Hillary's poll numbers tanking...

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly are you confused about?

[/ QUOTE ]

[iron81]

The people who are going to show up to vote are likely voters. There is no possible distinction between the groups barring a time machine. When pollsters ask who is likely to vote, they are asking who is going to show up. The empirical evidence has borne out that asking if a voter is likely to show up effectively screens out non-voters and produces accurate results.

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
The people who are going to show up to vote are likely voters. There is no possible distinction between the groups barring a time machine. When pollsters ask who is likely to vote, they are asking who is going to show up. The empirical evidence has borne out that asking if a voter is likely to show up effectively screens out non-voters and produces accurate results.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple things...

"Likely voters" aren't determined simply by just asking someone if they're likely to show up. That wouldn't be accurate enough, as people on average tend to overstate their intentions. It is usually one of the questions they ask, but there are usually five or ten more questions also. But that isn't really relevant to my point anyways.

More importantly, my point was about turnout, and turnout isn't going to be determined by "likely voters". The likely voters are just that... likely voters. In 2004, voter turnout was about 55%. In 2000, it was about 51%. In 1996, it was under 50%. The difference isn't in the percentage of "likely voters", but rather the people who wouldn't be qualify as "likely voters". They might be considered more of "possible voters", "might vote", "occasional voters", etc. The likely voters are going to vote no matter what; it is the non-likely voters that influence the turnout rate.

I think this topic has been beaten to death. I don't think she can win a general election, others do. Neither one of us is likely to change the others mind, so be it.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The people who are going to show up to vote are likely voters. There is no possible distinction between the groups barring a time machine. When pollsters ask who is likely to vote, they are asking who is going to show up. The empirical evidence has borne out that asking if a voter is likely to show up effectively screens out non-voters and produces accurate results.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple things...

"Likely voters" aren't determined simply by just asking someone if they're likely to show up. That wouldn't be accurate enough, as people on average tend to overstate their intentions. It is usually one of the questions they ask, but there are usually five or ten more questions also. But that isn't really relevant to my point anyways.

More importantly, my point was about turnout, and turnout isn't going to be determined by "likely voters". The likely voters are just that... likely voters. In 2004, voter turnout was about 55%. In 2000, it was about 51%. In 1996, it was under 50%. The difference isn't in the percentage of "likely voters", but rather the people who wouldn't be qualify as "likely voters". They might be considered more of "possible voters", "might vote", "occasional voters", etc. The likely voters are going to vote no matter what; it is the non-likely voters that influence the turnout rate.

I think this topic has been beaten to death. I don't think she can win a general election, others do. Neither one of us is likely to change the others mind, so be it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should start your own polling company. I think you have identified a major flaw in the way all polls work.

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
You should start your own polling company. I think you have identified a major flaw in the way all polls work.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a flaw, it is by design. I would guess that most years, it works fine. But you weren't really interested in that, you just wanted to make a smarmy comment...

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You should start your own polling company. I think you have identified a major flaw in the way all polls work.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a flaw, it is by design. I would guess that most years, it works fine. But you weren't really interested in that, you just wanted to make a smarmy comment...

[/ QUOTE ]


What do you mean by design? You do not think pollsters are trying to accurately predict who will win?

And I am more than willing to change my mind on if she can win but I would need some facts and logical thinking.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't a flaw, it is by design. I would guess that most years, it works fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this year, some completely unique thing that completely immeasurable right now is going to turn the polls on their head and prove you right after all?

I love it. You actually went and did some research into how pollsters utilize 'likely voter' metrics and why they're accurate, concluded yourself that "most years it works fine", THEN you say "oh well, it usually works, but this year it's going to be all wrong anyway".

A+ cognitive dissonance sir. A+

Anyway, for those looking for empirical evidence that demonstrates why pollsters are pretty accurate, you'll want to start here here.

For instance:



Final results: Bush 48%, Gore 48%, Nader 3%

But yeah, these guys were WAY off.

