New York Times blogger and statistical analyst Nate Silver did his usual thorough job yesterday explaining why he’s not taking Mitt Romney’s strong performances in the Gallup tracking poll too much to heart. His piece, “Gallup v. the World” rightly pointed out that the firm’s tracking polls, which have given Romney leads of 6, 7 and 6 points in the last three days, are the most favorable yet published for the Republican. He conceded that Gallup is the most reliable of the tracking polls in that it employs the largest samples and employs a methodology for counting cell phone owners as opposed to landlines only. But he claimed that Gallup has a history of inaccuracy in recent elections that ought to cause us to take their conclusions with a grain of salt. That’s a fair point, though it should be noted that we never heard much about Gallup’s shortcomings in recent months when its results (which showed Obama with a lead) were unquestioned while the rival Rasmussen poll (which generally gave Romney better numbers) was consistently called into question.
But as long as we’re discussing methodology, it’s worth pointing out that the only surveys keeping the president’s head above water in the national average of polls are two whose credibility are very much in doubt. I wrote earlier in the week that the Washington Post/ABC News poll published on Monday that showed President Obama with a three-point lead was called into question by the sample employed by the pollsters. That poll was based on a sample that had nine percent more Democrats than Republicans; a figure that is far more than is reasonable. The same thing can be said about a new Hartford Courant/University of Connecticut poll that also shows Obama up by three but on the basis of a sample that has eight percent more Democrats than Republicans. If you adjust both of these samples to create a more representative group of Americans, even one that showed the Democrats with an edge in affiliation, it would mean they would show Romney and not the president ahead in the race.
These kind of misleading polls are not doing the Democrats any service. While these misleading numbers may help encourage the president’s supporters, they are potentially setting them up for a great fall on November 6. While, as Silver has rightly argued, party affiliation isn’t set in stone and reflects the changing fortunes of the candidates, the idea that there are more Democrats prepared to vote for Obama in 2012 than there were in 2008 when he won in a walk is ludicrous.
All polls are fallible and their results are open to interpretation. But the decision of publications to go ahead and put out polls that they already know are based on faulty samples demonstrates either bad judgment or political bias. Overcounting Democrats in polls may produce numbers that tell liberals what they want to hear. But those with more reasonable methodologies are pointing in a very different direction. With the race coming down the homestretch, it appears that some in the media are determined to portray the election in the most positive light for their side even if it means bending the truth a little.
Nate Silver gave Obama a 97% chance of winning the election only a few weeks ago. His method is about as predictive as trying to tell the future by staring at the bones of a dead chicken.
After the great recession, individuals are more likely to drop landlines (with respect to cell/smart phones); thus, live interviews will be more accurate than automated calls. In the end, polls based on decreasing accuracy are as follows: live interviews > aggregates (average) > automated calls. When election day comes by, I would not doubt if obama wins in a landslide, especially if gary johnson is on the ballots. (I deal a lot with advance statistics and the one thing I have come to learn: use the sample pool which includes the most variables. Automated calls have a greater propensity to rule-out the young, minorities, and females PEROID!…Gallup poll internals: east +4 O; midwest +4 O; west +6 O; and south +22 R)
Great article Mr. Tobin. About time someone started pointing this stuff out. Isn't it remarkable that virtually all of the polling firms are now trimming their sails for Obama lest they get stripped of the last shred of credibility on 11/7 when the results are in and their over the top predictions for Obama go out the window? n nAs I've been saying for the last couple months, there is no way that Obama can come anywhere close to replicating the huge turnout and cross-over voting that he got in 2008 (not to mention the abdication of evangelical voters in 2008). Gallup may be using a model that is a tad too close to the 2010 turnout which favored the GOP but it has reason to do so based on other surveys of voter enthusiasm, changing registration patterns and voter approval. n nObama is headed for a big defeat. Only question is how big. The numbers in PA going for Romney suggest it is going to be BIG.
There has been reporting of a large number of Tweets by people threatening to riot, or urging riots, if Obama loses. n nIrresponsible pollsters like Washington Post/ABC News that grossly over sample Democrats bolster expectations for Obama that could help ignite rioting by unbalanced people, especially if “their man” should get trounced, when they have been led to expect at least a close contest. n
The upside is that Chris Matthews will suicide bomb on camera.
Let them! I hope they do riot! I know im far from alone in wanting to give liberals a beating they will never forget. This country will never unless the leftist eites and radical left OWS types are driven out of this country! They will learn that throwing rocks through windows or molotov cocktails at restrained police, wont work on those of us who are conservative, constitutional puritans, with US military training. While I dont condone starting this fight, im more than willing to finish it on our terms.
Silver is neither a competent social statistician nor someone qualified to opine about polling. Stop doing him the favor of taking his fantastic figures seriously, and stop calling him a "statistician". He's a master of puffery (does know about baseball; politics isn't baseball". n nAlso – everyone who took it remotely seriously got between 47 and 50 states right in 2008 – it was just a question of being lucky or not with your estimates for Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina.
I was reading this morning that Obama directed the DoJ to sue the Gallup organization for not concluding that Obama is ahead in all polls. True, look it up. Google it. n nWe officially live in a banana republic now.
So this turned out hilarious.