Matthew Yglesias » Polling We Can’t Believe In

Nov 8th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Polling We Can’t Believe In

I think a post-election Gallup tracking poll is really what we don’t need. If this past election revealed anything, it’s that all too many people don’t grasp the concept of “random variation” in this kind of thing. But suffice it to say that if you do a poll of roughly Gallup’s size and take a three day rolling average, you wind up generating all sorts of neat-looking vaguely sinusoidal curves that people then dream up narratives to “explain.” The whole thing’s a waste of time, and ultimate does more to misinform people than to help them understand the world.

Comments
28

28 Responses to “Polling We Can’t Believe In”

Petey Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
“The whole thing’s a waste of time, and ultimate does more to misinform people than to help them understand the world.”

A reasonably concise encapsulation of Matthew’s contempt for the electorate and democracy.
John Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Does Petey actually think about what he’s saying at this point, or does he just find random quotes and then claim that they prove whatever nonsense he’s trying to demonstrate about Matt today?

I mean, really? Thinking that tracking polls are a waste of time shows contempt for democracy? Seriously?
David Shor Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I’m inclined to disagree.

There are plenty of sites out there(Like mine), which exist to filter out sampling error and calm everyone down.

Surely, people will eventually start reading them…
pseudonymous in nc Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
“a waste of time”

A reasonably concise encapsulation of Petey.
Brad Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Hmm.. I don’t really remember Matt viewing polling data on George Bush with similar disdain. I wonder what could’ve changed?
Ed Marshall Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I wonder what could’ve changed?

Probably Nate Silver.
Cicero78 Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
New progressive blog http://liberalmuckraker.blogspot.com/
Jack H. Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I really don’t get the point of this post.
Flo Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Have they yet figured out the Bradley effect, the Wilder effect, the reverse-Bradley effect or the Stevens (I vote for felons) impact?
duBois Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
The polling shows Obama’s favorability rating going up (70% favorability) and his unfavorability going down (25%). What relevance this could have to the odious George W and Yglesias’s opinion of polling is left unsaid. Want to explain?
Doug Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
I really don’t get the point of this post.

I think he just needed to use the word sinusoidal in a sentence.
Ed Marshall Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
“a waste of time”

A reasonably concise encapsulation of Petey.

As someone who spent blood and sweat on everything, my first instinct on a win was to beat on PUMA’s and Petey (who flirted with the project, and became some weird idiot all to himself). The day after the election I hit up riverdaughter and Charles Johnson and called them all the most useless pack of stupid filth that anyone could imagine.

They are. The worst fact is they sort of know they are. Ratfuckers who lose are the most pathetic people on the planet. So it was like picking out the retarded kid and creaming him with a dodgeball.
Ed Marshall Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Larry Johnson, not Charles Johnson.
Ben C Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
So because some people don’t understand statistics, that means they shouldn’t bother reporting them at all?

That seems drastic.
low-tech cyclist Says:
November 9th, 2008 at 5:58 am
We get a new Presidential job rating poll showing up at pollingreport.com about every other day, on the average.

Might as well just make it continuous, at this point.

I just wonder how long Gallup will bother, since people aren’t going to click through to their site daily to see the Obama approval-rating tracker, the way many of us did for the horse race polling tracker.
Tom Fuller Says:
November 9th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Matt, I don’t think you’re taking into consideration the employment opportunities for those who try to assign significance to the random fluctuations in polls. The fluctuations of the stock market’s random walk have kept generations of analysts employed gainfully, plucking equally random headlines and saying ‘this is why the market has moved…’ With newspapers on the decline, it seems unfair that you would try and remove this opportunity for flacks and hacks.
viagra Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 10:42 am
viagra
Incredible site!
cialis Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 11:00 pm
cialis
Great site. Good info
levitra Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:21 am
levitraIncredible site!
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 9:36 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
zyban Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
xanax Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Incredible site!
xanax
tramadol Says:
March 17th, 2009 at 3:38 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:36 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:25 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
cheap viagra Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:29 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra

Matt Yglesias

Polling We Can’t Believe In

28 Responses to “Polling We Can’t Believe In”

Blogroll