• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ARE THE POLLS REALLY ACCURATE? REALLY? And what about this professor who claims....

E

EvaPeron

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
1,145
Reaction score
386
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I'm sure there have been many threads on this topic, but it is something I truly want to explore. When "they" talk about "within the margin of error" usually they mean plus or minus 3%. Three of the more recent elections 1980 - 2012, show the following:

1992 Clinton vs Bush the polling going into the vote was 49 for Clinton vs 37 Bush - a difference of 12 points. The end result was 43 / 37.7 a difference of 5.3 points
1988 Bush vs Dukakis the polling going into the vote was 56 for Bush vs 44 Dukakis - a difference of 12 points. the end result was 53/ 46.1 a difference of 6.9 points
1980 Reagan vs Carter the polling going into the vote was 47 for Carter vs 44 Reagan - a difference of 3 points and the end result was 50.8 vs 41 a difference of 9.8 points

I had read a review of other polling which I've mentioned which stated Carter ahead in the last polling by 6 points and then Reagan won by 10.

The one consistency that I can see is that in the elections between 2012 and 1936, 20 elections in all, all had the actual winners from the Gallup Survey, winning at the last poll except, 2012 had Romney winning, 2004 had Bush / Kerry tied. These are just the results from the Gallup Survey. Unfortunately, Gallup announced that they won't poll for 2016 Presidential Race because the polling industry is facing a number of current challenges.

Why Gallup Won't Follow the 2016 Race
Election Polls -- Accuracy Record in Presidential Elections | Gallup Historical Trends

THEN THERE IS THIS ARTICLE ABOUT A PROFESSOR WHO HAS BEEN ABLE TO PREDICT EVERY ELECTION SINCE THE 1980'S.

Lichtman and Russian scientist Volodia Keilis-Borok came up with the keys — a series of true/false statements — in the early 1980s. The idea is that if more than half of the keys are true, the incumbent party will stay in power, and if more than half are false, the challenging party will win the White House.

The keys, which are explained in depth in Lichtman’s book “Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016” are:


Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long-term economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.


WHAT DO YOU FOLKS THINK AND WHO WOULD YOU PREDICT BASED ON HOW YOU WOULD ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?
 
Re: ARE THE POLLS REALLY ACCURATE? REALLY? And what about this professor who claims

I answered the questions and had 10 false and 2 True and 1 question mark. By my calculations and this professors theory, Trump would win.

:)
 
Re: ARE THE POLLS REALLY ACCURATE? REALLY? And what about this professor who claims

The main problem with polls is that the people who actually answer them rarely fit the desired voting demographic.

I get so many calls this time of year I couldn't possibly answer them all and if I do happen to answer a poll (maybe 1:100 calls) the surveys often seem extremely one sided.
 
Re: ARE THE POLLS REALLY ACCURATE? REALLY? And what about this professor who claims

EvaPeron said:
WHAT DO YOU FOLKS THINK AND WHO WOULD YOU PREDICT BASED ON HOW YOU WOULD ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?
Click to expand...
Meh

Lichtman (who is openly anti-Trump) has basically given up applying his model this year. He thinks it's too close to call.

I'm not sure if that means his method is effective or not. On one hand, it's hard to fault someone who admits their model might not work in unusual cases. On the other hand, it's not much of a predictive model, if it can't actually predict.

Outcome of 2016 presidential race difficult to predict, say two election experts | #PRNC


Anyway, his method is not actually a criticism of polls, which are basically measures of public opinion. What you'd have to criticize is the people making predictions from those polls, and most professional pollsters will admit that polls get more accurate as they get closer.
 
Re: ARE THE POLLS REALLY ACCURATE? REALLY? And what about this professor who claims

EvaPeron said:
I'm sure there have been many threads on this topic, but it is something I truly want to explore. When "they" talk about "within the margin of error" usually they mean plus or minus 3%. Three of the more recent elections 1980 - 2012, show the following:

1992 Clinton vs Bush the polling going into the vote was 49 for Clinton vs 37 Bush - a difference of 12 points. The end result was 43 / 37.7 a difference of 5.3 points
1988 Bush vs Dukakis the polling going into the vote was 56 for Bush vs 44 Dukakis - a difference of 12 points. the end result was 53/ 46.1 a difference of 6.9 points
1980 Reagan vs Carter the polling going into the vote was 47 for Carter vs 44 Reagan - a difference of 3 points and the end result was 50.8 vs 41 a difference of 9.8 points

I had read a review of other polling which I've mentioned which stated Carter ahead in the last polling by 6 points and then Reagan won by 10.

