Poll Reading 101

[BluePhantom]

I swear to almighty God...there's going to be a long conversation with my sponsor tonight.

 

[NYcarbineer]

THAT IS UNSUPPORTED BY THE FACTS. IT IS SIMPLY A LIE.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama

There is no meaningful bias towards Obama in the RV polls, vs. the LV polls.

All you conservatives in this thread who are fawning over BP because he's telling you what you want to hear really need to wake up and use your heads.

OH really!?!?!?!? Have a look at the dates and the graph dip shit. On your own fucking link McCain took the lead on 9/7/2008 and held it through 9/16/2008. Now look at the fucking DATES on the polls. Notice how right around that time they suddenly start switching from RV to LV...notice also that Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy and the market crashed on 9/15/2008 the day before Obama re-took the lead.

So let's engage in some reasonable speculation. Right around September 7th polling agencies started to shift from RV to LV...suddenly McCain took the lead. Holy fucking shit! How did that happen? Then the market crashed and Obama took it back. How fucking astonishing that before the 7th they are mostly RV polls and right on that very date the majority starts to become LV polls. What an incredible fucking coincidence!!!!

Now that's it....your time is up and I even gave you a bonus answer with this post. Now piss off until you can make a decent argument. Believe me this is an act of mercy....I am saving my time and what remains of your dignity.

1. Palin was picked the last week of August and the GOP convention was September 1st.

Your contention is that nothing in that gave McCain a bounce? That ONLY some switch to counting Likely voters gave him the bounce?

That is absurd.

2. Gallup and Rasmussen both polled on September 7th.

Gallup polled Registered voters. Rasmussen polled Likely voters.

Gallup had McCAIN UP BY 5. Rasmussen had OBAMA UP BY 1.

So explain that within the context of your RV/LV liberal conspiracy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ipsos and Gallup were still polling RV's at the end of September.

Both of them had Obama with a smaller advantage than did Rasmussen polling LV's.

Explain that while you're at it.

 

[BluePhantom]

What part of "your time is up" didn't you understand?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You admit that Rasmussen's polls were above average for Bush and below average for Obama?

That is a yes or a no.

I see I am going to have to go over this a FOURTH fucking time for our friend Corky. Yes but not because the Rasmussen poll was biased toward the GOP. It's because Rasmussen and SUSA run LV polls 365 days a year every year while everyone else runs RV polls until September and October of election years. Since Republicans vote at a higher rate than Democrats then RV polls will naturally favor the Democratic candidate and bring the majority of them out of line with those who run LV polls consistently. When they all shift to LV polls they all suddenly start saying very similar things.


That's the last time I am telling you. The next time you ask the same question I already answered four times, just come back to this post.

But an 'accurate' measure of the sentiment of the American people regarding the job performance of the President would not be narrowly limited to 'likely voters' would it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What part of "your time is up" didn't you understand?

Whether you are able to defend your positions or not is not my concern. I'm refuting what you're claiming

a. for the benefit of others and b. for my own entertainment.

The FACT that you can't refute what I just posting is not my problem, it's yours.

 

[Dr.House]

Epic Carb Fail...

TFF

 

[California Girl]

Epic Carb Fail...

TFF

 

[BluePhantom]

What part of "your time is up" didn't you understand?

Whether you are able to defend your positions or not is not my concern. I'm refuting what you're claiming

a. for the benefit of others and b. for my own entertainment.

The FACT that you can't refute what I just posting is not my problem, it's yours.

No the fact is that you are trying to coerce a fourth day of arguments over a point that is statistically irrelevant. Can you fucking understand that? STATISTICALLY IRRELEVANT!!!

Now I have been patient. I have answered every ridiculous question you have come up with (with varying degrees of self-control) and just last night it becomes clear that you still haven't gotten the difference between RV and LV and that's just Rule #1 from the OP. We haven't even gotten to Rule #2 yet.

Now you are attempting to turn this into a political debate because "someone told you to hate Rasmussen". Fine. Hate them. I really don't fucking care and the point of the thread is about getting a BASIC understanding of the mechanics of polling. It's NOT intended to be a university level statistics class.

If you want answers to your questions read the previous 7 pages because you are making the same points over and over in different phrasing. Regardless of how you phrase the question, the answer is the same and I have already provided them.

Now whine and cry all you wish...I am not going to waste my time arguing a statistically insignificant point with someone who has yet to grasp Rule #1 of the OP. Come back when you have gotten that far and I will be happy to continue your education.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What part of "your time is up" didn't you understand?

