Accuracy Of Polls a Question In Itself

[Murrican]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803675.html

Accuracy Of Polls a Question In Itself
Skeptics Question Assumptions Made

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 29, 2008; Page A02

Could the polls be wrong?

Sen. John McCain and his allies say that they are. The country, they say, could be headed to a 2008 version of the famous 1948 upset election, with McCain in the role of Harry S. Truman and Sen. Barack Obama as Thomas E. Dewey, lulled into overconfidence by inaccurate polls.

"We believe it is a very close race, and something that is frankly very winnable," Sarah Simmons, director of strategy for the McCain campaign, said yesterday.

Few analysts outside the McCain campaign appear to share this view. And pollsters this time around will not make the mistake that the Gallup organization made 40 years ago -- ending their polling more than a week before the election and missing a last-minute surge in support for Truman. Every day brings dozens of new state and national presidential polls, a trend that is expected to continue right up to Election Day.

Still, there appears to be an undercurrent of worry among some polling professionals and academics. One reason is the wide variation in Obama leads: Just yesterday, an array of polls showed the Democrat winning by as little as two points and as much as 15 points. The latest Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll showed the race holding steady, with Obama enjoying a lead of 52 percent to 45 percent among likely voters.

Some in the McCain camp also argue that the polls showing the largest leads for Obama make the mistaken assumption that turnout among young voters and African Americans will be disproportionately high. The campaign is banking on a good turnout among GOP partisans, who officials say have been energized by this year's election.


"I have been wondering for weeks" whether the polls are accurately gauging the state of the race, said Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Minnesota. Borrowing from lingo popularized by former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Schier asked what are the "unknown unknowns" about polling this year: For instance, is the sizable cohort of people who don't respond to pollsters more Republican-leaning this year, perhaps because they don't want to admit to a pollster that they are not supporting the "voguish" Obama?

If so, that could mean the polls are routinely understating McCain's support. "I have no evidence that this is happening, Schier said, but he added: "I'm still thinking there's a 25 percent chance that this is a squeaker race and McCain pulls it out."

rest of article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803675.html

[DoubleEdgeSword]

And what about the estimated 15% of us who don't have landlines? We aren't polled at all. Granted, I'm probably out of the norm of the demographics of that group, but 15% of the population is a large number of people. Are there any estimates of how many of us are even registered, and if so, to what Party?

[Murrican]

Good point. Here in Canada the pollsters were wringing their hands over this issue for the recent Federal Election (October 14th) but the polling results appear to have been reasonably accurate. Check Google on that... But we had an historically low turn-out north of the border.

Of course, pollsters have algorithms they apply to electoral districts from past performance to predict future performance.

But I'd love to see the two campaigns' polls. Given that McCain, Palin, Obama and Biden were all in poennsylvania today, we sure know it's in play. I suspect the Murtha comments have poked a hole in the bottom of the Obama boat. Will it stay above water in the keystone state? It was locked-in as an Obama win as recently as last week...

The old debate is how polls affect voting. If your guy is high would you stay home? Or low and you'd stay home?

M

[Richard Tafoya]

Here are the latest PA numbers.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/papres/

[DoubleEdgeSword]

The old debate is how polls affect voting. If your guy is high would you stay home? Or low and you'd stay home?

M

I'm not sure if polls are going to affect voting as much as this election being as historical as it is. There are already record voter turnouts all over the country in early voting states. People want a say in this one, polls aside.

[Murrican]

It certainly appears that way, but there was a huge advance poll turn-out in Canada and we had an historically low overall turn-out of about 59%. Given the weather last winter and so far this year, it seems pretty smart to vote early.

It will be interesting to see how close these polls today are to the results next week. If state poll samples are large enough, geographically dispersed enough, targeted appropriately to ethnic, regional and sexual distributions, they should be accurate to their error margins.

But, again, if Obama is 10 points ahead in Pennsylvania he should be in Ohio or Florida or another closer state. And Biden there, too, suggests something's up. But if it's 7 points now, down from 14, we may see a trend that tells us why people are where they are...

The article below from a link at the source cited by Richard above is interesting on illuminating that:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/polls_mccain_gains_steam_in_ke.php

Polls: McCain Gains Steam In Key Battlegrounds

By Eric Kleefeld - October 24, 2008, 1:18PM

A new set of polls from Strategic Vision (R) has some good news for John McCain, with him taking back leads in Florida and Ohio, and holding on to his lead Georgia. But all his work in Pennsylvania has only managed to make a small dent in Obama's lead:

• Florida: McCain 48%, Obama 46%, within the ±3% margin of error. Two weeks ago, Obama had a 52%-44% lead.

• Georgia: McCain 51%, Obama 45%, with a ±3% margin of error. Two weeks ago, McCain was up 50%-43%.

• Ohio: McCain 48%, Obama 45%, with a ±3% margin of error. Two weeks ago, Obama had a 48%-46% edge.

• Pennsylvania: Obama 50%, McCain 43%, outside of the ±3% margin of error. This is better for McCain than the 54%-40% Obama lead from two weeks ago, but he still hasn't managed to drag Obama to below 50%.

The most recent polls in Florida and Ohio have been a mixed bag, though on balance they've favored Obama. McCain has a small lead in most new Georgia polls, though an Insideradvantage poll from this morning put Obama up by one point. And every poll out there has been giving Obama a significant lead in Pennsylvania.

[Murrican]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/29/1604944.aspx

MSNBC says what I've been saying...

PENNSYLVANIA: Read the press clippings today and you'd think the numbers in the Keystone State have closed dramatically. But have they? The Boston Globe: "It is the one reliably ‘blue’ state where McCain, the Republican nominee, believes he has a shot, as he looks to compensate for the unknown number of ‘red’ states that may slip from his grasp. Obama's advisers point out that almost every public poll over the last month shows Obama with a double-digit lead; if that holds, it would give the Illinois senator a far larger margin of victory than Al Gore or Senator John F. Kerry had in Pennsylvania in the last two elections.”

“Still, Obama's repeated visits here - he held rallies in Chester, outside Philadelphia, yesterday, and in Pittsburgh the night before - suggest that his campaign is worried enough about the state, which he lost handily in the primary to Senator Hillary Clinton, to maintain a major presence this close to Election Day."

[pinky]

Was it really necessary to post the same paragraphs, both from msnbc, in two different threads?

[db44]

I'm curious what a newbie is doing complaining about the "new 'rules,'" as Murrican does in his explanation of editing a post. :rolleyes:

[Murrican]

Was it really necessary to post the same paragraphs, both from msnbc, in two different threads?

It was at the time because the system said it wouldn't take it as a standalone post...

I will now remove the second one, which was posted first because it was added as an edit, which the edited blurb sort of explains. Never mind... : )

I'm curious what a newbie is doing complaining about the "new 'rules,'" as Murrican does in his explanation of editing a post.

The rules were new that the system automatically blocked my post subject to examination by a moderator. In my time here that had never appeared previously. Time is relative, eh.

And the relevant post is now present only once. And still useful.