The one consistency that I can see is that in the elections between 2012 and 1936, 20 elections in all, all had the actual winners from the Gallup Survey, winning at the last poll except, 2012 had Romney winning, 2004 had Bush / Kerry tied. These are just the results from the Gallup Survey. Unfortunately, Gallup announced that they won't poll for 2016 Presidential Race because the polling industry is facing a number of current challenges.

Why Gallup Won't Follow the 2016 Race
Election Polls -- Accuracy Record in Presidential Elections | Gallup Historical Trends

THEN THERE IS THIS ARTICLE ABOUT A PROFESSOR WHO HAS BEEN ABLE TO PREDICT EVERY ELECTION SINCE THE 1980'S.

Lichtman and Russian scientist Volodia Keilis-Borok came up with the keys — a series of true/false statements — in the early 1980s. The idea is that if more than half of the keys are true, the incumbent party will stay in power, and if more than half are false, the challenging party will win the White House.

The keys, which are explained in depth in Lichtman’s book “Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016” are:


Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long-term economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.


WHAT DO YOU FOLKS THINK AND WHO WOULD YOU PREDICT BASED ON HOW YOU WOULD ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?
Click to expand...

*sigh*

Yet another "polls shouldn't be trusted"-type post.

Personally, I do tend to give more credence to Nate Silver, who called the election result not just of the 2012 presidential election as a whole, but correctly called ALL fifty states. He doesn't place too much faith in any one poll, but after looking at all significant polls, and after adjusting for how each major poll tends to skew one way or another due to methodology or inherent ideology, he gets a pretty good idea of what's going on.
 
Re: ARE THE POLLS REALLY ACCURATE? REALLY? And what about this professor who claims

Polls are full of baited questions and given to a targeted audience.

No. At best they're accurate-ish. That's at best.
 
Re: ARE THE POLLS REALLY ACCURATE? REALLY? And what about this professor who claims

Glen Contrarian said:
*sigh*

Yet another "polls shouldn't be trusted"-type post.

Personally, I do tend to give more credence to Nate Silver, who called the election result not just of the 2012 presidential election as a whole, but correctly called ALL fifty states. He doesn't place too much faith in any one poll, but after looking at all significant polls, and after adjusting for how each major poll tends to skew one way or another due to methodology or inherent ideology, he gets a pretty good idea of what's going on.
Click to expand...

His questions, however, do have true merit. Maybe he just doesn't like the outcome if applied correctly based on his on theory. ��
 
Re: ARE THE POLLS REALLY ACCURATE? REALLY? And what about this professor who claims

Any poll that includes a major media company...CNN, NBC, FOX, etc...is a bogus, useless poll. Of the non-media polls, most are bogus, useless polls.

The result: Anybody who cites polls are wasting their time and their credibility.

My recommendation: Disregard polls. Don't be a useful idiot or low-info voter. Do your own research. Apply a healthy dose of skepticism to everything you see, hear and read. Make up your own mind and vote accordingly.
 
Re: ARE THE POLLS REALLY ACCURATE? REALLY? And what about this professor who claims

Oh, yeah...speaking of polls, it's about time some bogus poll showing Clinton ahead of Trump by some outrageous number like +7 to +15 comes out...for the only purpose of skewing that RCP average.

It WOULD have come out this weekend, except for that FBI information release today. Now they'll have to wait till Tues or so.
 
Re: ARE THE POLLS REALLY ACCURATE? REALLY? And what about this professor who claims

Lutherf said:
The main problem with polls is that the people who actually answer them rarely fit the desired voting demographic.

I get so many calls this time of year I couldn't possibly answer them all and if I do happen to answer a poll (maybe 1:100 calls) the surveys often seem extremely one sided.
Click to expand...

That's because there is a technique that is being used to try to convince people of a specific idea.. and it's not really a poll, but a political advertisement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom