Non-Gallup/Rasmussen tracking polls thread

[Verily]

Obama over polled on nearly every poll.

IBD/TIPP:   7.2
Gallup:     11.0
R2K:           5.0
Zogby:     11.4 of course.
Hotline:      5.0
ABC/WP:   11.0
'bots:          4.92
Average:     8.3

Nationally, it looks like 4 points.  Bradley?

What? Numbers are still coming in from the west. We won't know the real PV for awhile I would imagine.

Aye. California's only 28% in, and it's huge, plus Oregon and Washington, also barely in. Obama's lead is also up to 5 points since he posted that. (Plus, J. J. amusingly included known trash like Zogby while ignoring Rasmussen.)

In any case, the state polls seem to have understated Obama's position much more often than they overstated it. There are exceptions: Obama overpolled in Georgia and North Dakota (the only two counterexamples). But he underpolled much more severely in Pennsylvania and across the Northeast. Elsewhere, the state polls, in aggregate, seem to have been pretty much exactly on target (maybe slightly understating Obama in Florida and Ohio as well).

[kevinatcausa]

Even Georgia's looking a little bit less like an outlier as the night goes on.   The last returns coming in seem to be the early voting from Fulton and Gwinnett counties (metro Atlanta), and McCain's lead is already down to 7%. 

[J. J.]

Obama over polled on nearly every poll.

IBD/TIPP:   7.2
Gallup:     11.0
R2K:           5.0
Zogby:     11.4 of course.
Hotline:      5.0
ABC/WP:   11.0
'bots:          4.92
Average:     8.3

Nationally, it looks like 4 points.  Bradley?

What? Numbers are still coming in from the west. We won't know the real PV for awhile I would imagine.

Aye. California's only 28% in, and it's huge, plus Oregon and Washington, also barely in. Obama's lead is also up to 5 points since he posted that. (Plus, J. J. amusingly included known trash like Zogby while ignoring Rasmussen.)

In any case, the state polls seem to have understated Obama's position much more often than they overstated it. There are exceptions: Obama overpolled in Georgia and North Dakota (the only two counterexamples). But he underpolled much more severely in Pennsylvania and across the Northeast. Elsewhere, the state polls, in aggregate, seem to have been pretty much exactly on target (maybe slightly understating Obama in Florida and Ohio as well).

I was calling for a Bradley Effect of 1-2 points. The 'bots are Rasmussen, BTW.  Zogby is, well, Zogby.  R2K, interestingly, Hotline and Rasmussen nailed it.  R2K had weighting problems (TIPP's initial weighting looked better).  Gallup, until yesterday, was the gold standard.  A six point gap there, and on ABC/WP; that is of course Zogbyesque.    It's well out of the MOE on Gallup and ABC/WP.

My question is, were people a little more honest when they were speaking to a robo-call, if they could tell it was a robo-call? 

Now, does anybody have the weighting for Hotline and their polling methods (robo-calls?)?

I do want to look at the state polls.

[Lunar]

*slams head into wall*

[J. J.]

*slams head into wall*

Lunar, if you think that a Gallup poll, with an MOE of 2, that shows Obama winning by 11 points was an accurate snapshot of the electorate, slamming your head repeatedly against the wall will not cause any more damage.  This isn't an outlier, because we have ABC/WP showing the same thing. 

This is the kind of numbers we'd expect (and got) on Zogby.

Even conservatively, it looks like in the final national polls, Obama overpolled rather dramatically.  Sorry, it is there.

Two notable exceptions, Rasmussen and Hotline.  Rasmussen uses the 'bot, which is one difference.  What does Hotline polling process look like?

[kevinatcausa]

Based on the current national lead of 6.2% for Obama,

Pew, CNN, Ipsos/McClatchy, Hotline, FoxNews, Rasmussen, and Battleground (Lake) were ALL within 1.2% of the correct number. 

All of these except Rasmussen and Battleground are included in the New York Times polling average, which specifically excludes polling firms that use robot calling. 

The average of the 15 pollsters in the RCP average (7.3%) is only off by about 1% (The RCP average of 7.6% is slightly higher since they give the two Battleground polls 50% weight). 

The 538 projection looks to be within 0.1%, and its creator specifically said he did not include any sort of Bradley effect because he did not believe one existed. 

[J. J.]

Based on the current national lead of 6.2% for Obama,

Pew, CNN, Ipsos/McClatchy, Hotline, FoxNews, Rasmussen, and Battleground (Lake) were ALL within 1% of the correct number. 

