Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Iowa polls at this point in 2004: (Original Post) bigtree Dec 2015 OP
THANK Y0U, bigtree! elleng Dec 2015 #1
i think dean and gep were higher and kerry lower before this JI7 Dec 2015 #2
The Polls By Definition Are Not... NOT Random... CorporatistNation Dec 2015 #3
A must read for anyone interested in the accuracy of professional, "scientific" polls. reformist2 Dec 2015 #5
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2015 #7
kick bigtree Dec 2015 #4
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2015 #6

JI7

(89,252 posts)
2. i think dean and gep were higher and kerry lower before this
Fri Dec 18, 2015, 10:16 PM
Dec 2015

If you look at previous polls. So based on that this poll would have been seen as positive for kerry at the time.

CorporatistNation

(2,546 posts)
3. The Polls By Definition Are Not... NOT Random...
Sat Dec 19, 2015, 02:51 AM
Dec 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html?_r=0

OVER the past two years, election polling has had some spectacular disasters. Several organizations tracking the 2014 midterm elections did not catch the Republican wave that led to strong majorities in both houses; polls in Israel badly underestimated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strength, and pollsters in Britain predicted a close election only to see the Conservatives win easily. What’s going on here? How much can we trust the polls as we head toward the 2016 elections?

Election polling is in near crisis, and we pollsters know. Two trends are driving the increasing unreliability of election and other polling in the United States: the growth of cellphones and the decline in people willing to answer surveys. Coupled, they have made high-quality research much more expensive to do, so there is less of it. This has opened the door for less scientifically based, less well-tested techniques. To top it off, a perennial election polling problem, how to identify “likely voters,” has become even thornier.

...

We are less sure how to conduct good survey research now than we were four years ago, and much less than eight years ago. And don’t look for too much help in what the polling aggregation sites may be offering. They, too, have been falling further off the track of late. It’s not their fault. They are only as good as the raw material they have to work with.

In short, polls and pollsters are going to be less reliable. We may not even know when we’re off base. What this means for 2016 is anybody’s guess.

Cliff Zukin is a professor of public policy and political science at Rutgers University and a past president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Watch the wave that upsets the steamship Hillary....

Response to reformist2 (Reply #5)

Response to bigtree (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Iowa polls at this point ...