r*s
发帖数: 2555 | 1 http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/301220-you-cant-trust-polls-clintons-winning-but-our-polling-methods-are
Virtually all the opinion polls right now give Hillary Clinton a firm lead
over Donald Trump in the race for the White House this November. The latest
poll average compiled by RealClearPolitics puts her at least five points
ahead of Trump, with or without Gary Johnson and Jill Stein included as
choices; the Huffington Post Pollster projects a better than 99-percent
chance that “Clinton is very likely leading;” and Nate Silver’s
FiveThirtyEight gives her an 85 percent chance of winning.
It looks like the race is decided.
But that was the same sentiment that led the major pollsters 68 years ago to
stop polling several weeks before the 1948 election. Tom Dewey’s lead was
so firm and consistent that there was no way Harry Truman would be able to
win. At least, so it seemed. The man from Missouri did win, of course,
thrust to victory by a late surge of votes sparked by his whistle-stop
campaign.
If, as Harold Wilson’s once said, a week in politics is an eternity, what
do we call three weeks left until Election Day? More than ample time to
squander a lead or to catch up.
Polling would never again be suspended weeks before Election Day ever again,
no matter how big the lead in the polls. Yet this has not proved to be a
guarantee that polls would get it right in the end.
In the most recent presidential election, Gallup’s final estimate of likely
voters, issued on the eve of Election Day in 2012, projected Mitt Romney as
the winner. A day later, Obama was the winner by nearly 4 percentage
points.
Soon after this debacle the Gallup Organization, the inventor of scientific
polling in the 1930’s, fell on its sword and quit the election horse-race
business altogether. Rasmussen got it wrong in 2012 as well, but they opted
to stay in the business.
But in all fairness to those polling giants, they weren’t alone. Three
pollsters wimped out, projecting a tied vote, and of the four remaining
polls on the RealClearPolitics summary, only two predicted an Obama victory,
and those two did so with minimal confidence.
Despite avoiding the fatal mistake of 1948, has polling really gotten any
better divining voters’ choices?
To start with something basic, opinion polls are really about “opinions,”
not actions. At their best, they can tell us how people feel about political
issues and personalities. Do voters, for instance, like or dislike
candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
Yet having an opinion and acting on it are two different things. Barely 6 in
10 voting-age American citizens turn out for presidential elections.
Ascertaining the opinions of 100 citizens is just a start. Now you have to
determine which 60 of them actually take the time to mark a ballot. They are
the “likely voters.” They are the only ones that count. But to find them
is no easy chore.
It is ingrained in all of us that voting is civic duty. So nearly all of us
say, oh yes, I’ll vote, and then many will not follow through.
Miscalculations of which respondents will turn out to vote can easily screw
up a poll prediction, so would it be sure thing if we just dealt with actual
voters?
Election-day exit polls quiz citizens who just turned out to vote, asking
them to mark their vote one more time on a two-page questionnaire. This
happens minutes after someone cast a vote, so there is no reason to worry
that voters don’t remember how they voted; also, since they are filling out
a form, voters need not directly express their decision to the poll-taker.
With a properly drawn random sample, such an exit poll should hit the result
of the election like a hammer on the head of a nail. But that didn’t
happen in the 2004 presidential election. At the end of a full day of exit-
polling, the final tally of the national electorate showed Kerry beating
Bush by 51 to 48. It was a safe lead, way beyond statistical shadows of
doubt, given the large number of voters in the poll (over 10,000). But of
course, Bush was re-elected that day.
What could possibly go wrong with a poll of actual voters, moments after
they voted?
The reason for the misfire, it seems, was the refusal of some voters who had
been selected for the exit poll to participate. More Bush voters demurred
than did Kerry voters, skewing the poll result in Kerry’s favor. Failure to
respond is another Achilles heel for pre-election polls. It is rampant in
polls conducted over the telephone, still the most common means of getting
respondents.
Few if any polling organizations report the response rate, that is, the
percentage of respondents selected by some form of probability sampling who
actually completed the interview. Participation can be as low as 1 in 10
because the vast majority of those who are called do not answer poll
questions. Can pollsters just ignore those who don’t respond? Do people
who decline to participate vote the same way as those who respond?
To assume so seems a risky bet — a bet Kerry lost in 2004.
So hold off on trusting poll-driven proclamations of a Clinton victory just
yet. Voters have a way of always getting the last word.