The average of the 15 pollsters in the RCP average (7.3%) is only off by about 1% (I'm not sure why the RCP posted average isn't actually the average...). 

The Batlleground number is split with two results as you noted (if you don't like one you can use the other).  FoxNews was barely within the MOE (and Obama overpolled). Ipsos/McClatchy had McCain just outside of the MOE and the gap just within the MOE. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/55193.html

Rasmussen and Hotline were noted, and the question asked, why are these two so close?

I've tried to keep it two the main polls, but if you want to cherrypick, we could at the 9 point gap in the CBS "poll."

[kevinatcausa]

The Ipsos/McClatchy number I'm going off of is the one once they push leaners:  53-46 Obama.  This nails McCain exactly, and is within 1 on the margin (even the 8% before leaners are included only 1.8% off, the MoE is 3.6%).

You can't compare McCain's 42 in the 50-42 numbers (before leaners pushed) to his 46 in the final results (where every leaner by definition decided) -- it's apples and oranges. 

Also, I'm not sure how a margin of Obama +7 from FoxNews (following the link from the RCP polling average) is "just barely within" a 3 point error margin of the current Obama +6.2 results.  

[J. J.]

The Ipsos/McClatchy number I'm going off of is the one once they push leaners:  53-46 Obama.  This nails McCain exactly, and is within 1 on the margin (even the 8% before leaners are included only 1.8% off, the MoE is 3.6%).

You can't compare McCain's 42 in the 50-42 numbers (before leaners pushed) to his 46 in the final results (where every leaner by definition decided) -- it's apples and oranges. 

Also, I'm not sure how a margin of Obama +7 from FoxNews (following the link from the RCP polling average) is "just barely within" a 3 point error margin of the current Obama +6.2 results.  

The predicted number for McCain.  Remember, I've basically said that Bradley undercounts the white opposition; it tends to list them in the undecideds.  It isn't someone saying, "I'm voting McCain but I'll tell the pollster I'm voting for Obama."

I wonder if Hotline pushes or uses robocalls.

[Lunar]

I'm slamming my head into the wall because I'm incredibly annoyed.

EVERYONE knows that if Obama underperformed the average of polls in Pennsylvania by even 0.75%, you'd be up there declaring the victory of the Bradley Effect.

Plls can be wrong for many reasons.  Cherrypicking and then averaging national polls to prove the Bradley Effect when a simple analysis of your Pennsylvania Bradley obsession proves you wrong.  Obama strongly overperformed the polls in the state that you were certain would contain at least a small Bradley Effect.

If you can't admit that polls, especially bad ones, can't overestimate the Democrat for any other possible reason besides race, you're...well...there are several dozen reasons why a poll could be off and doing this makes you look bad.

*slams head into wall*

[J. J.]

I'm slamming my head into the wall because I'm incredibly annoyed.

EVERYONE knows that if Obama underperformed the average of polls in Pennsylvania by even 0.75%, you'd be up there declaring the victory of the Bradley Effect.

Plls can be wrong for many reasons.  Cherrypicking and then averaging national polls to prove the Bradley Effect when a simple analysis of your Pennsylvania Bradley obsession proves you wrong.  Obama strongly overperformed the polls in the state that you were certain would contain at least a small Bradley Effect.

If you can't admit that polls, especially bad ones, can't overestimate the Democrat for any other possible reason besides race, you're...well...there are several dozen reasons why a poll could be off and doing this makes you look bad.

*slams head into wall*

Two polls, that much wrong, well outside of the MOE and saying the same thing?  And always under counting the white candidate, and doing in in 2006 as well?  We are not talking about bad polls, but the one called the "gold standard," not by me.  And we have two polls that didn't, that hit the numbers exceptionally close.  We know one does two things, uses robo calling and pushes participants.  What about the other?

Yes, I thought that PA would be one of the states where it occurred and it didn't.  I didn't expect to see it on Galllup, and I do.

[Lunar]

For every poll that Obama overperforms in, it's 100% due to race.

Ok, from now on, just to prove how idiotic this crap is, I'm going to assume that every time McCain underpolled it's also because of race.

Are Pennsylvanians lying, claiming to pollsters they shall vote for McCain, because McCain was white?

This is dumb.  *hits head against wall*

[J. J.]

For every poll that Obama overperforms in, it's 100% due to race.

No, but I want to look at all polls to see what effects there are.  Right now, we have, with Gallup, the worst failure I have ever seen in a presidential poll from Gallup.  Good God, this is almost literally a Zogby number.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In how many states did McCain overpolled outside of the MOE?  Or in a national poll.

