Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 11, 2019, 07:26:11 pm
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
  WI-PPP: Clinton +12, at 50%
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: WI-PPP: Clinton +12, at 50%  (Read 1530 times)
Devout Centrist
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,322
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2016, 04:43:26 pm »


Called every swing state correctly in 2012, with some dead on.

Yes, but they've been criticized for potentially cooking the books in order to match the polling average:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=197049.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179353.0

They should not be able to get that close to the polling averages by chance, given their sample sizes.  Same applies to other robo-pollsters, for that matter.


PPP has been accused of fabricating data and polls by some people.
Much as I admire Nate, he's wrong this time.

How is he wrong?  Also, which Nate are you talking about?  Both Cohn and Silver have criticized PPP.  Tongue


No... they failed to release a correct poll because they assumed it was way off.  They didn't fabricate anything. 

A pollster not releasing a poll because they don't think it looks right is absolutely dishonest.

My point is, I think this is more PPP being very Bayesian versus fudging the numbers.

What do you mean by "being very Bayesian"?  I mean, any kind of pollster methodology that takes the results from other polls into account is inherently dishonest, unless I'm missing something here?

Basically, PPP takes into account the data from their previous polling and modifies it with new data.
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,153
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2016, 05:02:56 pm »


Called every swing state correctly in 2012, with some dead on.

Yes, but they've been criticized for potentially cooking the books in order to match the polling average:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=197049.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179353.0

They should not be able to get that close to the polling averages by chance, given their sample sizes.  Same applies to other robo-pollsters, for that matter.


PPP has been accused of fabricating data and polls by some people.
Much as I admire Nate, he's wrong this time.

How is he wrong?  Also, which Nate are you talking about?  Both Cohn and Silver have criticized PPP.  Tongue


No... they failed to release a correct poll because they assumed it was way off.  They didn't fabricate anything. 

A pollster not releasing a poll because they don't think it looks right is absolutely dishonest.

My point is, I think this is more PPP being very Bayesian versus fudging the numbers.

What do you mean by "being very Bayesian"?  I mean, any kind of pollster methodology that takes the results from other polls into account is inherently dishonest, unless I'm missing something here?

Basically, PPP takes into account the data from their previous polling and modifies it with new data.

You mean on a horserace question like "Who are you voting for for president?" they actually take topline data and incorporate that into subsequent polls?  I haven't seen any documentation indicating that that's what they're doing.  But if they are, isn't that pretty problematic?  What we as poll consumers are interested in is what new information a poll is providing.  But if their published poll result is actually some kind of weighted average that includes results from previous polls, then we're being fooled as to what the new information is.

If they think a weighted average of polls gives a more accurate indication of where the race stands, then fine.  But they should still publish the individual polls results as separate things, and then show the weighted average alongside it.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,322
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 19, 2016, 05:07:48 pm »


Called every swing state correctly in 2012, with some dead on.

Yes, but they've been criticized for potentially cooking the books in order to match the polling average:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=197049.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179353.0

They should not be able to get that close to the polling averages by chance, given their sample sizes.  Same applies to other robo-pollsters, for that matter.


PPP has been accused of fabricating data and polls by some people.
Much as I admire Nate, he's wrong this time.

How is he wrong?  Also, which Nate are you talking about?  Both Cohn and Silver have criticized PPP.  Tongue


No... they failed to release a correct poll because they assumed it was way off.  They didn't fabricate anything. 

A pollster not releasing a poll because they don't think it looks right is absolutely dishonest.

My point is, I think this is more PPP being very Bayesian versus fudging the numbers.

What do you mean by "being very Bayesian"?  I mean, any kind of pollster methodology that takes the results from other polls into account is inherently dishonest, unless I'm missing something here?

Basically, PPP takes into account the data from their previous polling and modifies it with new data.

You mean on a horserace question like "Who are you voting for for president?" they actually take topline data and incorporate that into subsequent polls?  I haven't seen any documentation indicating that that's what they're doing.  But if they are, isn't that pretty problematic?  What we as poll consumers are interested in is what new information a poll is providing.  But if their published poll result is actually some kind of weighted average that includes results from previous polls, then we're being fooled as to what the new information is.

If they think a weighted average of polls gives a more accurate indication of where the race stands, then fine.  But they should still publish the individual polls results as separate things, and then show the weighted average alongside it.

I don't think it's necessary a good idea, but it does explain why their results are similar to herding.
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,153
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 19, 2016, 05:10:09 pm »


Called every swing state correctly in 2012, with some dead on.

Yes, but they've been criticized for potentially cooking the books in order to match the polling average:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=197049.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179353.0

They should not be able to get that close to the polling averages by chance, given their sample sizes.  Same applies to other robo-pollsters, for that matter.


PPP has been accused of fabricating data and polls by some people.
Much as I admire Nate, he's wrong this time.

How is he wrong?  Also, which Nate are you talking about?  Both Cohn and Silver have criticized PPP.  Tongue


No... they failed to release a correct poll because they assumed it was way off.  They didn't fabricate anything. 

A pollster not releasing a poll because they don't think it looks right is absolutely dishonest.

My point is, I think this is more PPP being very Bayesian versus fudging the numbers.

What do you mean by "being very Bayesian"?  I mean, any kind of pollster methodology that takes the results from other polls into account is inherently dishonest, unless I'm missing something here?

Basically, PPP takes into account the data from their previous polling and modifies it with new data.

You mean on a horserace question like "Who are you voting for for president?" they actually take topline data and incorporate that into subsequent polls?  I haven't seen any documentation indicating that that's what they're doing.  But if they are, isn't that pretty problematic?  What we as poll consumers are interested in is what new information a poll is providing.  But if their published poll result is actually some kind of weighted average that includes results from previous polls, then we're being fooled as to what the new information is.

If they think a weighted average of polls gives a more accurate indication of where the race stands, then fine.  But they should still publish the individual polls results as separate things, and then show the weighted average alongside it.

I don't think it's necessary a good idea, but it does explain why their results are similar to herding.

What I described above is herding.  It's just herding using their own polls, rather than polls from other pollsters, no?
Logged
Dave Leip
leip
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,361
United States


P P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 19, 2016, 05:12:36 pm »

New Poll: Wisconsin Senator by Public Policy Polling on 2016-10-19

Summary: D: 47%, R: 41%, U: 12%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details
Logged
HokeyDood
HockeyDude
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,720
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 19, 2016, 06:01:44 pm »

What does it matter?  WI is safe for Our Dear Hillary.  Take the dog sweat elsewhere.
Logged
mark_twain
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 372
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 19, 2016, 06:09:05 pm »

Great poll!
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