Comments on: Polling geeks in the news

By: Sam Wang

Sam Wang — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:03:13 +0000

Vicki, my feeling about the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund is that they were quite influential in driving perceptions of Governor Palin - but that those perceptions are now driven. The polar bear business seems repetitive. Nothing against bears. As I've stated before, I don't think there is much that either side can do to influence the Presidential race. There could be a surprise, but it's highly unlikely. Your most influential investment in the future will be affecting the composition of next year's Senate. Therefore my interest in the races I list at ActBlue (and for Republicans, the NRSC).

By: Vicki Vance

Vicki Vance — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:58:32 +0000

Sorry for the off topic question, Sam, but could you comment on the latest video from the Defenders of Wildlife group on polar bears? I have given them quite a bit of support to get the aerial hunting of wolves video on TV at your suggestion (and hope that it has made a difference). Now they are asking about money for this new video and I am wondering if I am better off to continue to give money for the wolf one since it is so effective.

By: jhm

jhm — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:26:09 +0000

You might like to peruse this compendium of similar sites.

By: Sam Wang

Sam Wang — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 01:05:28 +0000

Michael S, when interviewed I did mention Andrew Tanenbaum and his creation, electoral-vote.com. As far as I can tell he pioneered this peculiar hobby. But reporters have to choose an angle. Perhaps simple data aggregation (as opposed to the meta-analysis/projection approach) didn't seem interesting enough. jefflz, there are meta-meta-analysis sites. One is 3bluedudes.com.

By: Ravi S.

Ravi S. — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 06:33:13 +0000

Jefflz,

I can’t see how you would reasonably combine poll analyses. They are all based on the same set of polls, so one analysis doesn’t have information that others don’t. Things like assumptions (and goals) are not consistent across analyses so any combination would not be self consistent.

By: jefflz

jefflz — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 03:59:06 +0000

This may seem obvious and or inane, but does it make any sense to combine in a statistically valid fashion electoral vote projections, across all the poll analyses. (RCP, 538, polster.com, princeton, etc.) ?

By: Glenn

Glenn — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:50:07 +0000

Good on you, Sam. Dunno. Intuitively, lol, I feel far more comfortable with methodology.
Thanks as ever…

By: ron

ron — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:17:19 +0000

Could you make a post or point me toward, something that talks about the allocation of the undecideds. As a “poll of polls” can tell us the state of the race, so too can it tell us the state of the NUMBER of undecideds. Everything Ive studied show they break toward the person behind. Any thought to that, and if history shows that, why?

By: DFS

DFS — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:08:59 +0000

I hadn’t been to this site until I read that article in the chronicle. Congrats! and thanks for all the work you do for poll junkies like me.

By: Karen Flynn

Karen Flynn — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:17:11 +0000

re: the SF Chronicle

This is the main newspaper I ead, and without it, I might not have visited this web site. I checked you out this morning, and I really like the way you organize and analyze the polling information. As an avid Obama supporter, I am sometimes a bit dismayed when I read that the polls are close, and I appreciate your presentatioin of the information, which has helped to calm my fears somewhat. Great work!