Poll Fight!

[Lemur]

I'm layin' this track down for my main Poll Smoker, CA:

Seems there's a dust-up bewteen 538 and Real Clear Politics. It began with:

I can promise you is that we'll keep the spin separate from our metrics. The spin is a side dish, which you can choose to consume or ignore.

Unfortunately, that is not a choice you have at RCP. Their partisan leaning is infused into their numbers. If RCP disclosed their methodology -- articulated their rationale for excluding or including certain polls -- I would give them the benefit of the doubt. But they do not, so I do not.

And progressed to:

It is clear to me that there is substantial subjectivity in how RCP selects the polls to include in its averages. RCP does not publish an FAQ, or any other set of standards. Nor, in my conversation with John, was he willing to articulate one. In my view, the fact that RCP does not disclose a set of standards means ipso facto that they are making judgment calls -- that there is some subjectivity involved -- in how their polls are selected.

All I can say to Real Clear Politics is you been served! Yo, man, that's the last time I cite your poll averages, beyotch.

-edit-

I am an idiot. If I had been thinking at all, I would have included a poll. I mean, come on, it's a post about polls, how can I not include one?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Real clear politics is a great site. Do you really believe that they are excessively biased? You realize that the new site is attempting to take business away from RCP, right?

From the 538 Faq:
"What is your political affiliation? My state (CA) has non-partisan registration, so I am not registered as anything. I vote for Democratic candidates the majority of the time (though by no means always). This year, I have been a supporter of Barack Obama. The other contributor to this website, Sean, has also been a supporter of Barack Obama (Ch-IL)."

Its good that we are getting away from partisanship. All of those non-partisan Obama supporters. You'll fit right in.

[Lemur]

Do you have any response to the charges 538 makes? Sure, they're competing poll sites. So what? Doesn't address the issues being raised in the slightest.

-edit-

You do read what I post before you respond, right?

From the 538 Faq:
"What is your political affiliation? My state (CA) has non-partisan registration, so I am not registered as anything. I vote for Democratic candidates the majority of the time (though by no means always). This year, I have been a supporter of Barack Obama. The other contributor to this website, Sean, has also been a supporter of Barack Obama (Ch-IL)."

I can promise you is that we'll keep the spin separate from our metrics. The spin is a side dish, which you can choose to consume or ignore.

[drone]

I am an idiot. If I had been thinking at all, I would have included a poll. I mean, come on, it's a post about polls, how can I not include one?

Gah.org kicks both their butts!

[Strike For The South]

hehehehehehe. This is funny simply because people who run internet polling sites are slamming each-other. You have to take all this with a grain of salt anyway Human surveys are always subject to bias no matter what.

[Xiahou]

538 throwing out a bunch of claims doesn't really prove anything at all does it? Just because they make a bunch of charges that may or may not have any factual basis, the RCP team is obligated to respond?

I'm kind of with Tuff, in that it seems a bit like an up-and-comer trying to throw some mud on a bigger competitor. Just because this guy claims they have intrinsic bias doesn't make it so. He needs to build a better case than that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

RCP selects major polls and combines them together by population. Are you suggesting that RCP is using uncouth methods to combine polls? Are they part of the vast right-wing conspiracy do you think?

The reality is that you would prefer a polling site maintained by Obama supporters and I support a polling site maintained by centerist guys. I don't detect a bias in RCP averages, but I wouldn't because I am par of the Republican hate machine.

538 has a faq. Hurry up RCP, close up shop because you've been sniffed out!

What more do you need? RCP combines major polls by population and gets averages. How hard is that? What polls!!!? Where do they come from!!!?

Looking closer into the sites, 538 has biased editorial accompanying their polls whereas RCP has very little editorial anywhere near the polls. Jay Cost is a mastermind and is a major draw to RCP. Only time will tell if 538 has a mind like that on staff. Also, 538 says that they "handicap" polling averages within the larger average based on their subjective view of accuracy in polling historically. They claim this, but I don't see an explanation as to what qualifies polling as accurate or not before an election. Maybe I just missed it, but I'd like to see what each poll's handicap is and how they were rated.

[Lemur]

538 throwing out a bunch of claims doesn't really prove anything at all does it? Just because they make a bunch of charges that may or may not have any factual basis, the RCP team is obligated to respond?

RCP selects major polls and combines them together by population. Are you suggesting that RCP is using uncouth methods to combine polls? Are they part of the vast right-wing conspiracy do you think?

