A little extra information regarding my post yesterday about the "weighting" of poll results by major media outlets. The Newsweek Magazine poll released last week showing President Obama's approval rating to be 47 percent with 45 percent disapproving had some interesting "weighting" used.
Even more extreme than the CBS poll I discussed yesterday, Newsweek weighted the Democrat sample by 4 points while reducing the Republican sample by 3 points creating a false dichotomy of a 7 point spread between self-identified Republicans and Democrats. As with the CBS News poll from yesterday, this is the exact spread from the 2008 election. Is is really realistic to use those numbers now?
I suppose the unanswered question is WHY they would use obviously incorrect weighting to produce a poll that cannot help but be dismissed as an outlier?
Are they cheer leading, hoping to arouse the Democrat base?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Outliers or Out-and-out liars?
Many years ago at the University of Texas at Arlington, I took a senior level course in Public Opinion research. It was one of the most fascinating classes that I took while in college, because I learned that public opinion research is subject to many unintended errors that can produce a result that falls outside of expectations or is not in line with other similar polls. In the trade, these are called outliers.
I also learned that the opinion data may be "weighted" so as better to reflect the population as a whole. For example, if we are trying to survey a group of people about their opinions on colored contact lenses, and we want to sample an equitable distribution of different eye colors, we would first have to determine what the percentages of each common eye color is in the population. For the sake of argument, let us say that 15 percent of the population has blue eyes, 15 percent green and 60 percent brown. Unfortunately, when you finished your survey, you found that you had more than 15 percent of your respondents with blue eyes and fewer than 60 percent with brown eyes. You then apply a process called "weighting" in which the opinions of the people with brown eyes are given more value or importance than those of the blue eyed people in order to conform with the statistical distribution. Unfortunately, if your assumptions or facts about the actual population distribution of the various eye colors is wrong, then your weighting is wrong, and your final analysis is likely to produce an outlier.
On July 21st of this year, according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, President Obama's job approval numbers went "underwater". That is to say that those who disapprove of his job performance outnumber those who approve of it. This has held steady to today, some days reaching as much as a five to six point spread. Repeated polls from Fox News, the AP, Reuters, CNN and USA Today have indicated that the job disapproval has surpassed the job approval ratings, at least to some extent.
Then, in the last two weeks have come three separate polls from Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine and CBS Television that suddenly show President Obama's job approval rating to be back "above water" as much as four percentage points. I found this particularly interesting since the daily polls run by Gallup and Rasmussen Reports still show the president to be "underwater" by as much as six percentage points.
So, I decided to look into what we poll wonks call "the internals". Those things like the breakdown of the sample including assumptions made about the distribution of the population between Republicans, Democrats and Independents. It was interesting what I found.
The CBS poll in particular "weighted" the results to over sample persons self identified as Democrats by 1.1 percent and Independents by two percentage points and under sampling self identified Republicans by 2.7 percent. This assumes that the political landscape of the United States has not changed since the Presidential Election in 2008.
This totally flies in the face of current polling that shows the political divide less than 3 percent.
Although I have been unable to access the "internals" of the Time or Newsweek polls, I have no doubt that their results were "weighted" in the same manner.
Did they make an honest mistake in "weighting" the numbers with outdated population distributions?
Did they deliberately "weight" the numbers to get the result they wanted?
Neither Time Magazine and Newsweek Magazine are know to be friends to Republicans any more than CBS Television. In fact, quite the opposite.
I can't believe that these are the same people who moan and groan about how Americans don't trust the mainstream media any more. Do we need a better reason why?
I also learned that the opinion data may be "weighted" so as better to reflect the population as a whole. For example, if we are trying to survey a group of people about their opinions on colored contact lenses, and we want to sample an equitable distribution of different eye colors, we would first have to determine what the percentages of each common eye color is in the population. For the sake of argument, let us say that 15 percent of the population has blue eyes, 15 percent green and 60 percent brown. Unfortunately, when you finished your survey, you found that you had more than 15 percent of your respondents with blue eyes and fewer than 60 percent with brown eyes. You then apply a process called "weighting" in which the opinions of the people with brown eyes are given more value or importance than those of the blue eyed people in order to conform with the statistical distribution. Unfortunately, if your assumptions or facts about the actual population distribution of the various eye colors is wrong, then your weighting is wrong, and your final analysis is likely to produce an outlier.
