Trying to Figure This One Out
(Note: See addition at bottom to know why the survey is skewed)
A new Associated Press-GfK poll says that “McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.”
But as I read the piece about the poll, I was very confused.
“The poll… found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent”
But later, it said:
“Polls are snapshots of highly fluid campaigns. In this case, there is a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; that means Obama could be ahead by as many as 8 points or down by as many as 6. There are many reasons why polls differ, including methods of estimating likely voters and the wording of questions.”
So the +/- 3.5% means up to a 14 pt swing in the polling numbers?
Would that make anything less than a 15 pt lead suspect in most polls?
Another oddity is interesting…
“The AP-GfK survey included interviews with a large sample of adults including 800 deemed likely to vote. Among all 1,101 adults interviewed, the survey showed Obama ahead 47 percent to 37 percent. He was up by five points among registered voters.”
So… trying to figure out this math… 73% of those polled were deemed likely to vote. Working backwards, it seems that the entire remaining 27% were registered, but deemed unlikely to vote.
If Obama had a 10 point lead with all 1101 adults and a 1 point lead with 800 of that 1101, he would have to have a 37 point lead with the 301 “not likely” voters for the math to make sense, no?
301 unlikelies – 204 pro-Obama, 96 pro-McCain
800 likelies – 404 pro-Obama, 396 pro-McCain
Based on the numbers directly above –
Total
Dave, just read 538.com. Nate Silver covers this poll and itsthe best polling site on the web
Seconding fivethirtyeight.com.
Seconding RocketScientist:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
If you type digits, Mulder, it takes you to something that looks convincing, but isn’t Nate Silver’s site.
Better yet, here’s the analysis of the poll(s) in question:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/some-likely-voter-models-are-suspect.html
The partisan weighting is problematic as well. For instance, Rassmussen has Obama on top by 6%. What’s the party affiliation of those polled? Dems 39.3%, Rep 33% (“unaffiliated” made up the final 27.7%). In other words, Obama is up by 6%, with 6.3% more Democrats represented in the poll.
Now, its entirely possible that more Dems may vote, and by a margin of 6%. But turn-out projections have been misleading in the past.
Partisan weighting, mystery, is generally based on the weighting of the two parties in the various states.
Yes, but that’s also based on the nationwide number of larger Democratic party-identification numbers which is something like 40-33 right now.
“Partisan weighting, mystery, is generally based on the weighting of the two parties in the various states.”
And it hasn’t necessarily translated into votes. Which is why its problematic.
“Yes, but that’s also based on the nationwide number of larger Democratic party-identification numbers which is something like 40-33 right now.”
There’d be even a larger divide if there were more Disney characters.
That gets a big fat whatever. The facts of the matter are, right now, nationwide, Democrats have an advantage in party identification of up to ten points. This is a statistical fact which the various polling groups are taking into account in their methodology.
“This is a statistical fact which the various polling groups are taking into account in their methodology.”
Where did I dispute this? I merely said that party identification is not a reliable indicator of turn-out, and turn-out is a vitally important factor.
Rasmussen not only uses state voting history, but national trends and recent polling to determine partisan weighting.
You sounded pretty snide earlier, that’s what I was responding to.
Agreed, turn-out is an unknown, but based on what’s already happening with early voting, there are some trends.
“You sounded pretty snide earlier, that’s what I was responding to.”
The Disney remark? It was just an ACORN joke. I initially had a smiley at the end of the sentence, but erased it.
I don’t know how to quantify early voting; its wide availability this year is unprecedented. Suffice it to say, Obama supporters have to feel pretty good about where things are at, despite these poll aberrations.
Allow me to encourage the use of smileys š
To be honest, I was initially going to use the razz smiley :p, then I changed it to a wink ;), but both of those can come off as patronizing. Should have stuck with the tried-and-true :).
Hey, any of those would have avoided what I thought was out-and-out contempt 8|
(that one is what I look like most of the time.)
“Would that make anything less than a 15 pt lead suspect in most polls?”
No, it would rather mean that anything less than a 7.5 pt lead is suspect. Say the polls showed 54-46 for Obama – that could mean anything between 50-50 and 58-42, but it could never never be a lead for McCain.