Whether you are able to defend your positions or not is not my concern. I'm refuting what you're claiming

a. for the benefit of others and b. for my own entertainment.

The FACT that you can't refute what I just posting is not my problem, it's yours.

No the fact is that you are trying to coerce a fourth day of arguments over a point that is statistically irrelevant. Can you fucking understand that? STATISTICALLY IRRELEVANT!!!

Now I have been patient. I have answered every ridiculous question you have come up with (with varying degrees of self-control) and just last night it becomes clear that you still haven't gotten the difference between RV and LV and that's just Rule #1 from the OP. We haven't even gotten to Rule #2 yet.

Now you are attempting to turn this into a political debate because "someone told you to hate Rasmussen". Fine. Hate them. I really don't fucking care and the point of the thread is about getting a BASIC understanding of the mechanics of polling. It's NOT intended to be a university level statistics class.

If you want answers to your questions read the previous 7 pages because you are making the same points over and over in different phrasing. Regardless of how you phrase the question, the answer is the same and I have already provided them.

Now whine and cry all you wish...I am not going to waste my time arguing a statistically insignificant point with someone who has yet to grasp Rule #1 of the OP. Come back when you have gotten that far and I will be happy to continue your education.

1. YOU cited Rasmussen as one of the most accurate pollsters in your original post. YOU provided absolutely no evidence to support that. I refuted that with evidence.

Are you trying to tell me that on a forum whose purpose is to offer a venue for debate, that it is inappropriate behaviour to refute, WITH EVIDENCE, an unsubstantiated claim made by a poster who starts a thread?

2. You claimed that pollsters used RV numbers to inflate Obama's standing vs. McCain in the 2008 election. You offered NO substantiation for your claim. I refuted that with evidence.

Same question as above.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What part of "your time is up" didn't you understand?

Whether you are able to defend your positions or not is not my concern. I'm refuting what you're claiming

a. for the benefit of others and b. for my own entertainment.

The FACT that you can't refute what I just posting is not my problem, it's yours.

No the fact is that you are trying to coerce a fourth day of arguments over a point that is statistically irrelevant. Can you fucking understand that? STATISTICALLY IRRELEVANT!!!

Now I have been patient. I have answered every ridiculous question you have come up with (with varying degrees of self-control) and just last night it becomes clear that you still haven't gotten the difference between RV and LV and that's just Rule #1 from the OP. We haven't even gotten to Rule #2 yet.

Now you are attempting to turn this into a political debate because "someone told you to hate Rasmussen". Fine. Hate them. I really don't fucking care and the point of the thread is about getting a BASIC understanding of the mechanics of polling. It's NOT intended to be a university level statistics class.

If you want answers to your questions read the previous 7 pages because you are making the same points over and over in different phrasing. Regardless of how you phrase the question, the answer is the same and I have already provided them.

Now whine and cry all you wish...I am not going to waste my time arguing a statistically insignificant point with someone who has yet to grasp Rule #1 of the OP. Come back when you have gotten that far and I will be happy to continue your education.

The fact that you were incapable of debating like an adult despite your putting up a series of legitimately debatable claims is ample evidence of your lack of credibility.

 

[Toro]

Whether you are able to defend your positions or not is not my concern. I'm refuting what you're claiming

a. for the benefit of others and b. for my own entertainment.

The FACT that you can't refute what I just posting is not my problem, it's yours.

No the fact is that you are trying to coerce a fourth day of arguments over a point that is statistically irrelevant. Can you fucking understand that? STATISTICALLY IRRELEVANT!!!

Now I have been patient. I have answered every ridiculous question you have come up with (with varying degrees of self-control) and just last night it becomes clear that you still haven't gotten the difference between RV and LV and that's just Rule #1 from the OP. We haven't even gotten to Rule #2 yet.

Now you are attempting to turn this into a political debate because "someone told you to hate Rasmussen". Fine. Hate them. I really don't fucking care and the point of the thread is about getting a BASIC understanding of the mechanics of polling. It's NOT intended to be a university level statistics class.

If you want answers to your questions read the previous 7 pages because you are making the same points over and over in different phrasing. Regardless of how you phrase the question, the answer is the same and I have already provided them.

Now whine and cry all you wish...I am not going to waste my time arguing a statistically insignificant point with someone who has yet to grasp Rule #1 of the OP. Come back when you have gotten that far and I will be happy to continue your education.