On July 21st of this year, according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, President Obama's job approval numbers went "underwater". That is to say that those who disapprove of his job performance outnumber those who approve of it. This has held steady to today, some days reaching as much as a five to six point spread. Repeated polls from Fox News, the AP, Reuters, CNN and USA Today have indicated that the job disapproval has surpassed the job approval ratings, at least to some extent.
Then, in the last two weeks have come three separate polls from Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine and CBS Television that suddenly show President Obama's job approval rating to be back "above water" as much as four percentage points. I found this particularly interesting since the daily polls run by Gallup and Rasmussen Reports still show the president to be "underwater" by as much as six percentage points.
So, I decided to look into what we poll wonks call "the internals". Those things like the breakdown of the sample including assumptions made about the distribution of the population between Republicans, Democrats and Independents. It was interesting what I found.
The CBS poll in particular "weighted" the results to over sample persons self identified as Democrats by 1.1 percent and Independents by two percentage points and under sampling self identified Republicans by 2.7 percent. This assumes that the political landscape of the United States has not changed since the Presidential Election in 2008.
This totally flies in the face of current polling that shows the political divide less than 3 percent.
Although I have been unable to access the "internals" of the Time or Newsweek polls, I have no doubt that their results were "weighted" in the same manner.
Did they make an honest mistake in "weighting" the numbers with outdated population distributions?
Did they deliberately "weight" the numbers to get the result they wanted?
Neither Time Magazine and Newsweek Magazine are know to be friends to Republicans any more than CBS Television. In fact, quite the opposite.
I can't believe that these are the same people who moan and groan about how Americans don't trust the mainstream media any more. Do we need a better reason why?
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Blago-a-go-go
Honestly, I haven't really been following the Rod Blagojevich corruption trial, but my attention was caught yesterday by the non-verdict. Now color me skeptical, but doesn't anyone other than me think that ONE person holding out against a guilty verdict is a bit fishy? I mean, this is Chicago, it's not like jurors haven't been gotten to before. Don't you think that the Federal District Attorney maybe should be checking into this person to see if there have been some unusual large deposits in his bank account? After all, isn't that part of the Chicago Way?
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Delusional Democrats
Sorry for the gap in postings, but summer is always busy for me and between trips to Utah and Arizona and the mountains of New Mexico for a week at a time, work has been rather trying. So apologies out of the way, let's dive into the amazing Fantasyland of Democrat politics.
To begin with, let me just say that I read a lot of political commentary. I begin my day each morning with a virtual trip to the newsstand by visiting Real Clear Politics (www.realclearpolitics.com). I heartily recommend it because it at least TRIES to be fair and balanced by including articles from all sides of the political spectrum. Although I am a conservative, I force myself to read at least two articles each day from the OTHER side. Generally from the leading liberal luminaries (I love alliteration) the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and when I am feeling really adventurous, even the Huffington Post (e.g. Nattering Nabobs of Negativism). I do my best to keep my mind open to ANY reasonable arguments made by their opinions and arguments, though I don't often find many.
Recently, my readings have amazed me, particularly those from the left. I cannot remember in my lifetime when a political party or movement has been so removed from reality, as if they existed in an entirely different country than I do.
The continual blather about the "hateful" and "racist" Tea Partiers, combined with the tired old saw about Republicans being out to steal grannies Social Security or take food out of the mouths of children has gone past the point of just political mudslinging, that is expected during an election year, to the point where I am beginning to wonder if they really believe it.
Having observed politics for many years, from a distance thankfully, I have accepted that there is a certain level of spurious accusations that just get attributed to members of certain parties. Republicans are the party of big business. Democrats are weak on defense issues. Republicans want to turn back the clock on women's rights. Democrats are all about killing babies. These things are expected. But since 2000 when President Bush was elected with some controversy (stolen the Democrats would say) the level of HATRED and VENOM from the left has reached a fever pitch.
You would think that after regaining control of the Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008, they would be happy. Not so! They continue to pour out the hateful bile that says ANYONE who does not agree completely with them is a narrow-minded, hateful, racist, bigot, homophobe, etc., etc., etc.
If you are concerned about illegal immigration, you at best a xenophobe or at worst a racist.
If you are worried about the deficit and the national debt, at best you are selfish and cold-hearted, at worst you are going to destroy Medicare and kill thousands of people.
Representatives Weiner and King, both from New York got into a screaming argument on the floor of the House of Representatives last week. King was, I think, trying to make a valid point on how the legislation that they were considering about a benefit for 9/11 first responders has been given a "poison pill" that required a two-thirds vote of the house to pass the bill instead of the normal simple majority. This was done to specifically embarrass the Republican members of the House who wanted off-sets to pay for the bill.
