Democracy4Sale wrote: But we all know that teabaggers are supposed to be smarter than Democrats, and therefore immune from psychological games....Don't we?
The hardcore will still vote for Mitt no matter what, but it might inspire the Romney leaners to stay home.
Well, maybe that will offset all of the Obama leaners that are being disenfranchised with these chicken-sh*t voter-ID laws...
Becky wrote: Over sampling leaves the public with a feeling that the race is over and folks should just not bother to vote.....least that is what people tell me in conversations.....for what it is worth.
Democrats believe they are psychologically affecting the vote.
All the more reason to divulge that the weighting done to bring accuracy to the polls is suspect when sound statistical principles are applied to them. I think it a very relevant point that the weighting method being used comes from a single election rather than an averaging of long term trends. I can certainly see giving the outlier year a heavier balance in the averaging because it is more recent, but to wholly ignore the historical averages in favor of using a single year that contains significant deviations from those historical averages would seem to be a departure from applying sound statistical principles to the polls being conducted during this election cycle. What happens to the accuracy of the polls if young voter participation is only 50% higher than average rather than 100% higher or if it returns to its historical averages? How accurate can the polls be if black participation is 12.5% instead of 14% this November?
The methodology of the weighting applied to the polls has now been made transparent and those conducting them now have the opportunity to adjust their weighting methods if they deem it necessary. If the weighting is adjusted as a result, then it can be rightly said that a potential flaw has been addressed in an effort to make the poll a more accurate representation of the current landscape. If the weighting method remains the same, then you can expect that the potential flaw that exists will continue to receive additional attention every time new poll results are released which relied on the potentially flawed weighting methodology. Likely that will take the form of two sets of results being reported, one using 2008 data alone and one using 2008 data included in historical averages. So long as Obama leads when either weighting method is used, the veracity of the polls will remain unquestioned; but if the results change when the method used to weight them includes more than a single election, then the veracity of the poll, and the integrity of the poll itself, will be called into question.
I don't see any option for those conducting the polls at this point other than to adjust how their results are weighted if they desire to avoid having their integrity and their results called into question. It's one thing to make an "innocent" mistake while one remains unaware of it, quite another to continue making the same mistake once it has been brought to your attention.
Democracy4Sale wrote: But we all know that teabaggers are supposed to be smarter than Democrats, and therefore immune from psychological games....Don't we?
Do you think a method which weights polls using participation data that is significantly different from historical averages is capable of producing an accurate poll and can be said to be using sound statistical principles? Doesn't that call into question the ability of the poll to represent itself as a "scientific" one if it fails to address a potential flaw after it is brought to their attention?
When I had my candy business name was Cinnamon Girl of course. I went into a building and they said over the speaker that 'the Cinnamon Girl" was here. Forgot to say I had snacks and candy. I had all these men come down to see who I was and they did come to see what a 'cinnamon girl' was. I wondered what they were expecting. LOL
CinnamonGirl wrote: When I had my candy business name was Cinnamon Girl of course. I went into a building and they said over the speaker that 'the Cinnamon Girl" was here. Forgot to say I had snacks and candy. I had all these men come down to see who I was and they did come to see what a 'cinnamon girl' was. I wondered what they were expecting. LOL
I'm certain they were all wanting to meet the Cinnamon Girl of Neil Young fame. Who wouldn't want to meet that girl?
