Non-Gallup/Rasmussen tracking polls thread

[Eraserhead]

Pretty good day for Obama as far as the national trackers go.

[Sam Spade]

Tracker updated.

[J. J.]

Well, since you've declined to respond to a few ... .

What posts were those?  It was not intentional.  I will respond to any post you link me to.

I would appreciate the same in return.  Here is the post in question.

If you say it's "fairly clear that it [wasn't] methodology," you're saying it's fairly clear that it was a one-in-many-million event.  It must be one, the other, or an accurate observation.  I am still waiting for you to pick one of the three.  They are the only three options.

Your infamous claims of "evolution is proven."  I never received an answer. 

I am saying, however, that at a subsample really is not indicative of the rest of the poll.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, since you've declined to respond to a few ... .

What posts were those?  It was not intentional.  I will respond to any post you link me to.

I would appreciate the same in return.  Here is the post in question.

If you say it's "fairly clear that it [wasn't] methodology," you're saying it's fairly clear that it was a one-in-many-million event.  It must be one, the other, or an accurate observation.  I am still waiting for you to pick one of the three.  They are the only three options.

"one=in=many-million"?!?

Go back and reread basic survey research methodology.

One out of twenty times the MoE is likely to be exceeded for a sample.

As to subsamples, the MoE is generally so large, its not worth examing.

[Alcon]

Your infamous claims of "evolution is proven."  I never received an answer. 

I don't know how "infamous" it is, but I found the topic again.  I never claimed that "evolution is proven" anywhere in that topic; if I did, I should not have, it's a theory.  Our debate was over whether the development of metacognition was an aberrant pattern that indicated intelligent design.  In the last post I made, I conceded that I didn't really have any way of proving my thesis, or you, yours, but that I thought you were looking for evidence in your own conclusions.

Looking over your last post, you just re-iterated points you had already made.  To me, it looks like that was a mutual agreement to close the subject with mutual disagreement.  You didn't ask any question in the last post that I left "hanging," other than ones which I answered but that you had different interpretations on.

Now, since there are "a few" of these, can you please give me another example?

I am saying, however, that at a subsample really is not indicative of the rest of the poll.

First off, that's factually incorrect.  As Verily pointed out, a swing to Obama 60-40 (closer to in line with national polling) changes the topline significantly.

Second off, you have still failed to pick one of the following options.  Again, one of the following must be true.  Which one do you believe is most probable?

1. The sample is accurate; all other polls are significantly off.

2. The sample is off by random chance, but with no methodology flaw; an event of infinitesimal likelihood occurred.

3. The sample is off by design, and the methodology is flawed, thus the poll is questionable.

"The subsample really is not indicative of the rest of the poll" is invalid because:

1. It affects the topline significantly; and,

2. It shows that their methodology was flawed.

I await your answer -- again, option one, two, or three.

[Alcon]

Well, since you've declined to respond to a few ... .

What posts were those?  It was not intentional.  I will respond to any post you link me to.

I would appreciate the same in return.  Here is the post in question.

If you say it's "fairly clear that it [wasn't] methodology," you're saying it's fairly clear that it was a one-in-many-million event.  It must be one, the other, or an accurate observation.  I am still waiting for you to pick one of the three.  They are the only three options.

"one=in=many-million"?!?

Go back and reread basic survey research methodology.

One out of twenty times the MoE is likely to be exceeded for a sample.

As to subsamples, the MoE is generally so large, its not worth examing.

Go back and read this thread.  The chance that the sub-sample would be off by ~70 points is one in many million, and that is accounting for the high MoE.

I didn't say that the chance it would be out of MoE is one in several million; obviously, that's 1-in-20.  That's the definition of Margin of Error (at the 95th confidence rate, per survey standards.)

[J. J.]

Your infamous claims of "evolution is proven."  I never received an answer. 

I don't know how "infamous" it is, but I found the topic again.  I never claimed that "evolution is proven" anywhere in that topic; if I did, I should not have, it's a theory.  Our debate was over whether the development of metacognition was an aberrant pattern that indicated intelligent design.  In the last post I made, I conceded that I didn't really have any way of proving my thesis, or you, yours, but that I thought you were looking for evidence in your own conclusions.

Looking over your last post, you just re-iterated points you had already made.  To me, it looks like that was a mutual agreement to close the subject with mutual disagreement.  You didn't ask any question in the last post that I left "hanging," other than ones which I answered but that you had different interpretations on.

