Non-Gallup/Rasmussen tracking polls thread

[J. J.]

Not even this one?

No, I doubt that the race will freeze for two weeks.

[J. J.]

NBC/WSJ

Obama:  52

McCain:  42

[J. J.]

The race is either static at this point, or widening for Obama.  From what I see, it seems to be slowly widening for Obama.

The ABC poll shows no change.  There is a slight opening of Gallup and none on Rasmussen.  BG, FWIW, is a one point margin.  TIPP hasn't move a point.  Zogby is Zogby.

[J. J.]

It seems that the Powell announcement is helping Obama in these most recent polls. The NBC poll was the most surprising to me.

Actually, the last poll was two weeks ago, so it isn't catching anything current, and some of the sample might have been before that.

[J. J.]

Zogby/Reuters/C-SPAN - Wednesday, October 22:

Obama: 52 (+2)
McCain: 42 (nc)

“Three big days for Obama. Anything can happen, but time is running short for McCain. These numbers, if they hold, are blowout numbers. They fit the 1980 model with Reagan's victory over Carter -- but they are happening 12 days before Reagan blasted ahead. If Obama wins like this we can be talking not only victory but realignment: he leads by 27 points among Independents, 27 points among those who have already voted, 16 among newly registered voters, 31 among Hispanics, 93%-2% among African Americans, 16 among women, 27 among those 18-29, 5 among 30-49 year olds, 8 among 50-64s, 4 among those over 65, 25 among Moderates, and 12 among Catholics (which is better than Bill Clinton's 10-point victory among Catholics in 1996). He leads with men by 2 points, and is down among whites by only 6 points, down 2 in armed forces households, 3 among investors, and is tied among NASCAR fans. Obama wins 85% support from Democrats, and 11% of Republicans. McCain wins 83% of the Republican vote, and 10% of the Democratic vote.”

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1604

Zogby should just give up the pretense and start writing fiction novels.

Why?  Kos has the market for that sown up.

[J. J.]

Zogby/Reuters/C-SPAN - Wednesday, October 22:

Obama: 52 (+2)
McCain: 42 (nc)

“Three big days for Obama. Anything can happen, but time is running short for McCain. These numbers, if they hold, are blowout numbers. They fit the 1980 model with Reagan's victory over Carter -- but they are happening 12 days before Reagan blasted ahead. If Obama wins like this we can be talking not only victory but realignment: he leads by 27 points among Independents, 27 points among those who have already voted, 16 among newly registered voters, 31 among Hispanics, 93%-2% among African Americans, 16 among women, 27 among those 18-29, 5 among 30-49 year olds, 8 among 50-64s, 4 among those over 65, 25 among Moderates, and 12 among Catholics (which is better than Bill Clinton's 10-point victory among Catholics in 1996). He leads with men by 2 points, and is down among whites by only 6 points, down 2 in armed forces households, 3 among investors, and is tied among NASCAR fans. Obama wins 85% support from Democrats, and 11% of Republicans. McCain wins 83% of the Republican vote, and 10% of the Democratic vote.”

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1604

Zogby should just give up the pretense and start writing fiction novels.

Why?  Kos has the market for that sown up.

I thought you'd be a fan of some free-market competition...

Yes, but Kos has the monopoly on BS.

[J. J.]

ABC / Washington Post tracking poll

likely voters:

Obama: 54 % (+1)

McCain: 43 % (-1)

Looks good.  It is undeniable at this point.  There can be no doubt that the race is widening.  Obama looks like he is on his way to a big landslide.

I would be looking at one poll, especially that one.  Today, surprisingly, the results have been mixed.

[J. J.]

Zogby says:

Obama 52.2% McCain 40.3%


I think Obama may have some momentum, but zogby's numbers are certainly looking nutty.

Hmm. Zogby must be taking something. Obama leads by almost 30 with Independents ?

It's Zogby!

[J. J.]

ABC / Washington Post tracking poll

likely voters:

Obama: 54 % (+1)

McCain: 43 % (-1)

Looks good.  It is undeniable at this point.  There can be no doubt that the race is widening.  Obama looks like he is on his way to a big landslide.

I would be looking at one poll, especially that one.  Today, surprisingly, the results have been mixed.

