Mark Gritter (markgritter) wrote,
Mark Gritter

Politico doesn't get an answer

Alexander Burns tries to explain why Republicans' polling numbers were so far off. The story he tells is that their likely voter models underestimated Democratic turnout.

That's a reasonable answer for why there's error, but the question is not "why were your polls wrong", the question is "why did you trust your model despite overwhelming evidence that few public polls, nor most poll aggregators, nor the betting public, were making the same assumptions?" That's the real dirt that I hope comes out in campaign books. Was somebody deliberately releasing only the most optimistic projections? Or was there just a bubble that prevented those assumptions from being questioned?

(FWIW, Nate Silver analyzed the last three weeks of polling and found a R-ward bias in almost all of them, which may suggest Obama's numbers were improving in the last week or so of the campaign. But he says the bias is "probably more than can be explained by the late shift alone.")
Tags: math, politics
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.