<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tiebreaking, secret sauce, and the case of the missing cell phones</title>
	<atom:link href="http://election.princeton.edu/2008/11/21/tiebreaking-secret-sauce-and-the-case-of-the-missing-cell-phones/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://election.princeton.edu/2008/11/21/tiebreaking-secret-sauce-and-the-case-of-the-missing-cell-phones/</link>
	<description>A first draft of electoral history</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:35:25 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://election.princeton.edu/2008/11/21/tiebreaking-secret-sauce-and-the-case-of-the-missing-cell-phones/comment-page-1/#comment-2697</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election.princeton.edu/?p=2787#comment-2697</guid>
		<description>&quot;Finally, the big lesson: polls taken in groups don’t need corrections. Let’s repeat that a few times…&quot;

I would rephrase as, &quot;Reasonably well performed polls taken in groups don&#039;t need corrections.&quot;

Presumably the polls that provided the data set were good (or at least balanced for error) and therefore a meta-analysis provided the necessary power to discern reality.  A meta-analysis won&#039;t correct for situations where the pollsters are consistently off.  Nontheless, there&#039;s no question that poll aggregation at the very least will minimize built in errors.

Also, a meta-analysis given the current polling group could still end up being wrong in situations where there&#039;s still not enough statistical power to detect a difference or deal with voting problems (such as Floridao 2000).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Finally, the big lesson: polls taken in groups don’t need corrections. Let’s repeat that a few times…&#8221;</p>
<p>I would rephrase as, &#8220;Reasonably well performed polls taken in groups don&#8217;t need corrections.&#8221;</p>
<p>Presumably the polls that provided the data set were good (or at least balanced for error) and therefore a meta-analysis provided the necessary power to discern reality.  A meta-analysis won&#8217;t correct for situations where the pollsters are consistently off.  Nontheless, there&#8217;s no question that poll aggregation at the very least will minimize built in errors.</p>
<p>Also, a meta-analysis given the current polling group could still end up being wrong in situations where there&#8217;s still not enough statistical power to detect a difference or deal with voting problems (such as Floridao 2000).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam Wang</title>
		<link>http://election.princeton.edu/2008/11/21/tiebreaking-secret-sauce-and-the-case-of-the-missing-cell-phones/comment-page-1/#comment-2607</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam Wang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:48:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election.princeton.edu/?p=2787#comment-2607</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;BCC&lt;/b&gt; - Certainly not the Ziegler conversation, though I really didn&#039;t follow that flap. Nerd wars: to paraphrase Jon Stewart, do you really want me to be your dancing monkey?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>BCC</b> &#8211; Certainly not the Ziegler conversation, though I really didn&#8217;t follow that flap. Nerd wars: to paraphrase Jon Stewart, do you really want me to be your dancing monkey?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William</title>
		<link>http://election.princeton.edu/2008/11/21/tiebreaking-secret-sauce-and-the-case-of-the-missing-cell-phones/comment-page-1/#comment-2588</link>
		<dc:creator>William</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:59:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election.princeton.edu/?p=2787#comment-2588</guid>
		<description>Why wouldn&#039;t he want your first extended conversation on this subject turned public?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why wouldn&#8217;t he want your first extended conversation on this subject turned public?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BCC</title>
		<link>http://election.princeton.edu/2008/11/21/tiebreaking-secret-sauce-and-the-case-of-the-missing-cell-phones/comment-page-1/#comment-2582</link>
		<dc:creator>BCC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 00:35:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election.princeton.edu/?p=2787#comment-2582</guid>
		<description>Do *you* have a transcript from said conversation?  Nerd (and I use the term positively) wars can be entertaining.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do *you* have a transcript from said conversation?  Nerd (and I use the term positively) wars can be entertaining.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam Wang</title>
		<link>http://election.princeton.edu/2008/11/21/tiebreaking-secret-sauce-and-the-case-of-the-missing-cell-phones/comment-page-1/#comment-2580</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam Wang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:52:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election.princeton.edu/?p=2787#comment-2580</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;BCC&lt;/b&gt; - I&#039;m not sure he would want our first extended conversation on this subject to be one that turned public. On the other hand, this year there is more interest in this kind of discussion than I would have imagined likely.

