SUNDAY NIGHT SHOCK POLL to start the week!

This week is going to be wild.
Logged
kyc0705
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,379


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 16, 2016, 10:00:14 pm »

does anyone know how the people of alaska in general feel about russia?



They can see it from their houses.
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,621
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 16, 2016, 10:03:05 pm »

They can see it from their houses.

ah ah ah ah ah! Wink

just wanted to figure out if trump's russia stand swings any votes up there...one way or another.
Logged
ag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,861


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 16, 2016, 10:44:12 pm »

does anyone know how the people of alaska in general feel about russia?



Other than a miniscule number of Alaskans of Russian/Mestizo origin - the barely surviving remnants of the old colonization - I doubt many others have any opinion on Russia that is substantially more developed than that of Idahoans.
Logged
ag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,861


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 16, 2016, 10:44:39 pm »

They can see it from their houses.

ah ah ah ah ah! Wink

just wanted to figure out if trump's russia stand swings any votes up there...one way or another.

Probably not.
Logged
Badger
badger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,608
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2016, 11:11:30 pm »

does anyone know how the people of alaska in general feel about russia?



They can see it from their houses.

Beat me to it. Wink
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,433
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2016, 02:43:45 am »

Now, if only Sarah Palin hits the trail for Trump then these 3 electoral votes will be in the bag for Clinton.
Logged
rafta_rafta
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 926


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2016, 04:07:05 am »

Was this an internal poll? Because 538 just entered it into their tracker
Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,924
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2016, 04:09:02 am »

Was this an internal poll? Because 538 just entered it into their tracker

Yes.  Not sure of their policy, but although a Dem firm, Lake is reputable and I doubt they'd massage their data for their client.  The bigger problem with an internal like this is that it's likely to be released selectively, i.e., only when it shows a good result.  But 538's staff may feel like they have enough information about past polls from Lake that this is less of a concern.  Not sure.
Logged
Gass3268
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,217
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2016, 06:08:13 am »

Was this an internal poll? Because 538 just entered it into their tracker

If a internal poll is made public they will enter it into their average, but it will be weighted accordingly.
Logged
HillOfANight
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,466
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2016, 09:11:23 am »
« Edited: October 17, 2016, 09:13:25 am by HillOfANight »

Was this an internal poll? Because 538 just entered it into their tracker

Yes.  Not sure of their policy, but although a Dem firm, Lake is reputable and I doubt they'd massage their data for their client.  

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/lake-research-d-24267
Clinton 50 Trump 37 on April 2016 in Georgia.

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/07/25/georgia-democrats-polling-shows-state-is-in-play-in-november/
Clinton 41
Trump 40

Just from their Georgia results, I would prefer a more traditional pollster to believe #BattlegroundAlaska.
Logged
Dr. RI
realisticidealist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,843
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -0.39, S: 4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2016, 10:22:26 am »

Did we really enter an internal into the database?
Logged
BetoBro
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,410
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2016, 01:03:30 pm »

The Clinton campaign should troll Trump by releasing an ad here with his endorsement from Sarah Palin. That could help swing the race her way even more up there.
Logged
Polarized MT Treasurer
IndyRep
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,530
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2016, 01:05:25 pm »

Did we really enter an internal into the database?

mds32 likes to enter every single poll into the database, but I mean you literally added the MN-Breitbart/Gravis poll,so...
Logged
Dr. RI
realisticidealist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,843
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -0.39, S: 4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2016, 01:12:26 pm »

Did we really enter an internal into the database?

mds32 likes to enter every single poll into the database, but I mean you literally added the MN-Breitbart/Gravis poll,so...

Which wasn't an internal...
Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,924
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2016, 02:46:30 pm »

Was this an internal poll? Because 538 just entered it into their tracker

Yes.  Not sure of their policy, but although a Dem firm, Lake is reputable and I doubt they'd massage their data for their client.  

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/lake-research-d-24267
Clinton 50 Trump 37 on April 2016 in Georgia.

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/07/25/georgia-democrats-polling-shows-state-is-in-play-in-november/
Clinton 41
Trump 40

Just from their Georgia results, I would prefer a more traditional pollster to believe #BattlegroundAlaska.

That is a weird poll result, but it was during the primary, and Lake has a long-term record that's pretty good.  I agree we shouldn't enter internals, though, because many are skewed and the releases are so selective.
Logged
Badger
badger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,608
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 18, 2016, 01:09:31 am »

Did we really enter an internal into the database?

mds32 likes to enter every single poll into the database, but I mean you literally added the MN-Breitbart/Gravis poll,so...

Which wasn't an internal...

Roll Eyes
Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,924
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2016, 01:28:24 am »

Did we really enter an internal into the database?

mds32 likes to enter every single poll into the database, but I mean you literally added the MN-Breitbart/Gravis poll,so...

Which wasn't an internal...