1. YOU cited Rasmussen as one of the most accurate pollsters in your original post. YOU provided absolutely no evidence to support that. I refuted that with evidence.

Are you trying to tell me that on a forum whose purpose is to offer a venue for debate, that it is inappropriate behaviour to refute, WITH EVIDENCE, an unsubstantiated claim made by a poster who starts a thread?

2. You claimed that pollsters used RV numbers to inflate Obama's standing vs. McCain in the 2008 election. You offered NO substantiation for your claim. I refuted that with evidence.

Same question as above.

Even Nate Silver said that up until 2010, Rasmussen was a very accurate firm. And it has long been known that LV shift the polls to the Republicans.

 

[BluePhantom]

The fact that you were incapable of debating like an adult despite your putting up a series of legitimately debatable claims is ample evidence of your lack of credibility.

Yeah....uh huh. I think I will leave it to the other posters to determine for themselves who is credible and who isn't.

 

[BluePhantom]

YOU cited Rasmussen as one of the most accurate pollsters in your original post. YOU provided absolutely no evidence to support that. I refuted that with evidence.

maybe you ought to go back and re-read the thread. I did several times.

You claimed that pollsters used RV numbers to inflate Obama's standing vs. McCain in the 2008 election. You offered NO substantiation for your claim. I refuted that with evidence.

Same question as above.

No I said pollsters use RV until shortly before the election because it is easier, it requires fewer resources, it's cheaper to perform, and it's not necessary to be deadly accurate when the election is several months away because the landscape will change dramatically. I said liberal organizations and some in the media use RV polls to create the illusion of more support for the Democratic candidate in order to create a bandwagon effect. You don't even know what the fuck is being argued.

Now I have given you more lip service than you deserve as it is. Go back to your studying and let the adults talk.

 

[BluePhantom]

Let me just toss out a scenario for everyone to explain how polling can be used to create a political effect. So let's say someone from the Obama campaign wants to get some information on Wisconsin. So they contact a polling agency and have the following conversation:

Strategist (S): "We want to get a picture of where things stand between Romney and Obama in Wisconsin."

Polling Agency PA): "No problem. Do you want an A poll, RV poll, or LV poll?"

S: "Well what's the difference?"

PA: "Well LV will be the most accurate but because it requires us to collect and analyze a lot more data it will take longer, require more people to do the survey, consume more of our resources to meet your needs and as such it will be a lot more expensive."

S: "Well it's not necessary to be dead on right now. The election is over a half a year away. Let's save ourselves some cash and just go with RV for now and we can do LV the month before the election."

PA: "No problem. You do understand that an RV poll will by nature give the appearance of a more favorable position to your candidate right?"

S: "Yes. We will keep that in mind. Right now we just need a general idea of where things are and it doesn't make a lot of sense to pay so much more money for data that will be outdated in two weeks. RV is perfect for now."

PA: "Fine".

So the RV poll is conducted and it says "Obama +10 over Romney in Wisconsin". That data is given to the Obama campaign and the campaign allows it to be published on RCP.

Now at this point the SEIU sees that poll and says "HEY LOOK AT THIS!!!! Let's get this into the faces of Wisconsin voters because we have a big recall election coming up with Governor Walker and this will give the impression that people in Wisconsin favor the liberal point of view." So they go to one of their sympathetic reporters at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the next day there is a huge headline that reads "Wisconsin Liberals Take Command; Walker in Trouble" and they go to the local CBS affiliate and do the same thing and there's a story on the prime time news about how the liberal movement in Wisconsin is gathering momentum.

Now Marcos Moulitsas sees it and says "Hey we need to get this in the faces of the nation. I want a story about this on the Daily Kos ASAFP" and quicker than lightning there's an article about how great it is to be liberal and how liberals are back in charge in Wisconsin and the liberals are just going to kick every conservative ass they can find right out of office in that state.

Now someone on the Kos staff says "Hey wait a minute...this is an RV poll and Rasmussen published a LV poll in Wisconsin a few days ago and shows that the race is closer. Since LV polls are more accurate that might cause some problems." But undeterred Marcos says "No problem. We will just attack Rasmussen's credibility and call them biased. Hey give our buddy Nate Silver over at the New York Times a call and ask him how to do that."

So they call Nate and Nate says "Well if you really wanted to do that I suppose you could attack them on these three points right here but in reality they are just using LV polls compared to RV polls and at the end of the day there's really no statistical level of significance that would make those charges matter that much."

