Hillary zings the Squirrel

[birddog]

Perhaps giving the book was her way of saying she had "balls!" Of course, she likely does have a lot of testosterone since she is bi-sexual.

 

[Samson]

No, it is not, and true to my word, I no longer calculate Gallup into any polling averages.

Being 9 points off in 2010 and actually considerably more than 5 points off in 2012 is inexcusable.


But actually, Gallup DID admit partisan bias. Only, you are seeing the word "bias" and attaching something emotional to is, which is ok, but the word also has a purely mathematical meaning, and that is what I mean here.

Nice to hear from you. How is Delilah?

In English the term for mathematical bias is a "skew."

Gallup does political polling. A mathematical error in the model could be interpreted as a "partisan bias." However there is no admission from Gallup suggestion a PARTISAN REASON was the cause of the skew.

Regardless of the reason for the skew, the fact remains that the poll was a poor predictor of the 2012 election results. I wonder if the model has been fixed? I suppose we'll see in 2016?

I'm curious to know what polls you are using until then?

Gallup claims that that problem was fixed, but Gallup was also hauled before the judge for having cooked the books in 2012 an in order to avoid certain people having to go to jail, it paid a massive fine IN ADVANCE. That says something.

Also, in presidential approval polls, Obama minus numbers are considerably worse with Gallup than with any other pollster.

This causes me to question ANYTHING the Gallup puts out, which I why you see that I never quote Gallup in any recent polling, meaning, since 2012. I do not trust Gallup.

Gallup was without even a smidge of doubt the worst pollster of 2012, hands down.

At least Rasmussen, with a steady mathematical bias of +4 to the Right, is consistent.


I will remind that, hands down, the best overall pollster from 2012 was:

PPP (D), which nailed 11 of 12 battleground states.

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?

Visiting PPP (D)'s site, and contrasting with Gallup (which is oddly missing from Rosenthal's blog), I notice the focus is on elections, not public opinion surveys. Perhaps focus is the Key performance indicator of the various polling organizations?

The question is who specializes in public opinion surveys. One would think that public opinion would be directly reflected in election results, but since the two do not coincide, it may not be possible to always compare them.

 

[Statistikhengst]

In English the term for mathematical bias is a "skew."

Gallup does political polling. A mathematical error in the model could be interpreted as a "partisan bias." However there is no admission from Gallup suggestion a PARTISAN REASON was the cause of the skew.

Regardless of the reason for the skew, the fact remains that the poll was a poor predictor of the 2012 election results. I wonder if the model has been fixed? I suppose we'll see in 2016?

I'm curious to know what polls you are using until then?

Gallup claims that that problem was fixed, but Gallup was also hauled before the judge for having cooked the books in 2012 an in order to avoid certain people having to go to jail, it paid a massive fine IN ADVANCE. That says something.

Also, in presidential approval polls, Obama minus numbers are considerably worse with Gallup than with any other pollster.

This causes me to question ANYTHING the Gallup puts out, which I why you see that I never quote Gallup in any recent polling, meaning, since 2012. I do not trust Gallup.

Gallup was without even a smidge of doubt the worst pollster of 2012, hands down.

At least Rasmussen, with a steady mathematical bias of +4 to the Right, is consistent.


I will remind that, hands down, the best overall pollster from 2012 was:

PPP (D), which nailed 11 of 12 battleground states.

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?

Visiting PPP (D)'s site, and contrasting with Gallup (which is oddly missing from Rosenthal's blog), I notice the focus is on elections, not public opinion surveys. Perhaps focus is the Key performance indicator of the various polling organizations?

The question is who specializes in public opinion surveys. One would think that public opinion would be directly reflected in election results, but since the two do not coincide, it may not be possible to always compare them.

Well, with election polling, we have the possiblilty of comparing the end polling with the final results, and very often, patterns appear. And exact values appear as well, enscribed into history.

For instance, in 2012, in California, New York, Massachusetts - just to name three, polling was considerably off to the Right by an average of up to 8 points. The California polling average was Obama +15, he won with +23.

Conversely, every pollster (including Rasmussen, amazingly) was off hard to the left in polling in Montana. More details about this in the one link I provided (how did the pollsters do).

For surveys on public issues, there is no way to have an "end result" to compare with the survey findings, but the healthy assumption is that if a pollster really sucks at election polling, then their social issues polling is probably not good, either.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Perhaps giving the book was her way of saying she had "balls!" Of course, she likely does have a lot of testosterone since she is bi-sexual.

Would you care to back that up with evidence?

thought so....

 

[Wolfsister77]

Perhaps giving the book was her way of saying she had "balls!" Of course, she likely does have a lot of testosterone since she is bi-sexual.

Thanks for the enlightening input. Great job!!

I hope more idiots talk about her appearance, sexuality, etc. because that's a sure winner in 2016. Especially with women.

The GOP is running scared when it comes to Hillary.