News1 min ago
Shock Horror - Katie Hopkins States Something Everyone Can Agree With ...
91 Answers
“Pollsters have demonstrated - once again- why they are an utterly defunct source of information.”
You can't argue with that!
You can't argue with that!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's true. I don't remember any of them predicting any of the following:-
1. Tory overall majority at the last general election
2. Brexit
3. Trump winning
They're bollerks. I'm not suggesting they should be banned or anything, just that everyone in the media and everywhere else stops quoting them as if they're some kind of indication of what's going to actually happen. They aren't.
1. Tory overall majority at the last general election
2. Brexit
3. Trump winning
They're bollerks. I'm not suggesting they should be banned or anything, just that everyone in the media and everywhere else stops quoting them as if they're some kind of indication of what's going to actually happen. They aren't.
By everybody, to one extent or another.
I don't really have time right now. But labelling polls as "wrong", or useless or defunct, betrays a basic misunderstanding of what they are, how they work, and how to use them. Obviously, no poll is 100% accurate. But "not 100% accurate" doesn't equate to "utterly useless and a pathetic waste of space".
I don't really have time right now. But labelling polls as "wrong", or useless or defunct, betrays a basic misunderstanding of what they are, how they work, and how to use them. Obviously, no poll is 100% accurate. But "not 100% accurate" doesn't equate to "utterly useless and a pathetic waste of space".
//Jim, I can’t see any use whatsoever in polls that predict the wrong result. //
I was about to say I couldn't actually see any use in polls that predict the RIGHT result either Naomi, but to be fair I can. It would give you advance warning of change if you needed to prepare for it, but yes, misleading information is worse than useless.
I was about to say I couldn't actually see any use in polls that predict the RIGHT result either Naomi, but to be fair I can. It would give you advance warning of change if you needed to prepare for it, but yes, misleading information is worse than useless.
-- answer removed --
TTT - There is the difference between us then, I have never accused you - or anyone else ever - of abusing their position as Moderator, much less have to search my memory for it.
You have been told by me, by other AB'ers, and finally by the Ed that your sniping is inaccurate.
I don't expect an apology, which would be the polite response.
I'll settle for a line being drawn under this, and you not cluttering up the site any more by referring to it again.
You have been told by me, by other AB'ers, and finally by the Ed that your sniping is inaccurate.
I don't expect an apology, which would be the polite response.
I'll settle for a line being drawn under this, and you not cluttering up the site any more by referring to it again.
The nature of prediction is such that you aren't always going to predict correctly. That doesn't mean it's a stupid exercise to make the prediction, or that the prediction itself was wrong. The statement "the next roll of a fair-sided die is more likely to be somewhere between 2 and 6 than it is to be 1" is still correct, and sensible, even if you then roll the die and get a 1. People seem determined, with polls, to just ignore this probabilistic element of the prediction when calling it wrong.
The other thing is that there is rather a massive selection bias in calling polls wrong. Specifically, people always pick the ones that *are* wrong, and forget about the many that were right, or at least nowhere near as wrong as they are painted. In 2012, polling data combined with statistical modelling enabled Nate Silver to correctly call the results in all 50 US states in the presidential election; in 2008, he got it right in 49/50 states. This year, his predictions were less accurate, but that doesn't erase the success of the previous two.
The errors are anyway often exaggerated. It now seems clear that Clinton won the popular vote by a small margin, maybe no more than 1 or 2 percentage points when all votes are counted; The final predictions gave her a three or four point lead nationally. This is not actually a ridiculous difference, although the small swing appears to have been concentrated in a couple of states that were enough to tip the result in a huge way for sure. But the scientific polling prediction was not actually that far away, certainly not enough to dismiss the entire field as a waste of time. It's just that politics matters, and is in the public eye, and in this case small errors compounded to make a huge difference.
Having said all that, it's clear that there are some systematic problems that have emerged, in particular in the last couple of years, that polls have failed to account for properly. The major error was in judging support for Clinton in the northern Midwest, states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. It seems to have either been missed in a couple of key demographics, or exaggerated in others -- and, despite reports earlier, turnout was somewhat lower than expected in some key states.