"Meh...who fucking cares?" cries Marcos. "It's not like the average Joe is going to know that" and so suddenly there a big story on the Daily Kos that says "Silver Blasts Rasmussen as Biased and Unreliable"

Then one day along comes a guy who happens to be a poster at a given message board, and one morning he is drinking his coffee somewhat discouraged about the polling, and he makes his daily visit to the Daily Kos and sees "Silver Blasts Rasmussen as Biased and Unreliable".

"HOORAY!!!!" he squeals with glee. "Now I will completely ignore Rasmussen from now on and I will tell all my friends to do so as well and before you know it they will see what a wonderful, loving man President Obama is and we will all ride off across a rainbow on our unicorns and live in peace and harmony"

And so he goes off joyously to the message board he frequents to share the good news about the second coming of Obama and finds another poster with a technical analysis that lists Rasmussen as one to watch among many because LV polls tend to be more accurate in the grand scheme.

"RASMUSSEN!!!!" our liberal hero spits in fury. "Rasmussen must die!!! The Daily Kos says so" and off he goes on a rant. "Waaaaaaaaa" he cries here and "Waaaaaa" he cries there in the face of logical analyses and statistical realities. In vain he tries to grasp that it was not the polling agencies involved in an evil plot. They just provided the data they were asked to provide. It wasn't the Obama administration involved in an evil plot (this time). They just wanted to see where things stood in a swing state. No it was certain members of the media and special interest groups who used the polls as propaganda to further their cause and protect their financial interests.

Other posters take pity on our frustrated liberal hero and try in vain to explain it to him, but most just give up and watch him stomp and kick and make an ass of himself until finally they all ignore him and our liberal hero sulks away in rage and despair never to be taken seriously again.

AND THEY ALL LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER.

 

[California Girl]

Let me just toss out a scenario for everyone to explain how polling can be used to create a political effect. So let's say someone from the Obama campaign wants to get some information on Wisconsin. So they contact a polling agency and have the following conversation:

Strategist (S): "We want to get a picture of where things stand between Romney and Obama in Wisconsin."

Polling Agency PA): "No problem. Do you want an A poll, RV poll, or LV poll?"

S: "Well what's the difference?"

PA: "Well LV will be the most accurate but because it requires us to collect and analyze a lot more data it will take longer, require more people to do the survey, consume more of our resources to meet your needs and as such it will be a lot more expensive."

S: "Well it's not necessary to be dead on right now. The election is over a half a year away. Let's save ourselves some cash and just go with RV for now and we can do LV the month before the election."

PA: "No problem. You do understand that an RV poll will by nature give the appearance of a more favorable position to your candidate right?"

S: "Yes. We will keep that in mind. Right now we just need a general idea of where things are and it doesn't make a lot of sense to pay so much more money for data that will be outdated in two weeks. RV is perfect for now."

PA: "Fine".

So the RV poll is conducted and it says "Obama +10 over Romney in Wisconsin". That data is given to the Obama campaign and the campaign allows it to be published on RCP.

Now at this point the SEIU sees that poll and says "HEY LOOK AT THIS!!!! Let's get this into the faces of Wisconsin voters because we have a big recall election coming up with Governor Walker and this will give the impression that people in Wisconsin favor the liberal point of view." So they go to one of their sympathetic reporters at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the next day there is a huge headline that reads "Wisconsin Liberals Take Command; Walker in Trouble" and they go to the local CBS affiliate and do the same thing and there's a story on the prime time news about how the liberal movement in Wisconsin is gathering momentum.

Now Marcos Moulitsas sees it and says "Hey we need to get this in the faces of the nation. I want a story about this on the Daily Kos ASAFP" and quicker than lightning there's an article about how great it is to be liberal and how liberals are back in charge in Wisconsin and the liberals are just going to kick every conservative ass they can find right out of office in that state.

Now someone on the Kos staff says "Hey wait a minute...this is an RV poll and Rasmussen published a LV poll in Wisconsin a few days ago and shows that the race is closer. Since LV polls are more accurate that might cause some problems." But undeterred Marcos says "No problem. We will just attack Rasmussen's credibility and call them biased. Hey give our buddy Nate Silver over at the New York Times a call and ask him how to do that."

So they call Nate and Nate says "Well if you really wanted to do that I suppose you could attack them on these three points right here but in reality they are just using LV polls compared to RV polls and at the end of the day there's really no statistical level of significance that would make those charges matter that much."