Even if you want to harp on the few percentage points the polling averages were off, it's rather easily explainable by Bluementhal:

"Most of the polls were conducted over the final weekend, although a few were done as much as a week before the election. Over the final weekend, four of the five daily tracking surveys charted by the Polling Report (Gallup, Zogby, Battleground and TIPP) showed Gore gaining ground. Second, most of the surveys gave Ralph Nader more support (4% on average) than he received on Election Day (2.7%). Presumably, some Nader supporters switched to Gore at the last moment when the final polls showed that Gore closing on Bush."

I suppose I shouldn't even sarcastically beat the "polls are inaccurate" drum, since you've conceded that "most years it works fine". At this point, you've just embraced the notion that while polling usually works fine, this year it's going to be proven grossly inaccurate by your crackpot theories.

Like others have said, you may want to contact these pollsters and let them know of the major theoretical "Hillary Flaw" you've found. I suspect if you're demonstrably correct on election day, you'll make untold millions. Not sure why you're wasting your energy here when there's a multi-billion dollar polling industry to usurp.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The people who are going to show up to vote are likely voters. There is no possible distinction between the groups barring a time machine. When pollsters ask who is likely to vote, they are asking who is going to show up. The empirical evidence has borne out that asking if a voter is likely to show up effectively screens out non-voters and produces accurate results.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple things...

"Likely voters" aren't determined simply by just asking someone if they're likely to show up. That wouldn't be accurate enough, as people on average tend to overstate their intentions. It is usually one of the questions they ask, but there are usually five or ten more questions also. But that isn't really relevant to my point anyways.

More importantly, my point was about turnout, and turnout isn't going to be determined by "likely voters". The likely voters are just that... likely voters. In 2004, voter turnout was about 55%. In 2000, it was about 51%. In 1996, it was under 50%. The difference isn't in the percentage of "likely voters", but rather the people who wouldn't be qualify as "likely voters". They might be considered more of "possible voters", "might vote", "occasional voters", etc. The likely voters are going to vote no matter what; it is the non-likely voters that influence the turnout rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the screen for likely voters (in a general election) is typical just "How likely are you to vote" (only asking people who are already registered). Many firms use an additional screen for "definite voters", which may rely on past voting history, etc, but this is almost never used/reported by the media. And of course, there are various things that pollsters do to weight survey respondents by likelihood to vote, etc, but again, the polls you see in the media are usually not that sophisticated.

People do overstate their intentions, as you say, so the screen for "likely voters" used by most polling firms nets the vast majority of people who end up voting. It is much more probable that a "likely voter" will end up not voting than than that an "unlikely voter" will vote.

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the screen for likely voters (in a general election) is typical just "How likely are you to vote" (only asking people who are already registered). Many firms use an additional screen for "definite voters", which may rely on past voting history, etc, but this is almost never used/reported by the media. And of course, there are various things that pollsters do to weight survey respondents by likelihood to vote, etc, but again, the polls you see in the media are usually not that sophisticated.

People do overstate their intentions, as you say, so the screen for "likely voters" used by most polling firms nets the vast majority of people who end up voting. It is much more probable that a "likely voter" will end up not voting than than that an "unlikely voter" will vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check out the Gallup standards from 2004: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/...oters_i_1.html

[ QUOTE ]
Although Gallup has made minor modifications, the questions and procedures that Perry described 44 years ago remain in use by the Gallup Poll today. Among those who say they are registered to vote (or who plan to do so before the election), Gallup uses the following questions to create a scale that varies from 0 to 7:

1) How much have you thought about the upcoming elections for president, quite a lot or only a little? (Quite a lot = 1 point)

2) Do you happen to know where people who live in your neighborhood go to vote? (Yes = 1 point)

3) Have you ever voted in your precinct or election district? (Yes = 1 point)

4) How often would you say you vote, always, nearly always, part of the time or seldom (Always or nearly always = 1 point)

5) Do you plan to vote in the presidential election this November? (Yes = 1 point)

6) In the last presidential election, did you vote for Al Gore or George Bush, or did things come up to keep you from voting?" (Voted = 1 point)

7) If "1" represents someone who will definitely not vote and "10" represents someone who definitely will vote, where on this scale would you place yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]

New York Times says that places use past voting habits, length of residency registrations status, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...gstandards.pdf