What polling Data to Watch?

[william the wie]

Currently the main driver of polling data is the ACA. The GOP house caucus is stupid enough to be pushing an ACA replacement package that could make the Ds look less inept than they actually are. Then again neither the Ds nor anyone else will know the key failure points of the ACA until the April through September financial reports of the underwriters have been analyzed. At that point the probable turnout figures for both parties will be known. Based on the past the Rs should take all races D+2 or less Democratic leaning in 2014.

The ACA does not make it worthwhile to underwriters to go any further than what anti-dscrimination laws require in outreach and networks. Since most current waiting line deaths pre-ACA are disproportionately black and Hispanic and no incentives in the program to correct for that this may or may not get interesting.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I try to watch all polling, but presidential matchups are the easiest and most consistent to compare, because it is a 1:1 correspondence between names.

In polling for the ACA, the questions can be so varied and therefore the results are very difficult to compare.

For instance, in virtually all polling, a majority of Americans are AGAINST the ACA, which the Right likes to trumpet.

Unfortunately for them, within the questions are usually sub-questions as to WHY and in most cases, a good chunk of the American public is against the ACA not because it goes to far, but rather, because it doesn't go far enough.

It is possible that, at this moment, the ACA is the main driver of polling, but that doesn't mean it is going to stay that way. The vast majority of Americans are unaffected by the ACA - they maintain their policies, etc.

Just my two cents.

Thanks for making the thread. Hope lots of people contribute.

 

[Politico]

All polls are rigged. There's no point in watching.

 

[Statistikhengst]

All polls are rigged. There's no point in watching.

I cannot support that statement.

What is do support is the idea that you should never trust just one single poll all on it's own.

However, when many polls - taken by very different and independent-from-each-other pollsters - all show the same results, then it is very likely that the data is quite accurate.

 

[william the wie]

All polls are rigged. There's no point in watching.

I cannot support that statement.

What is do support is the idea that you should never trust just one single poll all on it's own.

However, when many polls - taken by very different and independent-from-each-other pollsters - all show the same results, then it is very likely that the data is quite accurate.

Agreed. The CBO report slamming the ACA that was just released being a case in point. The CBO is not supposed to answer truly open ended questions and doesn't. The Key questions politically were not addressed by the CBO report:

Since poor people generally and poor minority people, in particular, tend to be sicker, younger if they don't reside near a teaching hospital they will get very poor service. For example nearly half of MS has zero ACA insurance providers. Blacks and Hispanics dying at higher rates than Paddies is true now but how much worse will it get?

Official ERs outside of ACA networks will vanish as some in places like GA and CA already have. The lack of adequate and timely emergency services due to the ACA is not yet cropping up on say Real Clear Politics but what effects will be seen as the ACA progresses?

Those questions and others are not yet being asked.

 

[Politico]

No you could trust one single poll if it was unbiased. There just aren't any. No money in it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No you could trust one single poll if it was unbiased. There just aren't any. No money in it.

Untrue.

Every single poll CAN have a certain amount of mathematical bias in it, but the composite of those polls is usually pretty darned close to reality.

I have proven the point more than once over at my own politics blog.

In 2008, using the polling averages only, I predicted Obama 52.77%. He won with 52.87%. I was off by only 0.10%. It just doesn't get closer than that. I predicted a +7.54% winning margin. He won by +7.26%. Again, off by only 0.28% - that's nothing more than statistical noise.

The pres polling in 2012 was FAR more tilted to the Right than to the left. That said, even the worst pollster of that season, Rasmussen, hit the bullseye with it's Pennsylvania poll.

 

[Politico]

No you haven't.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No you haven't.

Yes, I have.


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

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Can pollsters be consistently off?

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: GE 2008 - End Analysis

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Election results by state - margin comparison to end polling and to 2004

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: 52.77!!!!