ABC/WaPo is a good poll, easily the best of the news organization polls. I wouldn't consider it over Rasmussen or Gallup, but probably over pretty much everything else. Of course, you're certainly right that one poll does not a trend make, but the numbers overall have suggested that the McCain "comeback" was the polling fluke, not Obama's peak numbers. Of course, I don't expect Obama to improve past his peak lead of ~8 points, and to end slightly less than that ahead on Election Day (~6 points), but it will very obvious who will win come Nov. 4 unless some unforeseen Happening happens.

We've actually had mixed results today.  If Rasmussen hadn't jumped, I'd say it was McCain's day.

This one isn't a good poll, and will probably be ignored by Freedumbburnout if it shifts back.

[J. J.]

IBD/TIPP
Obama 44.8% (-0.9)
McCain 43.7%  (+1.7)

Ut ohh...

I would say "ut ohh..." is right.  We now have two of the three major tackers showing greater than two point drop for Obama in two days.  It is not repeated on Rasmussen.  Watch tomorrows 'bots.

[J. J.]

IBD/TIPP
Obama 44.8% (-0.9)
McCain 43.7%  (+1.7)

Ut ohh...

I would say "ut ohh..." is right.  We now have two of the three major tackers showing greater than two point drop for Obama in two days.  It is not repeated on Rasmussen.  Watch tomorrows 'bots.

There's only one 'bot' poll.

I thought there would be a bank of 'bots?

[J. J.]

Lunar, the subset problem has been discussed.

[J. J.]

Lunar, the subset problem has been discussed.

Where, and to what conclusion?

This thread, IIRC, about 4-5 days ago.  It was just too small a sample size to be able to generalize.

[J. J.]

Um, that's not true.  You can still calculate a Margin of Error for a (relatively) small sample size, and apply it.  The MoE is higher.  It isn't high enough to make that result not highly suspicious.

MOE = 150%

MoE = +/-10%

That subsample = Obviously flawed well out of MoE range

Actually, there were others with similar results.  I raised the question about it.  It seems to be a very small sampling.

[J. J.]

Um, that's not true.  You can still calculate a Margin of Error for a (relatively) small sample size, and apply it.  The MoE is higher.  It isn't high enough to make that result not highly suspicious.

MOE = 150%

MoE = +/-10%

That subsample = Obviously flawed well out of MoE range

Actually, there were others with similar results.  I raised the question about it.  It seems to be a very small sampling.

Which makes it immune to the laws of margin of error? 

No, just using a really bad sample for that age group.

[J. J.]

Um, that's not true.  You can still calculate a Margin of Error for a (relatively) small sample size, and apply it.  The MoE is higher.  It isn't high enough to make that result not highly suspicious.

MOE = 150%

MoE = +/-10%

That subsample = Obviously flawed well out of MoE range

Actually, there were others with similar results.  I raised the question about it.  It seems to be a very small sampling.

Which makes it immune to the laws of margin of error? 

No, just using a really bad sample for that age group.

Right...which shows that there was probably a deep methodological flaw in this poll, or its sample, or something.  It's not "too small of a sample to be able to generalize" -- the generalization is that the chance that would occur, without their being a sampling issue, is infinitesimal.  Add that into the fact that the poll seems like an outlier in the top-line, and I'm beginning to smell the strong scent of fish.

Well, I'm look looking at this subsample, which is off.  As a full sample, until today, it was in line with the other major polls, even more pro-Obama than BG.

I'm give TIPP a bit more credence because of its track record than I am something like Zogby or Hotline.

[J. J.]

Well, I'm look looking at this subsample, which is off.  As a full sample, until today, it was in line with the other major polls, even more pro-Obama than BG.

OK, so you think it's a good poll, and it's just a one-in-several-million error?  Interesting.

I think it's a good poll, with a bad subsample.

[J. J.]

To be honest, the error is more likely than the raw calculation.  Why?  Because the error wasn't predetermined, we were looking at ALL of their data, which means we could find various age-sample outliers, various race outliers, etc.  We just happened to grasp on the one that is off.

That plus the small sample-size are ONLY two reasons to discard subsamples.  

Discarding subsamples is not a rule and it's not universal, J.J., it's just a rule of thumb.  There's a line somewhere (we could calculate it, based on the number of crosstabs available and known sample sizes, but it'd be way too much work) where the poll crosses over into the unacceptable line and becomes DISQUALIFIED.  If some poll of Iowa shows McCain winning 51% of AA voters, that's not that bad.   If some poll shows McCain within a couple points or whatever on youth voters, that's not that bad.  Once it crosses that line, which is fuzzy at this point, but can be finely calculated, the poll becomes ridiculous.  If some poll showed McCain winning 100% of AA's in Georgia, that's ridiculous.  And this poll, which shows McCain winning youth voters by a 50% margin, becomes disqualified from legitimacy in a simpler manner.