&lt;b&gt;AAF&lt;/b&gt; - I’ll think about how to label these graphs more clearly.
1. Yes. That’s why I added “Oct. 1″ and “Nov. 1.”
2. Yes, it’s useful prospectively, and perhaps also to identify campaign turning points.
3. Not yet, though it’s a good idea.
4. This graph shows the SD of the last N polls, where N is on the horizontal axis. I could have plotted date horizontally, but it seems clearer to me in its present form.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>BCC</b> &#8211; I&#8217;m not sure he would want our first extended conversation on this subject to be one that turned public. On the other hand, this year there is more interest in this kind of discussion than I would have imagined likely.</p>
<p><b>AAF</b> &#8211; I’ll think about how to label these graphs more clearly.<br />
1. Yes. That’s why I added “Oct. 1″ and “Nov. 1.”<br />
2. Yes, it’s useful prospectively, and perhaps also to identify campaign turning points.<br />
3. Not yet, though it’s a good idea.<br />
4. This graph shows the SD of the last N polls, where N is on the horizontal axis. I could have plotted date horizontally, but it seems clearer to me in its present form.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BCC</title>
		<link>http://election.princeton.edu/2008/11/21/tiebreaking-secret-sauce-and-the-case-of-the-missing-cell-phones/comment-page-1/#comment-2578</link>
		<dc:creator>BCC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:51:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election.princeton.edu/?p=2787#comment-2578</guid>
		<description>Great analysis.

Why don&#039;t you give Nate Silver a call, get him to promise to post the transcript, and then hurl insults at him?  That would help raise your visibility.

I&#039;m kidding, of course- you are the anti-Ziegler.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great analysis.</p>
<p>Why don&#8217;t you give Nate Silver a call, get him to promise to post the transcript, and then hurl insults at him?  That would help raise your visibility.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m kidding, of course- you are the anti-Ziegler.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mddemocrat</title>
		<link>http://election.princeton.edu/2008/11/21/tiebreaking-secret-sauce-and-the-case-of-the-missing-cell-phones/comment-page-1/#comment-2573</link>
		<dc:creator>mddemocrat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election.princeton.edu/?p=2787#comment-2573</guid>
		<description>You are well on your way to debunking all theories of &quot;tinkering&quot; with poll reults...thanks again for sharing!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are well on your way to debunking all theories of &#8220;tinkering&#8221; with poll reults&#8230;thanks again for sharing!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AAF</title>
		<link>http://election.princeton.edu/2008/11/21/tiebreaking-secret-sauce-and-the-case-of-the-missing-cell-phones/comment-page-1/#comment-2572</link>
		<dc:creator>AAF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:42:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election.princeton.edu/?p=2787#comment-2572</guid>
		<description>Very interesting.  

A few questions:

1. The X axis on the first graph, labeled date, is in numbers -- are those the numbered-day of the year?  It&#039;s a bit confusing because they also happen to be roughly the range of EV&#039;s we were moving through during that period.

2.  To my untrained eye, this looks like the kind of analysis that can be used predictively, before an election.  Is that right?  Or is it really only useful after the fact as a post-mortem analysis?   

3.  Did you back-test it against 2004 and whatever other samples you have?

4.  The graph you show for Missouri is interesting -- is it a snapshot, analyzing on election day how standard deviation is affected by how far back you go in including polls, or is it showing how the standard deviation would have looked over time if on each day during the campaign you had included X days of polls?-- and did you do the same thing for the national race?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting.  </p>
<p>A few questions:</p>
<p>1. The X axis on the first graph, labeled date, is in numbers &#8212; are those the numbered-day of the year?  It&#8217;s a bit confusing because they also happen to be roughly the range of EV&#8217;s we were moving through during that period.</p>
<p>2.  To my untrained eye, this looks like the kind of analysis that can be used predictively, before an election.  Is that right?  Or is it really only useful after the fact as a post-mortem analysis?   </p>
<p>3.  Did you back-test it against 2004 and whatever other samples you have?</p>
<p>4.  The graph you show for Missouri is interesting &#8212; is it a snapshot, analyzing on election day how standard deviation is affected by how far back you go in including polls, or is it showing how the standard deviation would have looked over time if on each day during the campaign you had included X days of polls?&#8211; and did you do the same thing for the national race?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Independent</title>
		<link>http://election.princeton.edu/2008/11/21/tiebreaking-secret-sauce-and-the-case-of-the-missing-cell-phones/comment-page-1/#comment-2568</link>
		<dc:creator>Independent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election.princeton.edu/?p=2787#comment-2568</guid>
		<description>Very impressive.  There is real added value here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very impressive.  There is real added value here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Observer</title>
		<link>http://election.princeton.edu/2008/11/21/tiebreaking-secret-sauce-and-the-case-of-the-missing-cell-phones/comment-page-1/#comment-2554</link>
		<dc:creator>Observer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:23:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://election.princeton.edu/?p=2787#comment-2554</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t be too hard on yourself, Sam.  You&#039;re only 0 for 2 on eschewing corrections.  Another big chance in only four years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t be too hard on yourself, Sam.  You&#8217;re only 0 for 2 on eschewing corrections.  Another big chance in only four years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
