• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT11| Well this is exciting

Status
Not open for further replies.

Owzers

Member
Giuliani....Obama isn't fighting the war of words because he isn't saying radical islam.

:/

Nobody is talking about how great America is.

Has he seen Trump?
 
WELL HMM

@jhagner
This Elon poll Likely Voter screen is bananas. A screen this tight doesn't help you understand the electorate. Can you name your precinct?

CswKHRUWgAAYbwC.jpg
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Is that such a terrible screen? I mean, 644 of 799 met those conditions, which means "turnout" is 80.6%. That's... pretty generous.

Lots of this is veering into poll "unskewing" now. It's probably just a truth Clinton is doing quite poorly at the moment. It's also a truth that's probably enough to beat Trump. Even if we did want to point and laugh at pollsters for bad LV screens, that screen would definitely not be first on the list.
That would be Gravis.
 
Yeah that's bogus.

Iowa (and Ohio) is trending red because Trump and the GOP is making gains with white voters without college education and there aren't enough minorities to offset those gains. That's more true in Iowa than it is in Ohio.

Obama being an amazing candidate probably staved off the inevitable in Iowa, also the state party's operation there is top notch with GOTV and early voting in particular.
 
Is that such a terrible screen? I mean, 644 of 799 met those conditions, which means "turnout" is 80.6%. That's... pretty generous.

Lots of this is veering into poll "unskewing" now. It's probably just a truth Clinton is doing quite poorly at the moment. It's also a truth that's probably enough to beat Trump. Even if we did want to point and laugh at pollsters for bad LV screens, that screen would definitely not be first on the list.
That would be Gravis.

That LV screen would cut me out since I have no idea what my precinct is. I don't imagine the "average" voter commits their precinct to memory
 
Is that such a terrible screen? I mean, 644 of 799 met those conditions, which means "turnout" is 80.6%. That's... pretty generous.

Lots of this is veering into poll "unskewing" now. It's probably just a truth Clinton is doing quite poorly at the moment. It's also a truth that's probably enough to beat Trump. Even if we did want to point and laugh at pollsters for bad LV screens, that screen would definitely not be first on the list.
That would be Gravis.

Hillary vs. Trump wasn't polled and the poll was fine for the Dems as it showed them tied for Senate and Governor.

There's nothing to unskew, it's just some pollsters think that it was done badly.
 
That LV screen would cut me out since I have no idea what my precinct is. I don't imagine the "average" voter commits their precinct to memory
The fact that so many people met the criteria suggests to me that some of them are lying.

What if you're voting absentee by mail, for example? Your precinct wouldn't even matter in that instance.
 
Is that such a terrible screen? I mean, 644 of 799 met those conditions, which means "turnout" is 80.6%. That's... pretty generous.

Lots of this is veering into poll "unskewing" now. It's probably just a truth Clinton is doing quite poorly at the moment. It's also a truth that's probably enough to beat Trump. Even if we did want to point and laugh at pollsters for bad LV screens, that screen would definitely not be first on the list.
That would be Gravis.

Yes, asking if you know where your precinct is a very dumb screen.

There isn't even a Clinton/Trump question (yet?) in that poll, I'm literally saying it is a dumb LV screen. There are many polling methods and LV screening methods that I do not love!

Hillary vs. Trump wasn't polled and the poll was fine for the Dems as it showed them tied for Senate and Governor.

There's nothing to unskew, it's just some pollsters think that it was done badly.

Exactly, though I guess there must be an ulterior motive?
 
I will say showing Ross ahead but Cooper behind is a confusing result. Ross vs. Burr is a toss up at best whereas even Republicans seem to have written off McCrory.
 
I have voted in every election since I turned 18. I couldn't tell you what my precinct is. I think it's at a nursing home? Maybe....I've never voted there in person.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
That LV screen would cut me out since I have no idea what my precinct is. I don't imagine the "average" voter commits their precinct to memory

Again, 644 of 799 did. So the "average" voter very much does remember this - or at least, the average poll respondent. Otherwise it would have been 399 of 799 or less!

And yes, some people who don't know their precinct will still vote. Some people who do know will vote. That's just the nature of these things. But it doesn't seem at all improbable to me that filtering on knowing your precinct or not will produce a more accurate result than not filtering at all. It's not as good as say a self-reported likelihood to vote weighted for socioeconomic demographic or whatever, but there are genuinely much worse LV screens.

I'm kind of tempted to do a big write-up on how pollsters actually do LV screening and why it's so hard to do!
 
When the hell did one random idiot unskewing polls become a dome of impervious defense for bad pollsters?

It's like scientists calling everyone who criticizes a finding in their study a flat-earther. Feels like a cheap cop out.
 
When the hell did one random idiot unskewing polls become a dome of impervious defense for bad pollsters?