Roll Eyes

I'm with him on this.  There are some bad polls out there, and polls with house effects, but the internals we get are so damn cherry-picked that there's almost no way to adjust for the way they skew averages.  Also, there's the nasty problem of credibly determining which public polls should be excluded.  Short of fraud, I say throw them all in and let things average out.  If they appear to skew one way, adjust for the house effect.  If they're crappy, consider them less the next time around.  But otherwise we get into subjective territory where crazy people start discounting CNN polls because THE MEDIA!11, etc.  Gravis is a pretty bad poll historically, and seems to have a GOP-leaning house effect, and I think it's better to adjust for that than throw them out selectively.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,356


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 18, 2016, 02:06:53 am »

Did we really enter an internal into the database?

mds32 likes to enter every single poll into the database, but I mean you literally added the MN-Breitbart/Gravis poll,so...

Which wasn't an internal...

Roll Eyes

I'm with him on this.  There are some bad polls out there, and polls with house effects, but the internals we get are so damn cherry-picked that there's almost no way to adjust for the way they skew averages.  Also, there's the nasty problem of credibly determining which public polls should be excluded.  Short of fraud, I say throw them all in and let things average out.  If they appear to skew one way, adjust for the house effect.  If they're crappy, consider them less the next time around.  But otherwise we get into subjective territory where crazy people start discounting CNN polls because THE MEDIA!11, etc.  Gravis is a pretty bad poll historically, and seems to have a GOP-leaning house effect, and I think it's better to adjust for that than throw them out selectively.

I think the argument might rather be that a poll conducted for Breitbart is basically an internal for the Trump campaign. Which isn't totally unreasonable.
Logged
Badger
badger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,608
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 18, 2016, 02:21:05 am »

Did we really enter an internal into the database?

mds32 likes to enter every single poll into the database, but I mean you literally added the MN-Breitbart/Gravis poll,so...

Which wasn't an internal...

Roll Eyes

I'm with him on this.  There are some bad polls out there, and polls with house effects, but the internals we get are so damn cherry-picked that there's almost no way to adjust for the way they skew averages.  Also, there's the nasty problem of credibly determining which public polls should be excluded.  Short of fraud, I say throw them all in and let things average out.  If they appear to skew one way, adjust for the house effect.  If they're crappy, consider them less the next time around.  But otherwise we get into subjective territory where crazy people start discounting CNN polls because THE MEDIA!11, etc.  Gravis is a pretty bad poll historically, and seems to have a GOP-leaning house effect, and I think it's better to adjust for that than throw them out selectively.

I think the argument might rather be that a poll conducted for Breitbart is basically an internal for the Trump campaign. Which isn't totally unreasonable.

exactamundo.
Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,924
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 18, 2016, 03:57:42 am »

Did we really enter an internal into the database?

mds32 likes to enter every single poll into the database, but I mean you literally added the MN-Breitbart/Gravis poll,so...

Which wasn't an internal...

Roll Eyes

I'm with him on this.  There are some bad polls out there, and polls with house effects, but the internals we get are so damn cherry-picked that there's almost no way to adjust for the way they skew averages.  Also, there's the nasty problem of credibly determining which public polls should be excluded.  Short of fraud, I say throw them all in and let things average out.  If they appear to skew one way, adjust for the house effect.  If they're crappy, consider them less the next time around.  But otherwise we get into subjective territory where crazy people start discounting CNN polls because THE MEDIA!11, etc.  Gravis is a pretty bad poll historically, and seems to have a GOP-leaning house effect, and I think it's better to adjust for that than throw them out selectively.

I think the argument might rather be that a poll conducted for Breitbart is basically an internal for the Trump campaign. Which isn't totally unreasonable.

exactamundo.

I know that's the argument, but I'm saying that the biggest problem with internal polls is not their bias, but rather that they are not always released (so you can't just adjust for a known house effect -- they cherrypick certain results to release) or are basically engineered to generate a specific result (so they can't be compared apples-to-apples).  Even for crappy, skewed polls like Gravis, those things aren't generally a problem.

You could argue that Gravis is doing one of those things -- presumably the latter -- and thus it's not sufficient to merely adjust for house effect, because they're actually changing their methodology from poll-to-poll in a way that defeats that adjustment.  But there isn't direct evidence of that.  And, in absence of direct evidence, you get to a place where you start having to make subjective calls based on the existence of conflicts of interest, etc.  That gets you into territory where you're having to explain why you do that with Gravis/Breitbart polls, but not CNN polls or Fox News polls.

Do I think it's relatively likely that Gravis/Breitbart polls are dubiously manipulated?  Yes.  Do I have any direct evidence they are?  Beyond a Republican house effect -- which happens with plenty of honest pollsters -- no...they mostly just seem crappy.  Can I say with high certainty that they probably are manipulated?  No.

And, in light of that, I'd rather throw them on the data poll (adjusting for R house effect, and down-weighting because Gravis sucks) than opening up Pandora's box.

