- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I for one never claimed the poll meant anything.
should be taken with a grain of salt.
That worked better than I expected. :2razz:
I for one never claimed the poll meant anything.
should be taken with a grain of salt.
I only lied if I said something completely different that what I did say. Since that is not the case, no lie. Nice try though.
Without reading this thread, I'm going to guess how the thread is going:
Liberals are saying that the poll demonstrates something, conservatives say the poll either demonstrates nothing or is flawed. If this poll said that Obama's approval rating was 28%, conservatives would say the poll demonstrated something, liberals would say the poll either demonstrated nothing or was flawed.
What do you think this demonstrates about all of YOU?
Without reading this thread, I'm going to guess how the thread is going:
Liberals are saying that the poll demonstrates something, conservatives say the poll either demonstrates nothing or is flawed. If this poll said that Obama's approval rating was 28%, conservatives would say the poll demonstrated something, liberals would say the poll either demonstrated nothing or was flawed.
What do you think this demonstrates about all of YOU?
Bush said he was eating souffles at a Dallas restaurant with his wife, Laura, and two friends when he got word that Obama, his successor as president, was trying to reach him.
"I excused myself and went home to take the call," Bush said. "Obama simply said, 'Osama bin Laden is dead.'"
After Obama described in detail the secret U.S. raid on Osama's compound in Pakistan and the decision he made to go ahead with the mission, Bush said he told Obama: "Good call."
This is false and would actually lead to inaccurate results.
I suggest you look the term "weighting" and get back to me.
you lied about my position and attacked me relentlessly, being rather uncivil and snotty to me, misrepresenting what I say, and framing it in a way so you can lie and call me a hypocrite. Very classy, dude.
Now if you added actually reading the thread, you'd see that is not strictly the case. I, for example, said at least twice that when you poll more to one demographic than another, and get a result that favors the demographic you polled more to, it is a skewed result. Dem... GOP.. doesn't matter which way.
SO you are claiming that by throwing out inconvenient results, polls are more accurate, and that the way to make a public opinion poll accurate is to only poll an atypical selection of people. Get back to me when you know something about polling.
FAQs: Weighting
Why do we weight our results?
Accurate polling requires the demographic breakdown of a survey to closely resemble the same breakdown for the population you are trying to measure. For example, North Carolina likely voters breakdown about 53%-47% women to men and about 77%-18%-5% white to black to “other” and we try to have our surveys match those ratios as close as possible.
One drawback of IVR polling is that you are not sure of exactly who you are interviewing until the end of the survey. We can’t set quotas for demographics like traditional pollsters, so we just let the telephone calls run and then work with the data after the fact.
Traditional pollsters can manipulate their respondents during the survey by beginning each survey by asking for the “second oldest woman in the household” or some other method so that they reach their quotas for demographic groups like gender and race.
The most common demographic “problem” for us is that more women answer the surveys relative to men, and not enough African-Americans answer our surveys. To achieve relatively accurate demographic breakdowns we have to employ weighting schemes.
How do we weight?
The first step in weighting we achieve by surveying more than enough people. That allows us to go back and randomly reject individual surveys from demographics that are overrepresented. For example, if you saw one of our surveys with 500 respondents, in actuality 600 people may have answered the survey, but we had to reject 100 female responses. It’s like using a quota but after the fact, and our random selection eliminates any potential bias from the rejections.
We also employ a mathematical weighting scheme that will assign a weight based on one demographic. For example, if a survey is 82% white and 13% black, but needs to be 77% white and 17% black the weighting formula can take care of that mathematically.
Generic Presidential Ballot - Rasmussen Reports™
Voters are fairly evenly divided over whether they want to give President Obama a second term in the White House.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that the president currently earns support from 45% of Likely Voters across the nation, while a Generic Republican attracts 43% of the vote. Rasmussen Reports will provide new data on this generic match up each week until the field of prospective Republican nominees narrows to a few serious contenders
Public Policy Polling: FAQs: Weighting
Now, what were you saying about getting back to you when I learned something about polling?????????
The problem is your are not understanding what this is saying. Using the examples in your quote, the ratio of women or minorities is known, in advance, and is not volatile. The number of people who self identify as democrats is not known in advance, and chances all the time.
No, I understand it perfectly. They simply use women as an example. Do you actually believe that they would report poll results if 90% of the people said they belonged to one party??
You are just to arrogant to admit when you are wrong.
Just goes to show that Americans dig wars, even closet hawks come out.
ricksfolly
Love it.
"Obama's poll numbers are down"
YEAH! Go America! Nothing wrong with that poll.
"Obama's poll numbers are up".
Poll is bad!
And you know, even if you are right, this happens EVERY SINGLE TIME a poll shows good, you always gotta try and discredit it, I'll be waiting for you to have the same objectivity on a negative poll about Obama... Or probably not.
Yup. This happens everytime there is a poll regardless of the political implications of the poll. One side says "yay" and the other says "irrelevant". That's how threads like this always go.
Do you know in advance what portion of people self identify as democrats and how many as republicans? Would you not then if you assign a required ratio between the two, change the actual results of the poll to not be representative of the general public? Think hard about those questions and get back to me.
New Rasmussen Reports Partisan Weighting Targets: 39.9% Democrat 33.4% Republican - Rasmussen Reports™New Rasmussen Reports Partisan Weighting Targets: 39.9% Democrat 33.4% Republican
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large. Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process.
Weighting by Party ID: When It Comes to Elections, Can It Really Be Tossed Out the Door?TIPP, the political polling arm of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, conducts monthly polls for its media partners, the Investors Business Daily and the Christian Science Monitor.
Since the 2000 Presidential Election, TIPP has adhered to rigorous polling standards and has amassed a detailed database of party affiliation information spanning more than 4 years.
In the recent 2004 Presidential Election, when many other pollsters were saying that weighting by party affiliation was an inappropriate method, TIPP continued to adhere to the philosophy that weighting by party ID was the only way to accurately represent reality. The result: TIPP correctly predicted President Bush’s reelection and was one of the closest to predicting his actual margin of victory.
Zogby polling opens wide for ObamaI looked through the cross-tabs, which are behind the pay firewall, and will pass some of that on here (Zogby, weights party ID by 38% Democratic, 36% Republican and 26% Independent. Age by 18% 18-29, 15% 30-49, 24% 50-64, and 17% 65+. And 75% White, 11% Black, 10% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% Other. All quite solid).
.Daily KOS
Features/Strengths: Full set of cross-tabular results published each day. Poll tends to be fairly stable, in part because they use a fixed party ID weighting (Democrat +9). Research 2000 is the only pollster to publish each individual day's results in addition to the rolling average.
Quirks/Concerns: Racial demographics are aggressive -- probably too aggressive -- showing blacks making up 14 percent of the electorate and Hispanics another 13 percent. Turnout will be up among minorities this year, but probably not by quite that much. The +9 party ID split is arguably also aggressive, although within the broad range of what other polls have found this year.
Rasmussen
Features/Strengths: Largest sample size of any of the tracking polls. Between that and the fact that they weight by party ID, they have tended to have the most stable results. To the extent that any pollster should weight by party ID, I think Rasmussen is going about it the right way, setting targets based on a six-week rolling average of all interviews conducted