"Meh...who fucking cares?" cries Marcos. "It's not like the average Joe is going to know that" and so suddenly there a big story on the Daily Kos that says "Silver Blasts Rasmussen as Biased and Unreliable"

Then one day along comes a guy who happens to be a poster at a given message board, and one morning he is drinking his coffee somewhat discouraged about the polling, and he makes his daily visit to the Daily Kos and sees "Silver Blasts Rasmussen as Biased and Unreliable".

"HOORAY!!!!" he squeals with glee. "Now I will completely ignore Rasmussen from now on and I will tell all my friends to do so as well and before you know it they will see what a wonderful, loving man President Obama is and we will all ride off across a rainbow on our unicorns and live in peace and harmony"

And so he goes off joyously to the message board he frequents to share the good news about the second coming of Obama and finds another poster with a technical analysis that lists Rasmussen as one to watch among many because LV polls tend to be more accurate in the grand scheme.

"RASMUSSEN!!!!" our liberal hero spits in fury. "Rasmussen must die!!! The Daily Kos says so" and off he goes on a rant. "Waaaaaaaaa" he cries here and "Waaaaaa" he cries there in the face of logical analyses and statistical realities. In vain he tries to grasp that it was not the polling agencies involved in an evil plot. They just provided the data they were asked to provide. It wasn't the Obama administration involved in an evil plot (this time). They just wanted to see where things stood in a swing state. No it was certain members of the media and special interest groups who used the polls as propaganda to further their cause and protect their financial interests.

Other posters take pity on our frustrated liberal hero and try in vain to explain it to him, but most just give up and watch him stomp and kick and make an ass of himself until finally they all ignore him and our liberal hero sulks away in rage and despair never to be taken seriously again.

AND THEY ALL LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER.

Good luck trying to get that logic through the heads of the blindly partisan twits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

YOU cited Rasmussen as one of the most accurate pollsters in your original post. YOU provided absolutely no evidence to support that. I refuted that with evidence.

maybe you ought to go back and re-read the thread. I did several times.

You claimed that pollsters used RV numbers to inflate Obama's standing vs. McCain in the 2008 election. You offered NO substantiation for your claim. I refuted that with evidence.

Same question as above.

No I said pollsters use RV until shortly before the election because it is easier, it requires fewer resources, it's cheaper to perform, and it's not necessary to be deadly accurate when the election is several months away because the landscape will change dramatically. I said liberal organizations and some in the media use RV polls to create the illusion of more support for the Democratic candidate in order to create a bandwagon effect. You don't even know what the fuck is being argued.

Now I have given you more lip service than you deserve as it is. Go back to your studying and let the adults talk.

Name the liberal pollsters who used RV's to skew the results in Obama's favor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rasmussen's pro-GOP 'house effect',

documented and graphed:

Pollster.com - Political Surveys and Election Polls, Trends, Charts and Analysis

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ipsos and Gallup were still polling RV's at the end of September.

Both of them had Obama with a smaller advantage than did Rasmussen polling LV's.

Explain that while you're at it.

ANYONE want to help BP explain that one??

 

[NYcarbineer]

As the general election heats up between Romney and Obama I am seeing a lot of posts pointing to this poll and that poll and I am noticing an equal amount of misunderstanding from all sides. As I am an admitted "poll geek" (to the point that I have a spreadsheet I wrote to analyze polling data - I know "get a life") I want to take some time to explain how to read polls and get the most from the information they offer. While I imagine there are threads on this topic from 2008 or 2010 it appears it's time for a refresher course at the very least.

Rule #1: Consider the Sample

You will generally see polls sampled in three ways. The first is "adults" (A). Polls that sample "adults" is the least reliable because only about 50%-55% of the eligible population actually turn out to vote. Polls of A might give you an idea of public perception but they don't tell you a lot about who is in the best position to win an election.

The second (and most common) is "registered voters" (RV). This is better than A polls because they disregard anyone who is not eligible and in a position to vote. Still they are not the best because only about 70% of registered voters actually go and cast a ballot. So it's better, but still slightly problematic. Quinnipiac and Gallup are examples of firms that use RV sampling.

The third (and best) is "likely voters" (LV). This considers only people who are registered to vote and meet a statistical criteria that indicates they actually will go vote. LV polls, with only a few rare exceptions (like Quinnipiac, for example) are the ones to pay the most attention to. Rasmussen and SurveyUSA are examples of firms that use a LV sampling method.