That said, Gravis literally sends me spam emails I never opted into, so I'm not 100% convinced they're even a legitimate business enterprise, so...I feel ya on some level.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,356


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 18, 2016, 04:04:19 am »

Did we really enter an internal into the database?

mds32 likes to enter every single poll into the database, but I mean you literally added the MN-Breitbart/Gravis poll,so...

Which wasn't an internal...

Roll Eyes

I'm with him on this.  There are some bad polls out there, and polls with house effects, but the internals we get are so damn cherry-picked that there's almost no way to adjust for the way they skew averages.  Also, there's the nasty problem of credibly determining which public polls should be excluded.  Short of fraud, I say throw them all in and let things average out.  If they appear to skew one way, adjust for the house effect.  If they're crappy, consider them less the next time around.  But otherwise we get into subjective territory where crazy people start discounting CNN polls because THE MEDIA!11, etc.  Gravis is a pretty bad poll historically, and seems to have a GOP-leaning house effect, and I think it's better to adjust for that than throw them out selectively.

I think the argument might rather be that a poll conducted for Breitbart is basically an internal for the Trump campaign. Which isn't totally unreasonable.

exactamundo.

I know that's the argument, but I'm saying that the biggest problem with internal polls is not their bias, but rather that they are not always released (so you can't just adjust for a known house effect -- they cherrypick certain results to release) or are basically engineered to generate a specific result (so they can't be compared apples-to-apples).  Even for crappy, skewed polls like Gravis, those things aren't generally a problem.

You could argue that Gravis is doing one of those things -- presumably the latter -- and thus it's not sufficient to merely adjust for house effect, because they're actually changing their methodology from poll-to-poll in a way that defeats that adjustment.  But there isn't direct evidence of that.  And, in absence of direct evidence, you get to a place where you start having to make subjective calls based on the existence of conflicts of interest, etc.  That gets you into territory where you're having to explain why you do that with Gravis/Breitbart polls, but not CNN polls or Fox News polls.

Do I think it's relatively likely that Gravis/Breitbart polls are dubiously manipulated?  Yes.  Do I have any direct evidence they are?  Beyond a Republican house effect -- which happens with plenty of honest pollsters -- no...they mostly just seem crappy.  Can I say with high certainty that they probably are manipulated?  No.

And, in light of that, I'd rather throw them on the data poll (adjusting for R house effect, and down-weighting because Gravis sucks) than opening up Pandora's box.

That said, Gravis literally sends me spam emails I never opted into, so I'm not 100% convinced they're even a legitimate business enterprise, so...I feel ya on some level.

I feel like we're talking past each other. The poll is conducted for Breitbart. The founder of Breitbart is Trump's campaign manager. So one could argue that a poll conducted for Breitbart is a poll conducted for the Trump campaign and is an internal. Then all the arguments you brought would apply.
Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,924
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 18, 2016, 04:20:43 am »
« Edited: October 18, 2016, 04:23:33 am by Alcon »

I feel like we're talking past each other. The poll is conducted for Breitbart. The founder of Breitbart is Trump's campaign manager. So one could argue that a poll conducted for Breitbart is a poll conducted for the Trump campaign and is an internal. Then all the arguments you brought would apply.

Not quite, though.  I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs here, but I'm not.  Bear with me...

When a poll is commissioned out of the campaign budget, it's expected to serve some use for the campaign -- to test messaging, to provide actionable information, or to drive a media narrative.  That third reason is the only reason internals are released.  That means that even a well-conducted internal poll will only be released when it helps a certain narrative.  That also means that poorly-conducted, skewed internal polls are more likely to be released, since they're manipulated to conform with the narrative.  Taken together, the sample of internals you get is skewed both by manipulation and cherry-picking.  There is no reason for them not to be.

The Gravis/Breitbart polls are different in a few mitigating ways.  First, presumably all of them are released, whether it's good or bad for Trump, because they're released on a regular schedule.  That takes away the cherry-picking problem.  The second is that the media, at least in theory, has use for releasing unmanipulated polls.  Fox News viewers may "want" a certain outcome, but Fox News has other incentives to avoid manipulated or fabricated polls.  Internal polls do not.  You may think that Breitbart, by nature of why it's popular, has a lot less incentive than Fox News does.  I agree.  But Breitbart at least theoretically has such an incentive, like CNN or Fox; campaigns have absolutely no such incentive.

I agree with you that I'm incredibly skeptical of how much incentive Breitbart has to not manipulate.  But a lot of people are skeptical that CNN and Fox News aren't manipulating numbers to fake a competitive race...and it's true that they have an incentive to.  Dismissing Gravis/Breitbart opens up a slippery slope of objective interpretations about who's bought and sold and who's not.  I think that's reasonable for us to do in our personal evaluation of the polls, but I don't think it's a realistic question for a site like Atlas or FiveThirtyEight to adjudicate.

Sorry, I hope I'm not coming across as a pedantic ass (like usual!) but data curation is something I think a lot about for work, and I do think this is the only realistic policy Atlas could take.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC