NY Times: Obama Lead Shrinks in National Poll

[DiamondDave]

*sigh*. Must I spell everything out for you? The majority of predictions predicted that Democrats would make gains.

*sigh* and I and everyone else could have not polled a single person and looked at situations and made a similar assumption.... or the wrong assumption... but the fact is that the poll means nothing outside of the small sample of people polled... it is no more accurate than luck of the draw... implied odds... for the general elections of a huge number of people above the poll sample can and do quite often come out much different than the polls...

 

[Larkinn]

*sigh* and I and everyone else could have not polled a single person and looked at situations and made a similar assumption.... or the wrong assumption... but the fact is that the poll means nothing outside of the small sample of people polled... it is no more accurate than luck of the draw... implied odds... for the general elections of a huge number of people above the poll sample can and do quite often come out much different than the polls...

So do explain how the 2006 and 2004 polls got it right.

 

[DiamondDave]

So do explain how the 2006 and 2004 polls got it right.

You can selectively choose polls that did... just as I can selectively choose ones that did not....

Just as in poker... the implied odds can state one thing about the 6 cards you have seen... but the 40 cards you did not see do not inherently follow the implied odds... because the reality is not just based off the sample... yes, it can follow those odds from your sample... but that does not mean that it is inherently accurate... it is only dealing with the limited information seen.... reality and the final outcome is a result of all the information, and we will not know all the information, voter sentiment, and actual ballots until they are cast... no matter what small sample polls think they know

 

[Article 15]

Obviously polls aren't 100% accurate ... that's why they have a margin or error.

But the RCP average nailed it for the 2004 general and from what I recall of the 2006 mid terms the polls were pretty damn close on how many seats the Dems picked up.

Dismiss the polls at your own peril ....

 

[Larkinn]

You can selectively choose polls that did... just as I can selectively choose ones that did not....

Except that when you pick ALL the polls and the average them, that removes that possibility. And when you do, you find out that they were correct. And when you do now, you find out that Obama will win.

 

[DiamondDave]

Except that when you pick ALL the polls and the average them, that removes that possibility. And when you do, you find out that they were correct. And when you do now, you find out that Obama will win.

Just as you can watch a roulette wheel and think you have a pattern... make the right choice a few times... and you can state that you knew... when in fact you did not...

Is it more accurate than just a pure guess, in terms of polling? Yep... Is it inherently accurate? Nope... for AGAIN, it is such a small sample... it is only based on information collected.. and that information of say 5000 people (100 per state on average) does not tell the whole story... just as stated in poker, you can make a calculation based on the limited information you have seen, but when looking at the whole picture and all the cards you can have a whole different result and forecast...

Putting together 15 polls of 2-5K does not take out the error... it may lessen the error based on those samples, but it is still a very small selection of the actual information that is only gathered in the actual election

And lest we not forget that there is more info, more stances, more news, more statements coming out that inherently makes these polls flawed... they can spout all they want that they are within 5% margin of error, because there is no actual way of showing this is true or not....

 

[Grismonda]

Obama's six percentage point lead over McCain occurred when three minor party candidates were included. This is down from his 11-point lead in the same poll taken Oct. 3-5.

Paperboy, you do realize true Marxism was never practiced?

 

[Larkinn]

Just as you can watch a roulette wheel and think you have a pattern... make the right choice a few times... and you can state that you knew... when in fact you did not...

Except that polls have been right more than that. We've had a number of polls and elections just in the past year, and the polls have generally been right.

Is it more accurate than just a pure guess, in terms of polling? Yep... Is it inherently accurate? Nope... for AGAIN, it is such a small sample... it is only based on information collected.. and that information of say 5000 people (100 per state on average) does not tell the whole story... just as stated in poker, you can make a calculation based on the limited information you have seen, but when looking at the whole picture and all the cards you can have a whole different result and forecast...

Nobody is claiming its 100% accurate. But you CAN rely on it, and you ignore them at your peril.

Putting together 15 polls of 2-5K does not take out the error... it may lessen the error based on those samples, but it is still a very small selection of the actual information that is only gathered in the actual election

When all 15 polls of different individuals ALL come up on the same side, that says something meaningful.

And lest we not forget that there is more info, more stances, more news, more statements coming out that inherently makes these polls flawed... they can spout all they want that they are within 5% margin of error, because there is no actual way of showing this is true or not....

We judge them on election day. And generally they've been found to be accurate.

The people who are experts at winning elections, use polls. Hence they are useful.

 

[The Paperboy]

Paperboy, you do realize true Marxism was never practiced?

Obviously you never saw "A Night At the Opera".