Rule #2. Understand Margin of Error

I see people all the time get so excited about a poll that shows their candidate up by 3%. In reality, from a statistical perspective that's a tie. Every poll will have a slightly different margin of error but a good rule of thumb is 4%. If a poll shows a lead of 4% or less, it's a statistical tie and could go either way.

Rule #3. Pay Attention to Timing

A poll in April about an election in November doesn't mean a whole lot. Too much can happen. The economy could dramatically recover or totally tank between those times. A scandal may break. We could get attacked and forced into a military confrontation. A candidate may get a temporary bounce from their party's convention, the selection of a running mate, or even a human interest story that captures the nation's attention. All of these things will influence the polls and voter preference. The closer to the election, the more valuable a poll becomes. This is why we experience the "October Surprise" (the dirty secret that a candidate exposes about their opponent a week or two before the election). Knowing what is happening and when can help you identify the difference between a trend that is likely to stick and a temporary bounce.

Rule #4. Know the Polling Agencies Affiliations and History

Any agency can luck out in a given year. It's important to know which firms show a history of accuracy over multiple election cycles. For example, the Washington Post was great on a few selected state polls in 2010. In 2008 however they were absolutely dreadful. Gallup has a great reputation but over the last several years they have been getting less and less accurate. Rasmussen had a surprisingly weak 2010 but in 2008 and for years prior they were absolutely deadly accurate. What changes? Sometimes their methodology, sometimes nothing....they had a bad year or a good year.

Also keep in mind that some firms are affiliated with a given party. Public Polling Policy (PPP), for example, is funded and affiliated exclusively with the DNC. Magellan Strategies, the RNC. Usually, on RealClearPolitics, thoss agencies are noted (D) or (R) for Democratic affiliated firms or Republican affiliated firms respectively. It's wise to keep in mind who is paying their bills when you consider the validity of their data. That's not to say these firms should be completely disregarded...just that it should be kept in mind.

Rule #5. READ THE FUCKING CROSSTABS

The crosstabs are information about the specifics of the polling demographics in that sample. They are usually at the very beginning or the very end of a polling report. Many liberals might be excited as hell with a poll that shows Obama with an 11% lead until they look more closely and notice that (simply by sheer chance) the polling agency reached a sample where 47% of them identified as Democrats compared to only 23% that identified themselves as Republicans. This creates what is known as the dreaded "outlier". Simply by sheer random chance the agency reached a given demographic that is out of proportion with the United States as a whole and it skewed the results to the point where the data is unreliable.

Rule #6. Trends and Averages are More Important Than Snapshots

A poll is basically a snap shot: "at this precise moment in time and according to the sample we reached, this is what the feeling is". The best way to read polls is to look at a collection of reliable polls and average the results. RealClearPolitics does this with the "RCP average" but that average does not consider all the points I have discussed. If it's a recent poll it gets counted whether it's a good poll or a bad poll.

Tracking the trends associated with the averages shows more than just what the snapshot is but where there is momentum toward one side or the other. It's the trends that matter more when election day is distant. Those snapshots only have real relevance a week or so away from election day because things can happen so fast that even a historically accurate poll can show a dramatic change in their data within a very short period of time depending on what happens to be going on at one point in time compared to the other.

So with all that said let me list in order the common agencies that, through my research and tracking on my spreadsheet, are the most valuable and the most accurate.

The Deadly Accurate Duo (First Tier)
1. SurveyUSA
2. Quinnipiac

Damned Accurate (Second Tier)
3. Rasmussen (slipped from First Tier after a shaky 2010)

Pay Close Attention To (Third Tier)
4. Mason-Dixon
5. PPP

Worth Consideration (Fourth Tier)
6. Gallup
7. Magellan Strategies
8. Strategic Vision

Consider With Care
9. ABC/Washington Post (one good year in a history of disaster does not establish confidence)
10. Fox News (historically getting more and more accurate but not there quite yet)

Best to Ignore
Pretty much everything else

By keeping these above points in mind a true "student of the polls" will be able to get a much more solid understanding of who is winning and losing, how they are winning, why they are winning, and will be able to distinguish between what is important and what is irrelevant. The ability to effectively analyze the polling data can also mean the difference between making a strong argument on a thread or being exposed as a complete tool. These concepts are vital to understand whether you are simply looking for ammo in a debate or you really want a true understanding of the political landscape and your candidate's chances for victory.

You rate Quinnipiac as deadly accurate after pointing out their use of RV's not LV's in some polls.

How is that possible? According to you the RV users are tools of the Democrats.