Representative Weiner effectively accused Representative King of working from only the darkest of motives to deny medical care for the brave first responders of 9/11. The invective he used was appalling.
I suppose what I am really wondering is why there is so much hatred on the Left? We on the Right are always being accused of hatred, but wasn't it Union Obama supporters that assaulted a Tea Party activist last summer? Wasn't it Obama supporting New Black Panther party members who threatened and intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling station?
The best that the Left to accuse the Right of this kind of hatred is the incident where members of the Congressional Black Caucus, led by Nancy Pelosi marched provocatively through a Tea Party protest and claimed to have been spit upon and had racial epithets cast at them. Unfortunately for them, no video taken at the time indicates that this happened.
In November, the People of this country are going to rise up and take control of this country once again. They will reassert their control of the political system and the supposed servants of the people they elect. They will seize the tiller of the ship of state and turn it sharply to the starboard.
How will the Left react?
More of the same?
If so, I think they doom their party and their movement to the fringes for the foreseeable future!
To begin with, let me just say that I read a lot of political commentary. I begin my day each morning with a virtual trip to the newsstand by visiting Real Clear Politics (www.realclearpolitics.com). I heartily recommend it because it at least TRIES to be fair and balanced by including articles from all sides of the political spectrum. Although I am a conservative, I force myself to read at least two articles each day from the OTHER side. Generally from the leading liberal luminaries (I love alliteration) the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and when I am feeling really adventurous, even the Huffington Post (e.g. Nattering Nabobs of Negativism). I do my best to keep my mind open to ANY reasonable arguments made by their opinions and arguments, though I don't often find many.
Recently, my readings have amazed me, particularly those from the left. I cannot remember in my lifetime when a political party or movement has been so removed from reality, as if they existed in an entirely different country than I do.
The continual blather about the "hateful" and "racist" Tea Partiers, combined with the tired old saw about Republicans being out to steal grannies Social Security or take food out of the mouths of children has gone past the point of just political mudslinging, that is expected during an election year, to the point where I am beginning to wonder if they really believe it.
Having observed politics for many years, from a distance thankfully, I have accepted that there is a certain level of spurious accusations that just get attributed to members of certain parties. Republicans are the party of big business. Democrats are weak on defense issues. Republicans want to turn back the clock on women's rights. Democrats are all about killing babies. These things are expected. But since 2000 when President Bush was elected with some controversy (stolen the Democrats would say) the level of HATRED and VENOM from the left has reached a fever pitch.
You would think that after regaining control of the Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008, they would be happy. Not so! They continue to pour out the hateful bile that says ANYONE who does not agree completely with them is a narrow-minded, hateful, racist, bigot, homophobe, etc., etc., etc.
If you are concerned about illegal immigration, you at best a xenophobe or at worst a racist.
If you are worried about the deficit and the national debt, at best you are selfish and cold-hearted, at worst you are going to destroy Medicare and kill thousands of people.
Representatives Weiner and King, both from New York got into a screaming argument on the floor of the House of Representatives last week. King was, I think, trying to make a valid point on how the legislation that they were considering about a benefit for 9/11 first responders has been given a "poison pill" that required a two-thirds vote of the house to pass the bill instead of the normal simple majority. This was done to specifically embarrass the Republican members of the House who wanted off-sets to pay for the bill.
Representative Weiner effectively accused Representative King of working from only the darkest of motives to deny medical care for the brave first responders of 9/11. The invective he used was appalling.
I suppose what I am really wondering is why there is so much hatred on the Left? We on the Right are always being accused of hatred, but wasn't it Union Obama supporters that assaulted a Tea Party activist last summer? Wasn't it Obama supporting New Black Panther party members who threatened and intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling station?
The best that the Left to accuse the Right of this kind of hatred is the incident where members of the Congressional Black Caucus, led by Nancy Pelosi marched provocatively through a Tea Party protest and claimed to have been spit upon and had racial epithets cast at them. Unfortunately for them, no video taken at the time indicates that this happened.
In November, the People of this country are going to rise up and take control of this country once again. They will reassert their control of the political system and the supposed servants of the people they elect. They will seize the tiller of the ship of state and turn it sharply to the starboard.
How will the Left react?
More of the same?
If so, I think they doom their party and their movement to the fringes for the foreseeable future!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
