How do regression trend lines differ from simple averages?
Charles Franklin, who created the statistical routines that plot our trend lines, provided the following explanation last year:
Our trend estimate is just that, an estimate of the trends and where the race stands as of the latest data available. It is NOT a simple average of recent polling but a "local regression" estimate of support as of the most recent poll. So if you are trying to [calculate] our trend estimates from just averaging the recent polls, you won't succeed.
Here is a way to think about this: suppose the last 5 polls in a race are 25, 27, 29, 31 and 33. Which is a better estimate of where the race stands today? 29 (the mean) or 33 (the local trend)? Since support has risen by 2 points in each successive poll, our estimator will say the trend is currently 33%, not the 29% the polls averaged over the past 2 or 3 weeks during which the last 5 polls were taken. Of course real data are more noisy than my example, so we have to fit the trend in a more complicated way than the example, but the logic is the same. Our trend estimates are local regression predictions, not simple averaging. If the data have been flat for a while, the trend and the mean will be quite close to each other. But if the polls are moving consistently either up or down, the trend estimate will be a better estimate of opinion as of today while the simple average will be an estimate of where the race was some 3 polls ago (for a 5 poll average-- longer ago as more polls are included in the average.) And that's why we estimate the trends the way we do.
Face it - Obama is way ahead in the state polling. Even on the RCP site he's way ahead.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the country sinks further into recession.
In his convention speech, McCain, the self-appointed agent of change, set forth a goal of REVERTING to the past. He said, "The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics." McCain then recited the basics of Reaganomics. It's the old trickle-down economic plan that involves the wealthiest families and corporate America splashing around in a big pool of wealth with the hope that maybe a drop or two from their splashing prosperity will fall upon the working people. But, if people recall, Reagan's trickle-down economic plan was an utter failure and he had to RAISE taxes--more than once!
How can McCain make trickle-down economics work when it has never worked in the past? After all, the premise is fatally flawed. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the country sinks further into recession. An occasional tax rebate that makes it possible for working people to spend a couple hundred dollars at Wal Mart isn't going to create jobs or keep people from losing their homes.
BIG DILEMMA: OPRAH BALKS AT HOSTING SARAH PALIN; STAFF DIVIDED
Fri Sep 05 2008 08:55:46 ET
Oprah Winfrey may have introduced Democrat Barack Obama to the women of America -- but the talkshow queen is not rushing to embrace the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket!
Oprah's staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
"Half of her staff really wants Sarah Palin on," an insider explains. "Oprah's website is getting tons of requests to put her on, but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama."
One executive close to Winfrey is warning any Palin ban could ignite a dramatic backlash!
It is not clear if Oprah has softened her position after watching Palin's historic convention speech.
Last year, Winfrey blocked an appearance by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, timed to a promotional tour of his autobiography.
Oprah and executive producer Sheri Salata, who has contributed thousands of dollars to Obama's campaign, refused requests for comment.
OPRAH'S STATEMENT: "The item in today's Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."
So whats your take, Fox?
Do you need help reading a calender and comparing it to the Gallup chart?
So whats your take, Fox?
On what, Oprah? I think she is terrified that giving Palin any face time will hurt Obama and she really REALLY doesn't want to do that. And I think she realizes that will be a huge double standard and offensive to a sizable chunk of her audience. I also suspect she is lying through her teeth. So what is your take?
Subpoenas to be issued for Troopergate probe
(By STEVE QUINN, Associated Press, September 5, 2005)
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) " The Alaska Legislature will work to complete its ethics investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner earlier than expected, weeks before the national election.
State Sen. Hollis French says seven witnesses told the Legislature's investigator they will not provide depositions and canceled their meetings. French, who is overseeing the investigation into whether Palin abused her power, said the Legislature will subpoena witnesses.
Lawmakers say they have put the investigation on a fast track now that Palin is Republican John McCain's running mate. The investigation previously was expected to end on Oct. 31. French says the probe will be completed three weeks earlier than that.
In July, a state oversight committee approved $100,000 for an investigation into whether Palin fired public safety commissioner Walt Monegan because he would not dismiss a trooper who went through a messy divorce with her sister before Palin ran for governor.
Megan Kelly on Fox absolutely nailed the US Magazine editor this week though. He was lying through his teeth multiple times and she had done her homework so that she exposed him in every one of them.