Especially because the topline result is also an outlier.

I don't see how you can logically argue otherwise.

Sorry, but I don't see the importance of a bad subsample, especially since it was repeated during samples that matched other polls.

[J. J.]

Sorry, but I don't see the importance of a bad subsample, especially since it was repeated during samples that matched other polls.

Because it demonstrates that either:

1. There's a methodological error; or,

2. A one-in-many-million chance event has occurred.

Which seems more likely to you, especially when the poll soon thereafter shows a result that seems like an outlier?

It hasn't been showing the results as being an outlier, at least until today.  It was in line with Gallup and Rasmussen. 

In seems likely  subsample is clearly an outlier, but the whole poll.

[J. J.]

Sorry, but I don't see the importance of a bad subsample, especially since it was repeated during samples that matched other polls.

Because it demonstrates that either:

1. There's a methodological error; or,

2. A one-in-many-million chance event has occurred.

Which seems more likely to you, especially when the poll soon thereafter shows a result that seems like an outlier?

It hasn't been showing the results as being an outlier, at least until today.  It was in line with Gallup and Rasmussen. 

In seems likely  subsample is clearly an outlier, but the whole poll.

So, you're maintaining that the subsample was just a one-in-several-million event? Yes or no?

I'm saying the subsample is bad, but a bad subsample doesn't invalidate the poll.

[J. J.]

I'm saying the subsample is bad, but a bad subsample doesn't invalidate the poll.

So, in other words, you are maintaining that it's a one-in-several-million event, and not a flaw in the methodology.  Why?

No, I'm saying that the poll isn't primary designed to accurately measure a subsample.

[J. J.]

I'm saying the subsample is bad, but a bad subsample doesn't invalidate the poll.

So, in other words, you are maintaining that it's a one-in-several-million event, and not a flaw in the methodology.  Why?

No, I'm saying that the poll isn't primary designed to accurately measure a subsample.

It has to be either a one-in-a-million event or a flaw in the methodology.  It can't be neither, lol.

The "flaw in the methodology" of getting the subsample or a bad subsample does not invalidate the whole sample.  The 45-64 sample seems skewed to Obama and I don't believe it; that doesn't invalidate the poll.

[J. J.]

I'm saying the subsample is bad, but a bad subsample doesn't invalidate the poll.

So, in other words, you are maintaining that it's a one-in-several-million event, and not a flaw in the methodology.  Why?

No, I'm saying that the poll isn't primary designed to accurately measure a subsample.

Yes, but at some level you have to question the methodologies, especially if the topline result isn't in line with other polls.

The subsample can reveal the methodological weaknesses of a poll.  If a subsample shows 500% growth among elderly voters, then perhaps the poll is doing something funky.  It's wrong to pick apart moderate subsample weaknesses (say McCain winning 15% of blacks, a common subsample weakness with about the same sample size as Youth), but at some point we got to take a step back and say that this poll is probably doing something wrong.  The odds are simply one in a trillion that this poll doesn't have an overarching flaw.

At what point do you, J.J., question a sub sample?  Is a one and a gazillion bazillion chance not enough for you?  Does McCain need to win 100% of Blacks in Mississippi?

The problem that I'm having with this entire argument is that, even with a bad subsample, the poll is conforming to the other polls, or at least was until today.

[J. J.]

The problem that I'm having with this entire argument is that, even with a bad subsample, the poll is conforming to the other polls, or at least was until today.

So it doesn't matter how invalid the methodology of the poll is, as long as it comes within close range of other polls?

hellooo arg

No, it means that there probably is not a problem with the methodology that affects the result.

[J. J.]

The problem that I'm having with this entire argument is that, even with a bad subsample, the poll is conforming to the other polls, or at least was until today.

So it doesn't matter how invalid the methodology of the poll is, as long as it comes within close range of other polls?

hellooo arg

No, it means that there probably is not a problem with the methodology that affects the result.

So, you think that it was just a one-in-multi-million error?  You think that is more likely than a sampling error?

Thanks for confirming that.

No, I'm saying that whatever the problem, it doesn't seem to effect the result.  Please don't put words into my mouth.