The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early Liberal Edition
|Subject: Re: Gallup Poll results||Date: 10/21/2012 8:01 PM|
|Author: sykesix||Number: 45888 of 53438|
This poll results not only seems to be completely out of line with other polls, but considering how Presidents are elected, appears completely meaningless.
Gallup must realize this is a nonsense result. I wonder if they publicized this just to get publicity - even if they undermine their credibility once the election is held.
The way polls are reported and consumed by the public is a peeve of mine. As you point out, a simple national poll tells us very little about who is likely to be president.
Also, polls will--and should be expected to--vary from the true value. If one poll tends to be an outlier, it probably is. Gallup's likely voter poll tends to favor Romney more than other organizations, even Rasmussen. This raises a red flag that there might be a problem with Gallup's methodology.
But that still really doesn't matter because the president is elected by the electoral college and not the popular vote. If you want to know what is going on, the only sensible way to do it is to look at the state polls and add up the electoral votes. Nate Silver is the most famous guy who does this, but there are others IMO who are even better. This guy for example:
And you can even take a crack at it yourself. If you look at the states who are likely to fall for Obama and add up the electoral votes, Obama wins a decent margin. That has been true all summer and fall. Romney has never been very close. However "Romney Not Very Close Again Today" isn't an attention grabbing headline, so we hear about the close to meaningless Gallup national poll.
Over the past while, I've made some posts called "Wingnut Madness" that documents the innumeracy of our friends on the other side of the aisle, especially in regards to polling. They don't understand what polls mean or how to interpret them. So kike mankind has done from time immemorial, they create fairy tales to explain things they can't understand. The true answers are right there in front of them, they just can't be bothered.
Here's another one in the Wingnut Madness series. Noted wingnut blogger Matt K. Lewis at the Daily Caller wrote an article called "Nate Silver vs. the world." Wingnuts have developed that theory that Nate Silver must be a Democratic operative because he's predicting Obama will win.
But empirical evidence suggests the race is actually close. At the time of this writing, Real Clear Politics poll average has Romney up .1 percent.)
So why hasn't Silver adjusted accordingly?
Because the election ain't decided by the national vote, that's why. We all learned that in fifth grade civics, right? But Lewis answers the question by concluding that Silver must a liar. Instead of looking at Silver's webpage and seeing how he calculates the odds. Lewis comes up with a conspiracy theory to fill in the gaps based on his own astonishing ignorance of the American political system. Mind you, this idiot is considered a bright light among wingnut journalists.
|Copyright 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|