Polling predictions are never 100% accurate, but they are by definition about the only meaningful way you can ever judge the mood of the public between, and leading up to, elections. My own feeling is that they have, perhaps, become too attached to the system they are trying to measure. In the 2014 Scotland Independence referendum, for example, the polls did a pretty good job in the end of predicting the outcome, but there was that one poll that gave a lead to the "Yes" campaign. And everyone took this seriously on the "No" side, and some politicians panicked and offered things they had no right to offer, with guarantees or promises they were in no position to make. Certainly, the campaign was re-energised on both sides after that poll, as people who might not have voted on either side turned out, either to affirm that poll result or to defeat it. One way or another, though, it became part of the story. The same thing may have happened in the 2015 General election (another small miss). Polls consistently showed that Labour were unable to win outright, leading to questions about a Labour/ SNP coalition that Ed Miliband was forced to answer. I don't think anyone believed him when he said he'd never do it, but surely the row damaged his reputation somewhat, and I suspect that played a part in a late swing towards the Tories.
In that sense, perhaps we could all do with having less emphasis on polling predictions anyway. But this is absolutely not because they are "wrong", or "defunct", or "useless". Anyone who cares too much about them, though, risks drawing the wrong conclusions.
The other thing is that there is rather a massive selection bias in calling polls wrong. Specifically, people always pick the ones that *are* wrong, and forget about the many that were right, or at least nowhere near as wrong as they are painted. In 2012, polling data combined with statistical modelling enabled Nate Silver to correctly call the results in all 50 US states in the presidential election; in 2008, he got it right in 49/50 states. This year, his predictions were less accurate, but that doesn't erase the success of the previous two.
The errors are anyway often exaggerated. It now seems clear that Clinton won the popular vote by a small margin, maybe no more than 1 or 2 percentage points when all votes are counted; The final predictions gave her a three or four point lead nationally. This is not actually a ridiculous difference, although the small swing appears to have been concentrated in a couple of states that were enough to tip the result in a huge way for sure. But the scientific polling prediction was not actually that far away, certainly not enough to dismiss the entire field as a waste of time. It's just that politics matters, and is in the public eye, and in this case small errors compounded to make a huge difference.
Having said all that, it's clear that there are some systematic problems that have emerged, in particular in the last couple of years, that polls have failed to account for properly. The major error was in judging support for Clinton in the northern Midwest, states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. It seems to have either been missed in a couple of key demographics, or exaggerated in others -- and, despite reports earlier, turnout was somewhat lower than expected in some key states.
Polling predictions are never 100% accurate, but they are by definition about the only meaningful way you can ever judge the mood of the public between, and leading up to, elections. My own feeling is that they have, perhaps, become too attached to the system they are trying to measure. In the 2014 Scotland Independence referendum, for example, the polls did a pretty good job in the end of predicting the outcome, but there was that one poll that gave a lead to the "Yes" campaign. And everyone took this seriously on the "No" side, and some politicians panicked and offered things they had no right to offer, with guarantees or promises they were in no position to make. Certainly, the campaign was re-energised on both sides after that poll, as people who might not have voted on either side turned out, either to affirm that poll result or to defeat it. One way or another, though, it became part of the story. The same thing may have happened in the 2015 General election (another small miss). Polls consistently showed that Labour were unable to win outright, leading to questions about a Labour/ SNP coalition that Ed Miliband was forced to answer. I don't think anyone believed him when he said he'd never do it, but surely the row damaged his reputation somewhat, and I suspect that played a part in a late swing towards the Tories.
In that sense, perhaps we could all do with having less emphasis on polling predictions anyway. But this is absolutely not because they are "wrong", or "defunct", or "useless". Anyone who cares too much about them, though, risks drawing the wrong conclusions.
That's a shame Naomi - because it destroys your point about not seeing any point in polls that predict the wrong result.
You are always telling me that I should accept that some people know more about a subject than I do - and here, Jim is proving that he knows more about polls and polling that you do, and you do not even do him the courtesy of reading what he has said.
That's fine - as long as you never ever again castigate me or anyone else on here for knowing less than you or others do about something - at least I give you the courtesy always of reading your posts.
You are always telling me that I should accept that some people know more about a subject than I do - and here, Jim is proving that he knows more about polls and polling that you do, and you do not even do him the courtesy of reading what he has said.
That's fine - as long as you never ever again castigate me or anyone else on here for knowing less than you or others do about something - at least I give you the courtesy always of reading your posts.
Latest Posts
Will Starmer - If He Wins - Be A Part...
News3 mins ago
Animals & Nature3 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Is This The Worst Ever Conservative...
News12 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.