I agree with 538 this far: RCP does not disclose its methodology, certainly not in a way that would allay any worries about statistical shenanigans. As for RCP being part of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy, I'll help out if you need some more straw to stuff in that man you're building.

[Crazed Rabbit]

All I can say to Real Clear Politics is you been served! Yo, man, that's the last time I cite your poll averages, beyotch.

-edit-

I am an idiot. If I had been thinking at all, I would have included a poll. I mean, come on, it's a post about polls, how can I not include one?

What? Two sites go at each other, and you present one side of the argument and act like that's the whole story?

The charges are based more on the gut feeling of a Obama supporter than hard facts.

I don't see how 538 has proven anything.

CR

[Xiahou]

I agree with 538 this far: RCP does not disclose its methodology

Neither do many of the polls that both entities average. That doesn't make any claims of bias against these polls automatically valid.

In fact, as I've said before, I really don't think averaging polls like this has any real statistical validity- so it's kind of hard to get worked up about it either way.

[Don Corleone]

I don't know enough to say whether RCP is in the tank for McCain as 538 is alleging or not.

But I do know business. If you're a young, up-start up and comer in an IP-based business, it is to your distinct advantage to learn how the successes in your industry make their secret sauce. Sure, they disclose their own methodology, because they know it's not sought after.

This is the equivalent, to me, of an open-source developer getting pissed at Microsoft for not disclosing the source code for a new killer app.

[m52nickerson]

I don't know enough to say whether RCP is in the tank for McCain as 538 is alleging or not.

But I do know business. If you're a young, up-start up and comer in an IP-based business, it is to your distinct advantage to learn how the successes in your industry make their secret sauce. Sure, they disclose their own methodology, because they know it's not sought after.

This is the equivalent, to me, of an open-source developer getting pissed at Microsoft for not disclosing the source code for a new killer app.

Being an Obama supporter even the notion that RCP shows favor to McCain is more reason to go to that site. If Obama is leading in the polls on a McCain+ site that means to me Obama really is leading.

[Lemur]

But I do know business. If you're a young, up-start up and comer in an IP-based business, it is to your distinct advantage to learn how the successes in your industry make their secret sauce. Sure, they disclose their own methodology, because they know it's not sought after.

This isn't quite applicable -- RCP does reveal which polls they include. They just don't say why. Anywhere. What set 538 off was the inclusion of a notably flaky poll that suddenly favored McCain at a time when Obama's numbers are on an upswing. It was suspicious, and without any rationale or logic from RCP, it looks odd.

ARG had been effectively "banned" from RCP for several months now, going back to the Democratic primaries. Sometimes RCP listed ARG polls with an asterisk and did not include them in their averages; more often they didn't list them at all.

Why didn't RCP include ARG's polls in its averages? Presumably because they had an exceptionally erratic performance during this year's primaries, a performance that -- when coupled with ARG's relative lack of disclosure about its methodology -- had led RCP to conclude that their polls were not credible. [...]

What I do know, however, is that whatever RCP's reasons were for excluding ARG from its averages, none of those reasons should have changed over the past 48 hours. Did ARG suddenly improve its level of disclosure? No. Did their polls suddenly become more accurate? How could they, when we haven't had any elections to evaluate them.

No. The only thing that changed is that ARG released a set of three polls yesterday that had considerably more favorable numbers for John McCain than other contemporaneous polls of those states. In each of those states -- North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada -- ARG is presently the outlier on the John McCain side (tied with Mason-Dixon in the case of Virginia). RCP did not feel any compulsion to include ARG's numbers when ARG cycled through all 50 states a couple of weeks ago (including many where there has been very little polling). Only when ARG released this gravity-defying set of polling in Virginia and North Carolina and Nevada did RCP suddenly have a change of heart.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This isn't quite applicable -- RCP does reveal which polls they include. They just don't say why. Anywhere. What set 538 off was the inclusion of a notably flaky poll that suddenly favored McCain at a time when Obama's numbers are on an upswing. It was suspicious, and without any rationale or logic from RCP, it looks odd.

ARG had been effectively "banned" from RCP for several months now, going back to the Democratic primaries. Sometimes RCP listed ARG polls with an asterisk and did not include them in their averages; more often they didn't list them at all.

Why didn't RCP include ARG's polls in its averages? Presumably because they had an exceptionally erratic performance during this year's primaries, a performance that -- when coupled with ARG's relative lack of disclosure about its methodology -- had led RCP to conclude that their polls were not credible. [...]