I'm interested in knowing how Hotline got it about right.  Robocalls?  Pushing the voter?  Coincidence?

BTW:  Race isn't really the factor.  Not wanting to look like a racist is the factor.  Those are two different things.

[Lunar]

So the main difference between the results of Gallup and Rasmussen is the robo-factor?  I assume most would say their weighting schemes....

And the main difference between robo-calls and live-interviewers is not "standardization vs. higher response rate," but rather people trying to not appear as racist?

Suddenly, for J.J., the Bradley Effect has switched from people lying to people lying to live interviewers, out of retroactive convenience.

*bangs bloody head against wall*

[J. J.]

So the main difference between the results of Gallup and Rasmussen is the robo-factor?  I assume most would say their weighting schemes....

And the main difference between robo-calls and live-interviewers is not "standardization vs. higher response rate," but rather people trying to not appear as racist?

Suddenly, for J.J., the Bradley Effect has switched from people lying to people lying to live interviewers, out of retroactive convenience.

*bangs bloody head against wall*

Lunar, if you actually had paid attention to your thread on it, weeks ago, you would not that in the three races, the white candidate tended to under poll.  You would also note that one possibility discussed was that people would be more comfortable answering to a machine instead of to a live person. :rolleyes:

That is a possible reason why Rasmussen is more accurate.  Another possible reason is that Rasmussen "pushes" people to answer.  I'm asking if Hotline shares either of these characteristics.

[kevinatcausa]

The projected popular vote margin posted on this site is now 7.03%, which would put CNN, FOX, and McClatchy as the spot on pollsters if it holds up. 

Maybe its worth waiting a while before we compare polling methods...or just not worry about it in a case where almost every pollster was well within the margin of error (exceptions looking like Zogby and Gallup on the Democratic side and Battleground(Lake) on the Republican side)

[J. J.]

The projected popular vote margin posted on this site is now 7.03%, which would put CNN, FOX, and McClatchy as the spot on pollsters if it holds up. 

Maybe its worth waiting a while before we compare polling methods...or just not worry about it in a case where almost every pollster was well within the margin of error (exceptions looking like Zogby and Gallup on the Democratic side and Battleground(Lake) on the Republican side)

Currently, CNN has McCain at 46.88% and Obama at 53.12%, they are showing a 6.24% gap.

With rounding:

IBD/TIPP:   O +1 
Gallup:       O +4.8
R2K:           O -1.2
Zogby:       O +5.2  (Okay, that is expected; it's Zogby)
Hotline:      O -1.2
ABC/WP:    O +4.8
Ras:           O -1.3
Ipsos         O +1.8


McCain difference from actual (46.9% rounded):


IDB/TIPP:         -2.6
Gallup:             -4.9
R2K:                 -0.9
Zogby:              -4.1 (It's Zogby!)
Hotline:            -1.9
ABC/WP:          -3.9
Ras:                 -0.4
Ipsos:              -4.9

Every one of these polls under projected McCain, though many were in the MOE.  Obama was undercounted in some, but not all.

[kevinatcausa]

IDB/TIPP:         -2.6
Gallup:             -4.9
R2K:                 -0.9
Zogby:              -4.1 (It's Zogby!)
Hotline:            -1.9
ABC/WP:          -3.9
Ras:                 -0.4
Ipsos:              -4.9

Every one of these polls under projected McCain, though many were in the MOE.  Obama was undercounted in some, but not all.

Okay, now I'm about ready to start banging my head against the wall too.  The only number that's worth anything whatsoever from a poll that doesn't either push all the leaners or allocate all the undecideds is the margin.  Under no circumstances should you be comparing the absolute percentages of any single candidate in a poll which has undecideds with those from an actual election which doesn't.   This isn't a Bradley effect thing, this isn't a methodology thing...this is the obvious fact that even the best poll which only allocates 94% of the voters will undercount McCain. 

The way to "fix" this undercount isn't to give up and claim that other pollsters are better.  It's to stop looking at the McCain totals and focus on the margin instead!

[J. J.]

IDB/TIPP:         -2.6
Gallup:             -4.9
R2K:                 -0.9
Zogby:              -4.1 (It's Zogby!)
Hotline:            -1.9
ABC/WP:          -3.9
Ras:                 -0.4
Ipsos:              -4.9

Every one of these polls under projected McCain, though many were in the MOE.  Obama was undercounted in some, but not all.

