17
   

Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Feb, 2008 09:07 pm
Oh, I do have one slightly substantive beef with the presidentelectionpolls.com site as well. They have these overview pages, like this one for the McCain vs Obama match-up. The overview simply lists the very latest poll out for each state, where available.

That's fine as far as it goes, though I'm not sure whether listing only the one last poll for each state (rather than the average of polls out for that state in the past X time, for example) is the best way to go.

But above that, the site then calculates the exact current balance of the race - right now, it has Barack Obama at 261 electoral college votes and John McCain at 266 -- based on this listing. Thats a bit much, IMO; pinning down such specific national numbers based on a list of polls of which some are brand new, and others date back from early January. Also a bit much to do that going only on the one last poll out from each state, when it might be an outlier and a comparison of the last few polls out (if available, of course) might give a more balanced look. Injects a lot of random volatility I think.

Then again, all they do is collect the numbers and present them FYI, and that's always useful. And they must spend a lot of time maintaining it, so I dont want to be ungrateful or anything.. they do good work, and seem to be getting very little acknowledgement for it, I've never seen a link to them.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Feb, 2008 10:08 pm
I don't think that statistical rigor has much place in ANY of the prognosticating based on poll results so far. It is entertainment, not analysis. By those standards the result is pretty interesting.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 06:02 am
georgeob1 wrote:
I don't think that statistical rigor has much place in ANY of the prognosticating based on poll results so far.

Not on any "prognosticating," no, that is at this point in time (or at any point in time?) by definition a matter of speculation. But when it comes to representing the current status of public opinion, yes of course varied measures of statistical rigor can be applied.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 10:44 am
Obama closing in on Clinton in Texas?

After the CNN/Opinion Research poll yesterday that showed Obama within 2 points of Hillary in Texas, there's now a Survey USA poll showing him at just 5 points behind. Clinton 50%, Obama 45%.

But it comes with a big fat disclaimer - they're nervous, apparently:

Quote:
Depending on Hispanic Turnout, Clinton is Either Slightly Ahead, or Not so Slightly Ahead, in Texas Democratic Primary: In a Democratic Primary in Texas today, 02/18/08, 15 days to the vote, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 50% to 45%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for KTRK-TV Houston, KTVT-TV Dallas, and KRLD-AM radio Dallas. BUT: there is "give" in these numbers that must be mentioned in the same breath. Among Hispanic voters, Clinton leads 2:1. SurveyUSA estimates that Hispanics make-up 32% of Democratic primary voters in a Primary today. If Hispanics vote in larger numbers, Clinton's lead is larger than the 5 points shown here. If Hispanics vote in smaller numbers, Obama runs stronger than these numbers show.

They also note:

Quote:
Among white voters, Clinton leads by 12. Among black voters, Obama leads by 57. Race Gap is 69 points. Among males, Obama leads by 20. Among females, Clinton leads by 27. Gender Gap is 47 points. Among registered Democrats, Clinton up 14. Among Independents, Obama up 28. Among voters under age 50, Obama by 6. Among Voters 50+, Clinton by 17. Age Gap is 23 points. Clinton ahead in South Texas and West Texas. Obama and Clinton within the margin of sampling error in North Texas, East Texas, and Central Texas.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 11:02 am
nimh wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
I don't think that statistical rigor has much place in ANY of the prognosticating based on poll results so far.

Not on any "prognosticating," no, that is at this point in time (or at any point in time?) by definition a matter of speculation. But when it comes to representing the current status of public opinion, yes of course varied measures of statistical rigor can be applied.


I agree, but as we both know, the demonstrable confidence interval in such deliberately stratified samples doesn't provide much basis for belief. It is commonplace, even in the analysis of various "snapshots", or their trajectory over time, for the users to ignore the limits of confidence in the results they slice and dice so assiduously. No surprise that this stuff is so often confounded by unfolding events.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 11:41 am
And now, for something more relevant:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/poll_hillarys_support_dropping.php

Quote:


Ben Smith has a great catch -- the latest Gallup tracking poll shows Hillary's support eroding among Hispanics, a key core constituency...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2008-02-19_gallup_hispanics.gif

Gallup also finds that Obama has gained among middle-aged voters, women, and self-identified Dems.

Gallup's conclusion: Obama has cemented his status as the candidate with momentum in the race, "holding a statistically significant lead in each of the last three tracking poll results."


And here's the daily tracking:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/021808DailyUpdateGraph1.gif

Seems that Obama has solidly established himself as the front-runner. If he can win WI and Hawaii tonight, he should increase this lead.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 11:53 am

Thanks, that's interesting, especially the Hispanics bit.

But I havent seen anything irrelevant in this thread lately. We're discussing polls and the analyses of them, and their relative (un)reliability.

(God, the two of you are really trying to confirm each other's stereotypes of the other today, arent you? :wink: Razz )
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 11:58 am
nimh wrote:

Thanks, that's interesting, especially the Hispanics bit.

But I havent seen anything irrelevant in this thread lately. We're discussing polls and the analyses of them, and their relative (un)reliability.

(God, the two of you are really trying to confirm each other's stereotypes of the other today, arent you? :wink: Razz )


When writing, I was playing on the 'and now, for something completely different' Monty Python skit. Guess it didn't come through well.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 12:06 pm
OK Smile
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:16 pm
NPR/AP had some exit polling detail on WI updated as of 5:30 EST:

-Dems by 7-3 gave thumbs down on globalization, saying it takes away jobs;
-Half of Dems said the U.S. economy is "not good" and nearly all the rest said "poor." Repubs were more optimistic but a majority agreed with the Dems.;
-Turnout appears to be much heavier in the Dem primary (although in WI voters pick which ballot they want to use after they are in the voting booth). One in seven people who claimed to have voted in the Dem primary said they were voting in their first primary;
-For the Repubs: more men then women, opposite than the Dems. 90% white and 40% college educated in both contests. Repubs a bit older.

By the way, Madison (Univ of W) is in Dane County. So don't get real excited one way or the other about the vote there.

Catch yall later!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:27 pm
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:44 pm
Oh!

I seem to remember exit polls were way off in CA though...?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:47 pm
sozobe wrote:
Oh!

I seem to remember exit polls were way off in CA though...?


Maybe, but it sure isn't a BAD sign for him!!!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:51 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Oh!

I seem to remember exit polls were way off in CA though...?


Maybe, but it sure isn't a BAD sign for him!!!

Cycloptichorn


There are no bad signs for Obama. Everything is seen through rose colored glasses.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:53 pm
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Oh!

I seem to remember exit polls were way off in CA though...?


Maybe, but it sure isn't a BAD sign for him!!!

Cycloptichorn


There are no bad signs for Obama. Everything is seen through rose colored glasses.


Enough of your sour grapism!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 06:45 pm
More of the same:

Quote:


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Wisconsin_exits.html

I'll believe it when I see it, though.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 07:02 pm
Exit poll charts from CBS:

http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/exitPoll.shtml?state=WI&race=P&jurisdiction=0&party=D
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 07:23 pm
Hillary is slated to give a speech - at 8:30 central time tonight.

...

That's before the polls even close! My guess is, they don't expect to win.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 08:40 pm
Wisconsin Results:

5% reporting

Democrats

Obama 56%
Clinton 43%

Republicans

McCain 56%
Huckabee 36%
Paul 4%
Romney 2%
Giuliani 1%
Thompson 1%
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 09:19 pm
Looks like it is going to hold...

Wisconsin Results:

60% reporting

Democrats

Obama 56%
Clinton 43%

Republicans

McCain 54%
Huckabee 38%
Paul 5%
Romney 2%
Giuliani 1%
Thompson 1%
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 04:03:59