Below is a quick chart showing the extent to which each pollster has tended to favor one candidate or another so far in the primaries. This is determined by comparing the pollster's final survey in each state against the average of other pollsters who surveyed that state. So, for example, if Zogby expects Obama win a state by 10 points, and the other polls suggest that he will win by 8 points, that rates as a +2 for Zogby in that contest. A pollster is listed if they've surveyed at least five Democratic caucuses and primaries to date.Zogby Obama +4.6
So, if you think that ARG polls always look good for Clinton, or Zogby polls always look good for Obama, it is not your imagination. It is also not a coincidence that most of the stronger pollsters don't seem to show a substantial leaning one way or the other.
Strategic Vision Obama +3.3
PPP Obama +2.7
Quinnipiac Obama +1.6
Rasmussen Obama +0.8
Suffolk Obama +0.2
SurveyUSA Clinton +0.8
Research 2000 Clinton +1.4
Mason-Dixon Clinton +2.0
Insider Advantage Clinton +2.1
ARG Clinton +4.5
5.05.2008
Obama's favorite pollsters (and Clinton's)
@ 10:02 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments
Heh...before I even clicked on "There's more", I knew that Zogby and PPP would be on Obama's side, and that SurveyUSA and Insider Advantage would be on Clinton's.
Awesome, thanks for doing this.
Why are we paying attention to the "spread", rather than the raw numbers of support for each candidate? Much of the variation may have to do with the number of undecided voters; SurveyUSA probably shows a point more for Clinton due to finding more of her leaners, and much of PPP's problems seem to have come from large numbers of undecided voters who went mainly to Clinton in many contests.
Could you put an explanation of the Electoral Vote graphic in your FAQ. I can't figure out what you're calculating there. Obama seems to be creeping up in the electoral vote, but without any of the states changing.
They cannot change.
538 assigns the EV probabilistic.
Obama has a chance of x% to win a state, so he´s given (x/100)*State EV for that state.
There are no states "changing", but for example some days ago the Dems had a 65% chance of winning New Jersey- now they are up to 85-90%.
That gives a boost of 0,2 (20% improvement Win Percentage)*15 (EV NJ)=3 EV for example.
That's interesting; it seems to be in approximate (not exact) alphabetical order from ARG to Zogby.
You could take those two and average them out to get a good result? What are the actual chances of that procedure giving a correct answer?
If the bias to the two pollsters could be shown to be both substantial and persistent, why "average them out" rather than cut them out? Also don't forget that they are sometimes very substantial outliers (remember Zogby in California, and ARG in Pennsylvania, for example). Following either one of them (and sometimes you don't have equally timely polls from both at the same time) can lead you astray.
Great stuff as always. I've had my sense of where the various posters are, but much better to put a number on it from real analysis.
It would be interesting to run this same analysis, but compared to the actual election results instead of the pollster average.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
аудиокниги скачать бесплатно
электронная почта без регистрации
мультфильм
аудиокниги скачать бесплатно
Post a Comment