Okay, now I'm about ready to start banging my head against the wall too.  The only number that's worth anything whatsoever from a poll that doesn't either push all the leaners or allocate all the undecideds is the margin.  Under no circumstances should you be comparing the absolute percentages of any single candidate in a poll which has undecideds with those from an actual election which doesn't.   This isn't a Bradley effect thing, this isn't a methodology thing...this is the obvious fact that even the best poll which only allocates 94% of the voters will undercount McCain. 

The way to "fix" this undercount isn't to give up and claim that other pollsters are better.  It's to stop looking at the McCain totals and focus on the margin instead!

Then we shouldn't be getting positive numbers in any case, but we are in some cases involving Obama, or other candidates that are black.   We did on ABC/WP.   We came close (and might have with rounding) on Gallup.  I can understand Zogby.

I could understand everybody being undercounted, but in some cases, black candidates are being overcounted.

[kevinatcausa]

One thing to watch out for:  The CNN numbers you gave add up to 100%, so I assume you're completely ignoring third parties.  The polls don't. 

My best estimate (I can't find a total anywhere right now) is that right now McCain's at 46.2-46.3% of the total vote, with 2% of the votes left to be counted (mostly from Oregon, Washington, and California).  Together, Obama and McCain make up about 98.5% of the vote. 


Some pollsters push leaners and/or allocate undecideds until they reach pretty close to that value.  Examples include the Battlegrounds (which both overestimated McCain and underestimated Obama to various extents), Gallup (which pulled a Zogby), and Rasmussen   For those polls, taking the absolute percentages is almost the same as just looking at the margin of error, and if they're off by any amount towards either candidate, it'll lead to a positive number.

Other polls (e.g. Ipsos before leaners) only allocate 92% of the vote.   All other things being equal, you'd expect an undercount of 3%+ on each candidate.  For Ipsos, it was actually 4.2, because the leaners were more heavily McCain than the general sample.  However, we knew that was going to happen in advance, because Ipsos also included results with leaners!  Given a choice, we take the results with leaners, (53-46), which also are within tenths of a percent for each candidate.   

The point is, despite that horrific looking -4.9 in your table, Ipsos was one of the best pollsters this election.  Looking at the absolute difference instead of the margin disguises this fact.   The same holds true for other pollsters on your list.  IBD/TIPP only assigned 96% of the voters, and that alone accounts for half of the -2.6 margin (your ignoring third parties accounts for another 0.75 or so).   

The two polls that have big numbers in your table that assigned leaners were Gallup and Zogby.  But those were outliers this year, as you could have seen just by looking at the margins.  The absolute differences told you nothing new. 

[J. J.]

One thing to watch out for:  The CNN numbers you gave add up to 100%, so I assume you're completely ignoring third parties.  The polls don't. 

I am currently, but it shouldn't change the gap too much.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will expect the Obama/McCain number to increase.

Just to be clear, you are the one that cited Ipsos, initially.  It isn't one that we generally look at on this thread.

I am suggesting that in races where there are white and black candidates, the white candidate tends to underpoll.  This was historic and can be seen, arguably in the Bradley (1982), Wilder (1989) and in Blackwell, Steele, Patrick  (but not Ford) in 2006.  It has dropped rather dramatically from 1989 to 2006, but it's still present.

In this race, at least on the national polls, it seems to be present, roughly like 2006.  It's there, but it's dropped.  It may be lessened because of something that some pollsters do.

[J. J.]

It looks like it occurred in some states, UT, AR, GA, WV , where there was a strong McCain vote.

Two other possibilities are CA and more probably NY.  It didn't make a difference, but it's present.

IA, ironically, seems to have been a Bradley Effect state. 

The national gap is currently 6.38

[Alcon]

I guess if you keep narrating authoritatively...whatever.

Obviously the best explanation for Utah polling (of which there was little, and virtually none of it was respectable) is the Bradley Effect.  Utah, a state known for its rich history of racial tension. Utah.

Good god.

[J. J.]

I guess if you keep narrating authoritatively...whatever.

Obviously the best explanation for Utah polling (of which there was little, and virtually none of it was respectable) is the Bradley Effect.  Utah, a state known for its rich history of racial tension. Utah.

Good god.

Utah has one characteristic that it shares with Iowa; both are very white states.  I've got to admit, I was surprised at Iowa, considering Obama's electoral record there and McCain's stand on ethanol.  It is the underpolling, which is strange for a Republican in Utah.

And what made you think it has anything to do with racial tension?  I also looked at MA, VA, and NC, where it didn't occur.  They have had a "history" of racial tension.

One of things I indicated about 2006, we don't have across the board polling in state polls.  We do have the nationals, and you see the results.

Do you know anything about Hotline's polling methods?

[Alcon]

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.