Poll: Jeb, Trump in virtual tie (New poll)

Explain something to me. This poll was on online poll. So how does an online poll work
with regards to contacting a participant?

http://polling.reuters.com About This Reuters / Ipsos poll began in January 2012 and since then continuously polled between 2,000 and 3,000 people a week. Over that period, we have asked hundreds of questions ranging from presidential politics to the Oscars, from the Syrian civil war to the perception of social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter. Unlike almost all mainstream polls, the data is entirely collected via online surveys. Online surveys allow us to collect far more data and to be more flexible and fast-moving than phone research, and online is also where the future of polling lies. This methodology may be different from the ‘traditional’ (telephone) approach used by others, but it is highly accurate: It was the most accurate national poll of US residents published immediately before the November 2012 general election. Our data is primarily drawn from online surveys using sampling methods developed in consultation with several outside experts. These involve recruiting respondents from the entire population of US-based Internet users in addition to hundreds of thousands of individuals pre-screened by Ipsos. The responses are then weighted based on demographic information. Because of the volume of demographic information collected, the poll provides unprecedented insight into the myriad of communities that constitute the United States in the 21st century. This window into the population allows users to look at the polling results over time and adjust the aggregated interval of results to maintain a reasonable sample size. Those intervals are five-day rolling average as well as weekly, monthly and overall averages. The accuracy is measured using Bayesian credibility intervals. For the stats folks among you: the credibility interval assumes that Y has a binomial distribution conditioned on the parameter θ, i.e., Y|θ~Bin(n,θ), where n is the size of our sample. In this setting, Y counts the number of “yes”, or “1”, observed in the sample, so that the sample mean (y ̅) is a natural estimate of the true population proportion θ. This model is often called the likelihood function, and it is a standard concept in both the Bayesian and the Classical framework. In the Bayesian framework, one’s knowledge base is one’s Prior Distribution. For the purposes of this document, θ is a proportion which assumes values between 0 and 1. This may reflect the proportion supporting a particular voter initiative or candidate. The family of prior distributions we are considering assumes a beta distribution, In effect, π(θ)~ß(a,b) is a useful representation of our prior knowledge about the proportion θ. The quantities a and b are called hyper-parameters, and are used to express/model one’s prior opinion about θ. In other words, judicial choice of a and b can restate one’s belief that the parameter is nearer to 25% (a=1 and b=3), near to 50% (a=1 and b=1) or nearer to 75% (a=3 and b=1). The choices of a and b also defines the shape of the probability curve, with a=1 and b=1 denoting a uniform or flat distribution. In effect, this is equivalent to believing that the true value of θ has the same chance of being any value between 0 and 1. The hyper-parameters a and b are not limited to a known constant. They too can be modeled as random quantities. This adds flexibility to the model, and it allows for data-based approaches to be considered, such as Empirical and Hierarchical Bayes. The posterior distribution in Bayesian statistics takes the likelihood function and combines it with our prior distribution. Using our prior Beta distribution, the posterior distribution is also a beta distribution (π(θ/y) ~ ß (y+a,n–y+b)). It is the hyper-parameters of the prior distribution, i.e., one’s knowledge base, updated using the latest survey information9. In other words, the posterior distribution represents our opinion on which are the plausible values for θ adjusted after observing the sample data. Our credibility interval for θ is based on this posterior distribution. As mentioned above, these intervals represent our belief about which are the most plausible values for θ given our updated knowledge base. There are different ways to calculate these intervals based on π(θ/y). One approach is to create an estimator analogous to what is done within the Classical framework. In this case, the credible interval for any observed sample is based on a prior distribution that does not include information from our knowledge base. This case occurs when we assume that the parameters of the beta distribution are a=1, b=1 and y=n/2. Essentially, these choices provide a uniform prior distribution where the value of θ is equally likely on the range between 0 and 1. In effect, our knowledge base is equally sure or unsure that the true value is near zero, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%. The confidence interval is usually calculated assuming a normal distribution. However when we are measuring a proportion, and the estimate of the proportion is close to one or zero, this approach is no longer accurate. Therefore we use a logit transform of the proportion and estimate its confidence interval, then invert to calculate the confidence interval of the proportion.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came in third 9.5 percent of possible voters’ backing.

This is unbelievable. Either they are democrats or they are just plain stupid.

I don’t get that. Jeb? No friggin way. Ted Cruz should be in the top 3.

Thanks. I was looking around and found some info. In essence it’s just another approach to
collect data. If the parameters are accurate the data will basically be as good as a voice poll.

Again thanks.

once again the media gets the wrong answer to the question. time to laugh - voters are making chumps out of media. When election day rolls around it will not be Bush or Trump.

Re: Christie in 3rd place:

Uhuh yeah right.

Could be an indicator that Trump is sucking the wind out of the sails of all the conservatives in the race including Cruz. That lets the RINOs like Christie rise up.

I'm nervous about the affect on Cruz in an environment where the MSM/Fox dearly want him OUT OF THAT FIRST DEBATE.

The Christie numbers are weird, so I don’t know what to think. But if it shows bad news for Bush, you gotta run with it.

Something is weird about this Reuters IPSOS poll. Weird being = Reuters IPSOS. Cruz will be there. I’ve noticed over the years these clown pollster are the most wacky liberal pollsters or close to it.

“A lot of Republicans support Bush because Republicans are not what you think they are.”

Bump! ...and well deserved, if I may add.

The old Republican=conservative has played out, but the Democrat=liberal is still very much in play.

Christie number is nothing more that a polling anomaly, imo.
He was lower in last weeks poll.

The data for each question is here, current poll.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=14681

last week poll

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=14648

Isn’t that special!

Touche! But I was closer. ;)