What I do know, however, is that whatever RCP's reasons were for excluding ARG from its averages, none of those reasons should have changed over the past 48 hours. Did ARG suddenly improve its level of disclosure? No. Did their polls suddenly become more accurate? How could they, when we haven't had any elections to evaluate them.

No. The only thing that changed is that ARG released a set of three polls yesterday that had considerably more favorable numbers for John McCain than other contemporaneous polls of those states. In each of those states -- North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada -- ARG is presently the outlier on the John McCain side (tied with Mason-Dixon in the case of Virginia). RCP did not feel any compulsion to include ARG's numbers when ARG cycled through all 50 states a couple of weeks ago (including many where there has been very little polling). Only when ARG released this gravity-defying set of polling in Virginia and North Carolina and Nevada did RCP suddenly have a change of heart.

It really sounds like you are stretching this thing. I'm glad that you've brought 538 to our attention. It is one more site to bounce numbers off of. Maybe I'll average RCP with 538 and be sure to disclose my methodology!

[PanzerJaeger]

All I can say to Real Clear Politics is you been served! Yo, man, that's the last time I cite your poll averages, beyotch.

I'm not sure what you were attempting here, but please stop.

Actually, to bring my post on topic, that could be applied to this entire thread. This is yet another example of the Obama echo chamber - Obama supporters repeating some lame accusations by some others, trying to drum up a controversy. I wonder if this has made it on to Kos yet. Is it any surprise that the OP would rather get his polling data from Obama supporters?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sink any endeavour not run by exclusively by Obama supporters. All are suspect.

[Lemur]

I'm not sure what you were attempting here, but please stop.

Just keepin' it real, yo. Layin a phat track down for my poll-loving homies, gettin' the shiv from the Backroom Republican posse. Just kick it, my nizzle.

[seireikhaan]

I'm not sure what you were attempting here, but please stop.

Actually, to bring my post on topic, that could be applied to this entire thread. This is yet another example of the Obama echo chamber - Obama supporters repeating some lame accusations by some others, trying to drum up a controversy. I wonder if this has made it on to Kos yet. Is it any surprise that the OP would rather get his polling data from Obama supporters?

Speaking of an echo chamber...

[Big_John]

wow. never thought i'd see panties all a-bunched over a couple of polls. get some air, fellas.


oh and btw.. microsoft makes killer apps???

[CountArach]

Haha, thanks Lemur! I've been following this as well. Frankly I never really like RCP. I prefer Pollster.com if I just want aggregates.

538 throwing out a bunch of claims doesn't really prove anything at all does it? Just because they make a bunch of charges that may or may not have any factual basis, the RCP team is obligated to respond?

Did you read the stuff he posted? The polls that RCP chose were cherry picked because they were not supportive of the narrative that RCP wanted to construct. Even if that is not true you must admit that the following is suspicious:
As long as we're having fun with this, how about Alaska? Anchorage-based pollster Ivan Moore had released a poll in July, then showing just a 3-point race between McCain and Obama. We included it, Pollster.com included it, and RCP did not. But then last month, when the same firm released a fresh poll showing the profound effect that Sarah Palin had on the race (McCain +19), RCP decided they were a worthy pollster.

Regardless, Nate (From 538) has cleared up what he meant:
"However, it does not necessarily follow that these judgment calls reflect any deliberate partisan leaning, i.e. any "bias". "

Nate has managed to avoid bias several times in the past:
1) When his website guy (Sean) was posting attack pieces on McCain, he was ordered to stop.
2) When Nate was taking into account the likely effects of a convention bounce that would have flattened McCain's lead, he put it to vote on whether to keep it or not - the public voted against keeping it and Nate scrapped it.
3) If you look at the Super Tracker on the right, you will see that he had McCain leading for a long time.

I'm glad Nate called RCP out on what they did, it will only increase the quality of their analysis and polling trends.

It really sounds like you are stretching this thing. I'm glad that you've brought 538 to our attention. It is one more site to bounce numbers off of. Maybe I'll average RCP with 538 and be sure to disclose my methodology!

Try Pollster.com as well. They have great maps and you can customise them to choose which polling companies you want to leave out of it (I, for example, choose to leave out the Internet polling because it is incredibly inaccurate and not weighted very well).

[KukriKhan]

Just a poll-related question:

Has anyone who reads this ever been politically polled? I've never gotten a phone call, in 39 years of being a voter (I'm not complaining about that; I just wonder: Who does get called?) Do those who do get called, get called repeatedly?

How long do the calls last? If you've been polled, are you satisfied that your views have been represented?

OK, that's more than 'a question'. Sorry.

