Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They call cellphones. If anything, that should make the polls more reliable.
Do you have any evidence that polls are less reliable today than they were 20 years ago? Some Nate Silver analysis, for example? Or are you just saying what you think to be true without having any type of evidentiary basis?
They call cellphones. If anything, that should make the polls more reliable.
Do you have any evidence that polls are less reliable today than they were 20 years ago? Some Nate Silver analysis, for example? Or are you just saying what you think to be true without having any type of evidentiary basis?
Well...I thought it was pretty common knowledge.
Are you aware that Gallup stopped doing polling due to accuracy reasons?
Quote:
On the negative side, the glut of polls often doesn’t add up to much, while problems with getting accurate results are starting to hurt the polling industry’s reputation.
The announcement this week that Gallup, one of America’s most storied pollsters, will no longer do horse-race polling on who’s ahead in the 2016 election cycle only underscored the huge changes in the industry.
I've also met and talked with pollster Ann Selzer of the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Poll....one of the most accurate polls as of late. She full acknowledges the challenges.
Cell phone numbers aren't readily available like landlines were. They also aren't as public. You also get demographic irregularities because younger people don't have landlines.
There is actually quite a bit written about this if you're interested in reading up.
I'm not saying you can't use polls as your guideline for making predictions. My thread is based on historical fact of what has occurred in the past primary seasons and that (so far) is a solid track record to count on.
Based on that, we'll have either Cruz or Trump as GOP nominee.
I'd suggest if someone is going to use polls to predict, that hey circle back and let us know how well that particular poll has done during the past election cycles (as I've done here to show how past caucus/primary results for Iowa and NH have been prophetic) so we have something to compare to for validity.
I asked for evidence. Here is what Nate Silver says.
Quote:
But all of this must be weighed against a stubborn fact: We have seen no widespread decline in the accuracy of election polls, at least not yet. Despite their challenges, the polls have reflected the outcome of recent presidential, Senate and gubernatorial general elections reasonably well. If anything, the accuracy of election polls has continued to improve.
I’ll conduct this analysis in the context of the seeming contradiction we identified: The polls have managed to produce high-quality output (pretty good forecasts of election outcomes) with worse and worse input (fewer and fewer people responding to them). It’s something of a paradox.
The question is not whether it's become harder to poll. The question is whether polls are missing the mark by a wider margin today than they were 20 years ago. Apparently, they are not. Just look at Silver's charts on polling error since the 90s.
Ann Selzer is just one pollster. She's not in the business of picking apart historical data for dozens and dozens of polls. But that's precisely what Nate Silver is in the business of doing. If there is anyone on Earth who can say whether polls are performing better or worse today, it's him.
The question is not whether it's become harder to poll. The question is whether polls are missing the mark by a wider margin today than they were 20 years ago. Apparently, they are not.
Ann Selzer is just one pollster. She's not in the business of picking apart historical data for dozens and dozens of polls. But that's precisely what Nate Silver is in the business of doing. If there is anyone on Earth who can say whether polls are performing better or worse today, it's him.
That is interesting. Thanks for sharing.
That said, you don't find it odd that Gallup...who's business is polling...got out of doing this for political races because they didn't feel it could be done accurately any longer?
That said, you don't find it odd that Gallup...who's business is polling...got out of doing this for political races because they didn't feel it could be done accurately any longer?
It's becoming increasingly expensive to poll so it's become more difficult to do. That doesn't necessarily mean that the people who continue to do it are less accurate than they've been in the past.
It's becoming increasingly expensive to poll so it's become more difficult to do. That doesn't necessarily mean that the people who continue to do it are less accurate than they've been in the past.
I get that, but polling is what Gallup does. They are a polling company. They've determined they can no longer do it effectively.
It's becoming increasingly expensive to poll so it's become more difficult to do. That doesn't necessarily mean that the people who continue to do it are less accurate than they've been in the past.
Yes, actually they are less accurate. Ask Eric Cantor. They only reach certain demographics. No robocall polling allowed on cell phones, people screen calls, busy people don't have time take to answer polling surveys. Therefore they get a skewed demographic. Marketing agencies also call them selves polling companies. They aren't.
In addition, they used to predict outcomes based on endorsements. Doesn't count for anything any more.
I've also met and talked with pollster Ann Selzer of the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Poll....one of the most accurate polls as of late. She full acknowledges the challenges.
Cell phone numbers aren't readily available like landlines were. They also aren't as public. You also get demographic irregularities because younger people don't have landlines.
There is actually quite a bit written about this if you're interested in reading up.
Also people can have cell phones with area codes from different states - such as the state where they used to live. This is fairly common. Lots of folks are moving to different states as normal human migration but they keep their old cell phone number.
The establishment candidates got more votes (together) than Trump or Cruz. Nearly half. Jeb! is your "or.."
Jeb is in shaky ground between losing Iowa AND NH. Same with Hillary; she barely got by Bernie in Iowa and got her butt handed to her in NH.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
