Skip to comments.The Particulars of Polls
Posted on 10/01/2012 3:45:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
As a recovering pollster (I worked for Democratic pollster Peter Hart from 1974 to 1981), let me weigh in on the controversy over whether the polls are accurate. Many conservatives are claiming that multiple polls have overly Democratic samples, and some charge that media pollsters are trying to discourage Republican voters.
First, some points about the limits of polls. Random sample polling is an imprecise instrument. There's an error margin of 3 or 4 percent, and polling theory tells us that one out of 20 polls is wrong, with results outside the margin of error. Sometimes it's easy to spot such an outlier; sometimes not.
In addition, it's getting much harder for pollsters to get people to respond to interviews. The Pew Research Center reports that it's getting only 9 percent of the people it contacts to respond to its questions. That's compared to 36 percent in 1997.
Interestingly, response rates are much higher in new democracies. Americans, particularly in target states, may be getting poll fatigue. When a phone rings in New Hampshire, it might well be a pollster calling.
Are those 9 percent representative of the larger population? As that percentage declines, it seems increasingly possible that the sample is unrepresentative of the much larger voting public. One thing a poll can't tell us is the opinion of people who refuse to be polled.
Then there is the problem of cellphone-only households. In the 1930s and 1940s, pollsters conducted interviews in person because half of households had either no phone or (your grandparents can explain this) a party-line phone.
By the 1970s, phone ownership was well nigh universal, and pollsters mostly phased out in-person interviewing. Phone interviews are much cheaper and quicker.
But today the percentage of households without landline phones is increasing. Under federal law, cellphone numbers have to be hand-dialed rather than dialed by computer, as landline numbers are now even when live interviewers ask the questions.
Cellphone-only individuals tend to be younger and more Democratic than landline owners. Most pollsters are conducting a set number of interviews with cellphone-only households. But they can only guess at what percentage of the electorate they'll constitute. Oversample them, and you'll get overly Democratic results.
That, many conservatives are arguing, is what pollsters have been getting in polls this month. They point out that Mitt Romney is running ahead among Independents in many polls but trails overall.
This can only happen if Democrats have a big lead in party identification, as they did in 2008. In the exit poll then, 39 percent of voters identified themselves as Democrats and 32 percent as Republicans.
In contrast, exit polls showed an even break on party identification in 2004 and 2010. But many September polls and some earlier polls showed Democrats with an even bigger party identification lead than four years before.
That seems implausible. Party identification does change over time, as exit polls indicate. But it usually shifts gradually rather than suddenly, as current polls suggest.
There is evidence that since the Charlotte convention Democrats have become more motivated to vote and have narrowed the advantage in enthusiasm Republicans have had since 2010. In that case, more Democrats may be passing through screening questions and getting polled.
I don't believe that any of the media pollsters have been tilting their results in order to demoralize Republicans, though I do look with suspicion on the work of some partisan pollsters.
But I do have my doubts about whether samples with more Democratic party identification than in 2008 are accurate representations of the actual electorate. Many states with party registration have shown big drops in registered Democrats since then.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen, who weights his robocall results by party identification, adjusted monthly, has shown a much closer race than most pollsters who leave party identification numbers unweighted. So has the Susquehanna poll in Pennsylvania.
It may be that we're seeing the phenomenon we've seen for years in exit polls, which have consistently skewed Democratic (and toward Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries). Part of that is interviewer error: Exit poll pioneer Warren Mitofsky found that the biggest discrepancies between exit polls and actual results were in precincts where the interviewers were female graduate students.
But he also found that Democrats were simply more willing to fill out the exit poll. That raises the question: Are we seeing the same thing in this month's polls?
Who answers their phones from unknown callers these days? And who has regular listed landlines (not unlisted VoIP) reachable by pollers and NOT on the Do Not Call lists anymore? Probably not regular people with jobs.
I have been sending Barone our OH spreadsheet data so, I guess, he still isn’t ready to jump on it. But the data keeps mounting daily that so far the OH polls are off, maybe badly so.
I sure don’t
If the truth were told, that this election has been over since 2010, then the media would have to somehow make it seem close in order to garner the massive ad revenues, now wouldn’t they?
Once upon a time, long, long ago, I got a call from a pollster. I agreed to participate. They asked the first question and gave me a list of answers I could choose from. I did not like any of them and said so. I was told that just choose the one closest to my belief. Same with the second question. By the third question, I said that I did not like the way this poll was going and I would not choose from the answers they had given me. She said “Then you can’t be in our poll.” I said fine and hung up.
I have never participated in a poll since, although I have gotten a number of calls to do so. I wonder if the reason so many Demoncrats are polled is because Republicans (or better yet, conservatives) hang up rather than be manipulated by the pollster.
Similar situation last time I was polled -
they asked a question, and the list of answers was meant to support a specific agenda. It happened to be an agenda that I supported, but that didn’t matter.
When I asked “is this a push poll”, the pollster hung up on me.
Most recent result to give as an example:
Wisconsin Recall exit polls proclaimed TOO CLOSE TO CALL.
Actual result: Walker won 53-47.
I envision these dishonest pollsters sampling closer to Rasmussen levels the week before the election.
They’ll still be oversampling Dims, but at the levels of the Wisconsin Recall. They will proclaim TOO CLOSE TO CALL. This will be designed to get Dims to the polls. Hopefully we will have the same result as the Wisconsin Recall.
That shows to me that polls are and can be manipulated. No thanks
“In addition, it’s getting much harder for pollsters to get people to respond to interviews.”
I think this is significant. I have received several phone calls from polling organizations this election year. I simply hang up on them or tell them not to call me back.
For over 20 years, I have either simply hung up on pollsters, or given them intentionally wrong answers to about half their questions compared to the way I think/vote. In addition to this lousing up their accuracy, as well as their cross-tabs, it makes their reported “Margin of Error” far too low. The “MOE” statistics they report are simple Bayesian calculations, and do not reflect intentional untruthfulness.
In the past, some FReepers have taken me to task for this. Others have joined me, and encouraged others to join me.
Most jaw-dropping poll result ever :
62% of likely voters don’t even know of Minn. Republican US Senate candidate!
Very respectable Mason-Dixon poll too.
Polls are just weird this year...