The question was on the ability, basically, or another species to "ask wny."  You never posted the information.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, that's factually incorrect.  As Verily pointed out, a swing to Obama 60-40 (closer to in line with national polling)

Second off, you have still failed to pick one of the following options.  Again, one of the following must be true.  Which one do you believe is most probable?

1. The sample is accurate; all other polls are significantly off.

2. The sample is off by random chance, but with no methodology flaw; an event of infinitesimal likelihood occurred.

3. The sample is off by design, and the methodology is flawed, thus the poll is questionable.

"The subsample really is not indicative of the rest of the poll" is invalid because:

1. It affects the topline significantly; and,

2. It shows that their methodology was flawed.

I await your answer -- again, option one, two, or three.
[/quote]
4.  The subsample does not necessarily affect the rest of the poll.  As I've pointed out, there were unusual results in that subsample before and the poll was in line with the rest of the polls at that time.  Does it, any more than those fluctuations we see on Gallup or Rasmussen, mean anything out the methodology?  Does it cause the poll result to be outside of the MOE?  I would say no.

[Lunar]

Only those three options are logically possible.  There is no option #4.

If Gallup had a poll with a subsample as wildly off as this poll, then yes, we would presume that either there had been a huge swing in the subsample or that Gallup had a flawed methodology.

[Alcon]

J. J., your option four is not mutually exclusive to the other three.  It demands one of the other three be true.

No matter whether the subsample reflects the poll or not, it must be one of the following:

I. Correct
II. Incorrect, by random chance
III. Incorrect, by poll design flaw

Do you think (I) is likely?  I doubt it.

So, the question is:  Do you think either (II) or (III) is more likely?

[J. J.]

Only those three options are logically possible.  There is no option #4.

If Gallup had a poll with a subsample as wildly off as this poll, then yes, we would presume that either there had been a huge swing in the subsample or that Gallup had a flawed methodology.

Or that the subsample selection was bad, i.e. unrepresentative.  The question is, does a bad subsample knock the poll out of MOE?  I say, with TIPP so far, no.

[Alcon]

The question was on the ability, basically, or another species to "ask wny."  You never posted the information.

I speculated, just not to your satisfaction.  I posited it was a natural process of evolutionary processes that correlated with evolutionarily-beneficial thinking skills.  You disagreed.  We both pretty much admitted we weren't familiar enough with the evidence to argue fluently.  Again, at that juncture, I assumed we were "agreeing to disagree."

I'm happy to continue discussing this via PM.  If you're still interested, hit me up.  Otherwise, I don't think we should clog the topic.  In any case, if that's the closest I've ever come to dodging a question, I really think I have a damn good record here and you should answer my query without the snark.  You can, of course, agree to disagree.

[Alcon]

Or that the subsample selection was bad, i.e. unrepresentative.  The question is, does a bad subsample knock the poll out of MOE?  I say, with TIPP so far, no.

As Verily posted (which you've ignored three times), it affects the result by more than a couple of points, from Obama +1 to Obama +8.  I haven't checked his math thoroughly, but it appears sound.

The point is not the subsample's effect on the topline.  It is the cause of the bad subsample.  It must either be a random flaw, or sampling error.  In this case,we've already demonstrated that a random flaw has a ridiculously low probability.  Yet, you appear to be totally unwilling to admit that it appears to be a sampling error.  Do you really think a sampling error is less likely than a one-in-many-million event?

If it is likely a sampling error, it impeaches the methodology of the poll.  The methodology was not unique for that one subsample.  The entire poll comes into question.

[J. J.]

J. J., your option four is not mutually exclusive to the other three.  It demands one of the other three be true.

No matter whether the subsample reflects the poll or not, it must be one of the following:

I. Correct
II. Incorrect, by random chance
III. Incorrect, by poll design flaw

Do you think (I) is likely?  I doubt it.

So, the question is:  Do you think either (II) or (III) is more likely?

I think I've said that if it would be III (and I suspect II) it isn't enough to effect the results.  Why.  Because we had similar results in the subsample and the poll behaved the same as the other major polls.

[Alcon]

J. J., your option four is not mutually exclusive to the other three.  It demands one of the other three be true.

No matter whether the subsample reflects the poll or not, it must be one of the following:

I. Correct
II. Incorrect, by random chance
III. Incorrect, by poll design flaw

Do you think (I) is likely?  I doubt it.

So, the question is:  Do you think either (II) or (III) is more likely?

I think I've said that if it would be III (and I suspect II) it isn't enough to effect the results.  Why.  Because we had similar results in the subsample and the poll behaved the same as the other major polls.

You suspect the chances of flawed methodology are less than 1 in many millions?  Why?

Also, Verily already demonstrated that it would cause a seven-point swing.  It also impeaches the credibility of the poll if it's (III).

Now, convince me that (II) is vastly more likely, and I'll trust it.  I still will not trust the top-line, though, for obvious reasons -- because the "off" sample affects it by many points.

[J. J.]

Well, since you've declined to respond to a few ... .

What posts were those?  It was not intentional.  I will respond to any post you link me to.

I would appreciate the same in return.  Here is the post in question.

If you say it's "fairly clear that it [wasn't] methodology," you're saying it's fairly clear that it was a one-in-many-million event.  It must be one, the other, or an accurate observation.  I am still waiting for you to pick one of the three.  They are the only three options.

"one=in=many-million"?!?

Go back and reread basic survey research methodology.

One out of twenty times the MoE is likely to be exceeded for a sample.

As to subsamples, the MoE is generally so large, its not worth examing.

Go back and read this thread.  The chance that the sub-sample would be off by ~70 points is one in many million, and that is accounting for the high MoE.

I didn't say that the chance it would be out of MoE is one in several million; obviously, that's 1-in-20.  That's the definition of Margin of Error (at the 95th confidence rate, per survey standards.)

Alcon, first I asked the question if any non Homo species ever asked why things are as they are.  You promised a link, but never answered.  I actually was disappointed.  

This is a subsample and I'm looking at if it is sufficiently bad to move the total result out of the MOE.  No.

[J. J.]

Or that the subsample selection was bad, i.e. unrepresentative.  The question is, does a bad subsample knock the poll out of MOE?  I say, with TIPP so far, no.

As Verily posted (which you've ignored three times), it affects the result by more than a couple of points, from Obama +1 to Obama +8.  I haven't checked his math thoroughly, but it appears sound.

The point is not the subsample's effect on the topline.  It is the cause of the bad subsample.  It must either be a random flaw, or sampling error.  In this case,we've already demonstrated that a random flaw has a ridiculously low probability.  Yet, you appear to be totally unwilling to admit that it appears to be a sampling error.  Do you really think a sampling error is less likely than a one-in-many-million event?

If it is likely a sampling error, it impeaches the methodology of the poll.  The methodology was not unique for that one subsample.  The entire poll comes into question.

Sorry, considering the results TIPP has had in prior elections, I don't see a methodological problem.  Ah, what part of "and I suspect II" do you have a problem with?  I'm questioning if a sample that would produce a bad result in a subsample would produce a bad result in the whole poll (one out of the MOE).

[Alcon]

Alcon, first I asked the question if any non Homo species ever asked why things are as they are.  You promised a link, but never answered.  I actually was disappointed.  

Like I said, if you are generally interested in that discussion, I'll happily continue it by PM.  But the point was that I was not consciously ignoring a point you made.

This is a subsample and I'm looking at if it is sufficiently bad to move the total result out of the MOE.  No.

I'll re-post my post, and highlight the parts you didn't reply to in bold.

You suspect the chances of flawed methodology are less than 1 in many millions?  Why?

Also, Verily already demonstrated that it would cause a seven-point swing.  It also impeaches the credibility of the poll if it's (III).

Now, convince me that (II) is vastly more likely, and I'll trust it.  I still will not trust the top-line, though, for obvious reasons -- because the "off" sample affects it by many points.

The MoE on a poll of this size is +/-3%.  Verily's math shows that this would cause a seven-point swing.  In other words...outside of MoE*!   So, I should bold that part of my post, too.

(* - Why are you convinced that it's OK if a sub-sample is ridiculously outside of MoE, as long as the topline is OK?  Each subsample is its own 1-in-20, yes.  That does not mean that a 1-in-many-million is OK, especially if it affects the result by 7 points.)

[Alcon]

Sorry, considering the results TIPP has had in prior elections, I don't see a methodological problem.  Ah, what part of "and I suspect II" do you have a problem with?  I'm questioning if a sample that would produce a bad result in a subsample would produce a bad result in the whole poll (one out of the MOE).

OK.  You're assuming that a statistically infinitesimal chance is more likely than a pollster having a flawed methodology.  Is that an accurate summary?

In any case, if you'd accepted that the subsample is flawed, are you willing to adjust the overall result to match other polls' subsample (i.e., to Obama +8)?  Why not, if not?

[J. J.]

Sorry, considering the results TIPP has had in prior elections, I don't see a methodological problem.  Ah, what part of "and I suspect II" do you have a problem with?  I'm questioning if a sample that would produce a bad result in a subsample would produce a bad result in the whole poll (one out of the MOE).

OK.  You're assuming that a statistically infinitesimal chance is more likely than a pollster having a flawed methodology.  Is that an accurate summary?

In any case, if you'd accepted that the subsample is flawed, are you willing to adjust the overall result to match other polls' subsample (i.e., to Obama +8)?  Why not, if not?

Right now, this poll has the gap at 3.5 points.  Rasmussen has it at 7.0 points.  Gallup at 6/5 points.  All of these numbers have a 3.5 point range, a reasonable range (I think that is less than the MOE for TIPP).  As I said, it's in line with the others.  I will be willing to concede that it tends to over count the undecided vote. 

I won't try to play around with the R2K weighting.  So I'm playing around with this.

[Alcon]

I'll re-post my post, and highlight the parts you didn't reply to in bold.

You suspect the chances of flawed methodology are less than 1 in many millions?  Why?

Also, Verily already demonstrated that it would cause a seven-point swing.  It also impeaches the credibility of the poll if it's (III).

Now, convince me that (II) is vastly more likely, and I'll trust it.  I still will not trust the top-line, though, for obvious reasons -- because the "off" sample affects it by many points.

The MoE on a poll of this size is +/-3%.  Verily's math shows that this would cause a seven-point swing.  In other words...outside of MoE*!   So, I should bold that part of my post, too.

(* - Why are you convinced that it's OK if a sub-sample is ridiculously outside of MoE, as long as the topline is OK?  Each subsample is its own 1-in-20, yes.  That does not mean that a 1-in-many-million is OK, especially if it affects the result by 7 points.)

[J. J.]

I'll re-post my post, and highlight the parts you didn't reply to in bold.

You suspect the chances of flawed methodology are less than 1 in many millions?  Why?

Also, Verily already demonstrated that it would cause a seven-point swing.  It also impeaches the credibility of the poll if it's (III).

Now, convince me that (II) is vastly more likely, and I'll trust it.  I still will not trust the top-line, though, for obvious reasons -- because the "off" sample affects it by many points.

The MoE on a poll of this size is +/-3%.  Verily's math shows that this would cause a seven-point swing.  In other words...outside of MoE*!   So, I should bold that part of my post, too.

(* - Why are you convinced that it's OK if a sub-sample is ridiculously outside of MoE, as long as the topline is OK?  Each subsample is its own 1-in-20, yes.  That does not mean that a 1-in-many-million is OK, especially if it affects the result by 7 points.)

Alcon, did it occur to you that it might overpoll for Obama in other subsamples, but that the average might still be correct?  For some reason, this poll has an excellent track record.  I try not looking too strongly at the subsamples but at the whole poll.

[Alcon]

Alcon, did it occur to you that it might overpoll for Obama in other subsamples, but that the average might still be correct?  For some reason, this poll has an excellent track record.  I try not looking too strongly at the subsamples but at the whole poll.

So, you're now arguing their methodology was flawed?  Which one is it?

I'm not looking "too strongly" into them, unless you consider the fundamental laws of statistics to be "too strong."

[Lunar]

J.J. is saying that it all averages out Alcon.  

So, yes, this mistake was just because of randomization.

He believes in the  0.000000002%

[Lunar]

J.J. is saying that it all averages out Alcon.  

So, yes, this mistake was just because of randomization.

He believes in the  0.000000002%

Think about it Alcon, let me explain it to you.

Sure, while this poll, assuming it had perfect methodology, would be 99.999999998% not to get this result.

But did you know that atoms are 99.9999999999% empty?  That's only one more 9 than this poll has.  Punch your wall ten times, did your hand go through it?  WHOOAAH you just defied statistics, it's not that hard, these things HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.

[J. J.]

J.J. is saying that it all averages out Alcon.  

So, yes, this mistake was just because of randomization.

He believes in the  0.000000002%

Something made that poll the most accurate one in 2004.