Norpoth is professor of political science at Stony Brook University. He is
co-author of ‘The American Voter Revisited’ and has published widely on
topics of electoral behavior. | k**k
发帖数: 214 | 2 the hill感觉比较中立，平时的报道双方各打五十大板，比其他媒体好很多了 | r*s
发帖数: 2555 | 3 One of the most famous failures of political polling occurred in the 1948
presidential election between Harry Truman (the democratic incumbent) and
Thomas Dewey (the republican challenger). There were also a couple of third
party candidates. The Gallup, Roper, and Crossley polls all predicted that
Dewey would defeat Truman by a significant margin, but in fact, just the
opposite happened. The results of the polls and the actual election results
(in percentages) are given in the following table:
1948 Election
Candidate Crossley Poll Gallup Poll Roper Poll Election Results
Truman 45 44 38 50
Dewey 50 50 53 45
Others 5 6 9 5 | R**********9
发帖数: 1487 | 4 更不要说现在的poll猪党占的比例大幅度高于和党，但和党投票热情今年明显高于猪党
。而且现在的poll普遍女性比例大大高于男性，所以及其不可信。今年Trump铁票很铁
，现在都对MSM很愤怒，turn out会很高。反观老妖婆rally没人气，网上被人骂，成天
到处躲，支持率只在poll上有显示，something is fishy, folks, that's what I can
tell you!
latest
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 13
【在 r*s 的大作中提到】
: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/301220-you-cant-trust-polls-clintons-winning-but-our-polling-methods-are
: Virtually all the opinion polls right now give Hillary Clinton a firm lead
: over Donald Trump in the race for the White House this November. The latest
: poll average compiled by RealClearPolitics puts her at least five points
: ahead of Trump, with or without Gary Johnson and Jill Stein included as
: choices; the Huffington Post Pollster projects a better than 99-percent
: chance that “Clinton is very likely leading;” and Nate Silver’s
: FiveThirtyEight gives her an 85 percent chance of winning.
: It looks like the race is decided.
: But that was the same sentiment that led the major pollsters 68 years ago to
| q***0
发帖数: 225 | 5 你以为搞统计的人都是吃白饭的啊？poll的方法是不断在改善的。先说Henry Truman那
次，几十年前的polling办法容易出错不说，最大的问题是电话还不完全普及，poll没
有调查到很多穷人。当然poll不是fool proof，会出错，这也是538网站把所有poll的
data都拿来分析。2012年Gallap poll 错了，但是绝大部分的poll是对的。
说起poll里女选民和男选民，或者两党比例不一样，这不是错误，而是根据以前的
data处理过了，为的是让poll更准确 | R**********9
发帖数: 1487 | 6 2008奥巴马的猪党turn out比和党高7个点，现在的poll猪党比和党高11个点，你真的
相信猪党会比投O8更有激情？如果是真的话，为什么希婆rally没人，网上没人气，自
己的书卖不出去，街上插的牌子寥寥无几？你的智商真是堪忧啊！
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 13
【在 q***0 的大作中提到】
: 你以为搞统计的人都是吃白饭的啊？poll的方法是不断在改善的。先说Henry Truman那
: 次，几十年前的polling办法容易出错不说，最大的问题是电话还不完全普及，poll没
: 有调查到很多穷人。当然poll不是fool proof，会出错，这也是538网站把所有poll的
: data都拿来分析。2012年Gallap poll 错了，但是绝大部分的poll是对的。
: 说起poll里女选民和男选民，或者两党比例不一样，这不是错误，而是根据以前的
: data处理过了，为的是让poll更准确
| q***0
发帖数: 225 | 7 理性一点，不是所有人都愿意去rally。如果只看rally，当年尼克松输的裤子都没了，
什么叫 silent majority
【在 R**********9 的大作中提到】
: 2008奥巴马的猪党turn out比和党高7个点，现在的poll猪党比和党高11个点，你真的
: 相信猪党会比投O8更有激情？如果是真的话，为什么希婆rally没人，网上没人气，自
: 己的书卖不出去，街上插的牌子寥寥无几？你的智商真是堪忧啊！
:
: ★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 13
| r*s
发帖数: 2555 | 8 从 rally 的热情看恰恰今年会有许多从来没有投过票的人出来投川普。
: 理性一点，不是所有人都愿意去rally。如果只看rally，当年尼克松输的裤子都
没了，
: 什么叫 silent majority
【在 q***0 的大作中提到】
: 理性一点，不是所有人都愿意去rally。如果只看rally，当年尼克松输的裤子都没了，
: 什么叫 silent majority
|
| R**********9
发帖数: 1487 | 9 没有只看rally啊，不是还看了yard sign，book sales，网上poll网民的投票热情，等
等，实在没找到希婆的支持者在哪里！你说silent majority，他们网上可以发声啊，
为什么希婆还要出大价钱买YouTube的网红？你的所谓希婆的silent majority是不是都
住在棺材里？到投票那天爬出来啊？
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 13
【在 q***0 的大作中提到】
: 理性一点，不是所有人都愿意去rally。如果只看rally，当年尼克松输的裤子都没了，
: 什么叫 silent majority
| q***0
发帖数: 225 | 10 如果只看这个版，川普得票率是很高，呵呵
【在 R**********9 的大作中提到】
: 没有只看rally啊，不是还看了yard sign，book sales，网上poll网民的投票热情，等
: 等，实在没找到希婆的支持者在哪里！你说silent majority，他们网上可以发声啊，
: 为什么希婆还要出大价钱买YouTube的网红？你的所谓希婆的silent majority是不是都
: 住在棺材里？到投票那天爬出来啊？
:
: ★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 13
|
|