[CountArach]

Just a poll-related question:

Has anyone who reads this ever been politically polled? I've never gotten a phone call, in 39 years of being a voter (I'm not complaining about that; I just wonder: Who does get called?) Do those who do get called, get called repeatedly?

How long do the calls last? If you've been polled, are you satisfied that your views have been represented?

OK, that's more than 'a question'. Sorry.

I have never been polled, but my father has been. The call was probably 10-15 minutes because they asked him other things in regards to market research, such as electricity and telecommunications providers and satisfaction.

[Lemur]

Has anyone who reads this ever been politically polled?

Yup. Once while I was living in Brooklyn. Luckily they called when I was not busy, not having dinner and not at work. They asked me vey general questions about the 2004 election for about twenty minutes. I Never asked who they were with, which was stupid of me.

[Big_John]

Yup. Once while I was living in Brooklyn. Luckily they called when I was not busy, not having dinner and not at work. They asked me vey general questions about the 2004 election for about twenty minutes. I Never asked who they were with, which was stupid of me.

you fool! they could have been chinese spies! what have you done?

[Gregoshi]

I've gotten three calls in the past month or two wanting me to answer questions about today's issues. I stopped all three calls right at the start so I don't know if they were politically based or not. I remember one was supposedly about healthcare. Just thought it was coincidence that I was suddenly getting these survey calls when I hadn't before.

On the subject of calls, I got a call back in August from the Republican party. The lady asked me if I knew who I was voting for this fall. I told her I didn't know yet. Then she thanked me and hung up. No sales pitch or anything. I was rather stunned considering I'm registered as a Republican. Guess I didn't give the right answer. Gosh golly darn it.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm not sure what you were attempting here, but please stop.

Actually, to bring my post on topic, that could be applied to this entire thread. This is yet another example of the Obama echo chamber - Obama supporters repeating some lame accusations by some others, trying to drum up a controversy. I wonder if this has made it on to Kos yet. Is it any surprise that the OP would rather get his polling data from Obama supporters?

You are funny.

Let's see....
Faux indignation over flag lapel pins
Faux indignation over "lipstick on a pig"
Faux indignation over Kerry mentioning Cheney's openly lesbian daughter (who the GOP had been using as a prop for how open minded they were, even though they didn't bring her on stage with the rest of Cheney's family at the convention)

If you are Republican, Panzer, don't start mudfights over the other party "repeating lame accusations, trying to drum up controversy." You will lose, every time.

Oh and i forgot a big one:

Faux indignation over sexism, AFTER Clinton lost the primary, and then again after Palin was picked.

[PanzerJaeger]

You are funny.

Let's see....
Faux indignation over flag lapel pins
Faux indignation over "lipstick on a pig"
Faux indignation over Kerry mentioning Cheney's openly lesbian daughter (who the GOP had been using as a prop for how open minded they were, even though they didn't bring her on stage with the rest of Cheney's family at the convention)

If you are Republican, Panzer, don't start mudfights over the other party "repeating lame accusations, trying to drum up controversy." You will lose, every time.

Oh and i forgot a big one:

Faux indignation over sexism, AFTER Clinton lost the primary, and then again after Palin was picked.

Anyway, I think I need to be reminded again that Barack Obama is black and how amazing that is and how racist it is to mention it in any other light.. Lemy hasn't hit me with the racist tag in a while!

[Koga No Goshi]

Anyway, I think I need to be reminded again that Barack Obama is black and how amazing that is and how racist it is to mention it in any other light.. Lemy hasn't hit me with the racist tag in a while!

Have I ever said such a thing? I don't recall seeing anyone reacting that way around here. The only instance I can think of whatsoever is Roseanne Barr on Real Time saying that she thought Palin's sneering tone when talking about "community organizing" was borderline/code racist. Her opinion of course, not the DNC's. So I don't know what "cult" of people calling anyone who criticizes Obama racist has been assaulting you.

[Lemur]

stuff

Interesting how hard you work to turn every thread into a referendum on yourself. Narcissism much? Do you even care about the subject of this thread, or is this just another chance for you to see how much off-topic trolling you can do before getting a warning?

How's the "game," as you like to think of it, going?

[PanzerJaeger]

Interesting how hard you work to turn every thread into a referendum on yourself. Narcissism much? Do you even care about the subject of this thread, or is this just another chance for you to see how much off-topic trolling you can do before getting a warning?

How's the "game," as you like to think of it, going?

Why such a sour puss this morning?

You know I'll alway's be your beyotch.