It's like scientists calling everyone who criticizes a finding in their study a flat-earther. Feels like a cheap cop out.

It's sort of annoying. It happened when we complained about landline-only pollsters before.

Maybe be a good pollster.
 

Zukkoyaki

Member
Yeah there's a difference between unskewing and pointing out significant flaws in a poll or pollster.

Like the CNN Florida poll that didn't poll enough people under 50 to include them in the LV screening. Like... Really?
 
Is that such a terrible screen? I mean, 644 of 799 met those conditions, which means "turnout" is 80.6%. That's... pretty generous.

Lots of this is veering into poll "unskewing" now. It's probably just a truth Clinton is doing quite poorly at the moment. It's also a truth that's probably enough to beat Trump. Even if we did want to point and laugh at pollsters for bad LV screens, that screen would definitely not be first on the list.
That would be Gravis.

Eh, there's nothing wrong with examining a poll. Nate Silver literally skews every poll in his model for bias, and he's doing it based on the same things most people here are.

If your method is garbage, your results will be garbage, and not every poll should count. If I run 40 polls real quick with bad methodology, then these should be excluded. I think even you can see why that USC thing and the Ipsos thing are poorly done. As Adam pointed out a few times, the Ipsos one even gets unskewed twice before getting counted, and that's pretty strange.

As someone from the UK, you should be more comfortable with polling misses!
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
When the hell did one random idiot unskewing polls become a dome of impervious defense for bad pollsters?

It's like scientists calling everyone who criticizes a finding in their study a flat-earther. Feels like a cheap cop out.

I mean, there are genuinely bad polls and bad likely voter models. Like, anything landline only is trash tier. Gravis' likely voter model is trash tier. But my first real job was in working on likely voter models, and I can assure you it's hard as all fuck. If you find even a half-reasonable instrumental variable you thank the gods for your luck and never touch it again in case it breaks.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Eh, there's nothing wrong with examining a poll. Nate Silver literally skews every poll in his model for bias, and he's doing it based on the same things most people here are.

If your method is garbage, your results will be garbage, and not every poll should count. If I run 40 polls real quick with bad methodology, then these should be excluded. I think even you can see why that USC thing and the Ipsos thing are poorly done. As Adam pointed out a few times, the Ipsos one even gets unskewed twice before getting counted, and that's pretty strange.

As someone from the UK, you should be more comfortable with polling misses!

I know this, I worked in the industry. My first proper job was with YouGOV. I'm not saying "never criticize a poll". All I'm saying is "as likely voter screens go, that one is not actually that bad". Getting likely voters right is the hardest bit of polling, by far. Getting a good sample is easy-ish if you have a fuckton of money, but even money doesn't solve the likely voter problem.

USC is fine, although I don't know why Nate treats it the way he does. Because it follows the same group of people, it will always have the same bias, which should probably be accounted for over time. On the flipside, because it follows the same group of people, the direction of travel should always be correct (to within the margin of error etc.). I'd actually be pretty happy if the majority of polls before an election were panel-based, because when examining an election season we're usually more interested in the accuracy of the direction of travel than the accuracy of what the election would be if it was held tomorrow.

IPSOS is similarly fine if you remember that on a state-by-state basis it has an absolutely enormous margin of error. More useful for establishing the national context than anything else.
 
Donald Trump's father was one of the bad ones. Member of a terror organization, very bad guy. And look at his son!

But I'm okaying letting in German immigrants to the United States still.
 
Pointing out flaws in polls isn't unskewing, whether that's wonky LV screenings or undersampling certain demographics.

Unskewing is when you take that next leap into manually "correcting" those perceived flaws and rerunning the numbers for a more favorable result. You can't take a poll that shows Trump up 3 and then say "oh well Clinton is actually up 2". You might as well just be making up your own numbers at that point.

Also smh that skittles picture. I can't believe this is a mainstream candidate and not just some fringe third party asshole who makes the ballot in like one state.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Depends on how well his model holds up, I suppose. And unfortunately this time he has 3 so he can just pretend he's on the mark if any of them are close.

He will have 2 by the time of the election - Nowcast and Polls Plus will converge over time.

EDIT: And Polls Only being wrong is sort of a rejection of him anyway, given from what I understand it's just a basic UNS model. He'll live and die by Polls Plus.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
It doesn't even make a good point. I'd totally risk it on a handful of Skittles if only three were poisonous. I love Skittles.
 

iammeiam

Member

You know, at first this made me angry. Then I thought about it and realized it's not much compared to the Snake story Trump loves to tell, which I heard for the first time today. It ends with: "oh shut up silly woman ... you knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in."

Both are vile, but the tweet is no worse than what Trump's saying to packed arenas and thunderous applause.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom