Posted on 08/08/2016 10:03:19 AM PDT by xzins
Donald J. Trump
43.4% 0.6%
Hillary Clinton
42.8% —
Trump +0.6%
The LongRoom Polling Analysis uses the latest voting data from each state's Secretary of State or Election Division. The voting data is kept current by incorporating the latest updates from each state as they become available. This means that the LongRoom Polling Analysis accurately reflects the actual voting demographics, precinct by precinct, county by county, and state by state.
Because the LongRoom Polling Analysis is exclusively data based, it makes it possible to demonstrate from the crosstabs of an individual poll whether that poll is either left or right leaning.
The analysis of the polls of each polling organization and the associated bias is illustrated in a line chart. The most recent poll results are displayed separately and a graphic representation of the amount the poll leans either left or right is shown.
The graphs below cover the last three presidential elections and show the LongRoom Polling Analysis of polls for those elections. In all cases, the LongRoom Analysis was accurate to within +/- 0.3%.
References for the voting data from each state are included below in the list of sources.
We know the polls are biased because the statisticians who produce the polls say they are biased, both explicitly and implicitly. This is also widely reported in the media. Let's look at two recent examples. The Reuters/Ipsos poll last week, July 29th, decided to use "forcing" to assign those who were surveyed to a candidate, even if the person who was surveyed had no preference. Reuters/Ipsos applied this "technique" not only to their most recent poll, but went back through all their previous polls and redid them, assigning those with no preference to a candidate of the pollster's choice. This innovative approach to polling was not universally popular with other pollsters, as Pat Caddell, a pollster with decades of experience, expounded in this article: "Pat Caddell on ‘Cooked’ Reuters Poll: ‘Never in My Life Have I Seen a News Organization Do Something So Dishonest’" . Another example would be the CNN poll from July 30th, where the crosstabs for Question P1 show that 97% of Democrats have committed to a candidate three months before the election. In the history of elections, it is difficult to find an example where 97% of a demographic have made up their minds on who to vote for even on election day, no less in the middle of summer before an election in November.
For a rather extensive list of biases that a statistician may introduce into a poll, there is an excellent article here by Nate Silver where he discusses the biases he uses in creating his analysis, and why he thinks his biases are good.
Statisticians also use "weighting" to produce the poll results that are published in the media. The weighting is simply how many of each demographic the statistician believes will vote based on the detailed questions that are asked when the poll is taken. An example of how this affects polls is demonstrated in the polls out this last week, ending July 31st. Some polls have changes of 10% and more in presidential preference while other polls have a change of only a few percent. Clearly, both of these results cannot be correct.
So like opinions, every statistician has their own biases, but none of them wants to see the other guy's. Here at LongRoom we leave out the biases and let the data speak for itself.
As we discussed above, each poll reflects the biases of the statisticians who prepare the poll. Since each statistician has their own specific biases that they introduce into their poll, it is extremely difficult to compare one poll to another. At LongRoom we use the actual state voter registration data from the Secretary of State or Election Division of each state. We add no "expert" adjustments to the data. This means that all the polls are rationalized one to another based on actual data.
As the election approaches, the statisticians who produce the various polls will begin to back out their biases. In the final few weeks before the election, you will start to notice a convergence of all of the polls. This occurs because the statisticians will use essentially the same data that LongRoom is using now to produce their polls with their own biases removed. So, you might be thinking at this point, are you really saying that all of the polls will eventually match LongRoom? Yes, we are, it is a mathematical certainty, that as the election approaches, all of the polls will begin to match the polls here on LongRoom. This may be difficult for some to believe, however, there is an excellent archive at RCP that shows the poll results for the 2012 presidential election and this typical convergence of polls as the statisticians' biases are backed out.
The day after the election. This may sound humorous but it is actually the truth, there is no reliable predictor for who will win a democratic vote. An example of this is the March 14th, 2004 Spanish General Election which we covered and analyzed. On March 10th, 2004, the Conservative Party was leading in the polls, and as they were the incumbents, were likely to succeed in the election. However, on March 11th, there was a Madrid train bombing. The Conservative government quickly blamed the ETA Spanish Separatist group. As more information was uncovered, it became obvious that the bombing was the work of the Islamist group, Al-Queda. The Conservative government continued to claim it was ETA in spite of the mounting evidence. The electorate rapidly came to believe that the Conservative government was trying to cover up the Islamic involvement and gave the liberal opposition party a 5 point margin of victory. So, in a matter of only three days, there was an 8 point swing in voter preference.
For more information about the 2004 Spanish General Election and the impact the bombing had on it, Wikipedia has a write up here.
To make this example more relevant to our current presidential election, imagine that 3 days before the election there is a terrorist incident here in America, and Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton place the blame on right-wing Christian extremists, while Mr. Trump blames radical Islamic terrorists. As the hours tick by, it becomes obvious that the terrorist incident is the work of radical Islamic terrorists, however Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton continue to deny the Islamic involvement. Just as in Spain, it is game, set, match, and Mr. Trump is the next president of the United States.
So, if anyone pretends they can predict the election, just keep in mind: Life Happens.
We have developed our analytical model using the programming language that we and other actuaries have used for the last 30 years, APL.
Trump’s “go around the media” strategy was highly effective in dealing with a GOP primary electorate. But now that he is up against the more mush-minded general electorate that watches cable TV he is having problems.
Nonsense. This site didn't exist 30 years ago, it doesn't even look liked it existed before January. The methodology, such that it exists, is ridiculous. It's the same stupid crap as "Unskewed Polls". It is totally made up BS.
For the umpteenth time, you can NOT "unskew" a poll. You can reject it, accept it, incorporate it into an average of polls - but you can not "unskew" it, which is exactly what this website is doing.
Monmouth weight - skewing by the latest poll today. D +9%. ‘I’ skewed over by about +10%.
26% Republican
39% Independent
35% Democrat
47% Male
53% Female
http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_US_080816/
Hillary is outperforming Obama in 2008 according to the liberals at Monmouth.
The party affiliation and gender numbers are clearly skewed, and we don’t know what else in the internals is also skewed.
If we had an accepted standard against which to measure these, we could come up with an average skewness for these different polls. I think that’s what LongRoom is doing, but they don’t show their math, either.
"The Monmouth University Poll was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute from August 4 to 7, 2016 with a national random sample of 803 registered voters. Interviews were conducted by a live caller in English, including 402 drawn from a list of registered voters (200 landline / 202 cell phone) and 401 using random digit dial (200 landline / 201 cell phone). Monmouth is responsible for all aspects of the survey design, data weighting and analysis. The final sample is weighted for age, gender, race and partisanship based on voter list and U.S. Census information. Data collection support provided by Braun Research (field), Aristotle (voter list sample), and SSI (RDD sample). For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points (unadjusted for sample design). Sampling error can be larger for sub-groups (see table below). In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls."
And see post #64 to see Monmouth's skewed poll weight.
And the reason they don’t is proprietary.
I’d weight the polls this way from what I’m see with my eyes and other metrics.
D 37%
R 35%
I 28%
And I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump gets a percentage or two having R over D in this election.
According to the self ID exit polls in 2004 Bush v. Kerry had it this way.
R 37% or 38%
D 37%
I 26%
Obama v. Romney 2012 self ID exit polls:
D 38%
R 32%
I 30%
Noway in heck will the HildaBeast is get the rosy BS numbers that these SOB pollsters are saying.
That makes economic sense, but it frustrates inquiring minds like my own.
My sense is that a pollster could put a tiny .1% pro-democrat skew into all kinds of demographic categories so that on any one of them you couldn’t complain at all. But if he did it in 50 areas, you’d have a 5% skew in the entire poll.
What difference does it make if he includes 1 less “leans conservative” Hispanic in a poll than he should have. It certainly wouldn’t be something we’d notice. But if he did it with 1 less black conservative, 1 less Baptist, 1 more 25 year old, etc. through 50 different categories, it would make a substantial difference across the entire poll.
Yep, just as I thought.
I have been doing my own analysis... Party ID is a real euphamism
Do you think folks are just speaking of their tradition and not how they vote?
Feel good stuff with zero history (or credibility.) I hate it when business networks on TV feature guests whose past performance is anyone’s guess.
Romney was always ahead in 2012’s “Unskewed Polls.” The guy who posted them quickly skulked back to his day job selling shoes at PayLess.
“These people were around then and were the most accurate in their predictions.”
Who is “these people”? Please link their track record.
Fox news is part of the problem.
Murdoch is on the board of an open borders group.
They are okay with Hillary winning. She’s part of the Uniparty and won’t upset things. There’s essentially no difference between our two parties at the top. Same people fund and run them. Hillary’s biggest donors are Wall Street.
On their site
Bill Mitchell Twitter page says Gallup today has it ‘Equal’ between Reps and Dems for party affiliation. He goes on wondering so where are these media pollster clowns getting D+8 ...and higher like the Monmouth poll today?
https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/762773315450798081
I haven’t went to go check Gallup yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.