Poll Vault

[David Wong]

Wrong. They are very different. In a poll, you tell the pollster who you want to win, but in a prediction market you are betting your own money on who you think is going to win.

No, a poll is voters telling the pollster who they intend to vote for. That's why the're so accurate. A prediction market is a voter telling someone who they think other voters are going to vote for.

A poll asks the voter to say what they intend to do; a prediction market asks the voter to read the minds of other voters.

And I don't have to make some argument about polling methodology to prove they're accurate, all I have to do is point to the many, many elections where the results have matched the polling virtually every time.

Turnout and other factors can skew by a few points, and there are some outliers, but traditionally polling has told us exactly who is about to win the presidency. That's why we use it.

And this is the polling thread. It's in the thread title. You have some kind of weird beef with the idea of polling and that's your own choice, but please take those complaints elsewhere.

This is the poll thread. We'll be discussing polls here. That's why it's called that.

 

[MattusMaximus]

DW, did you even read the SciAm article I referenced? It very clearly outlines the case for prediction markets vs. polling and why such markets are usually more trustworthy. Don't sit there and spout how you know that traditional polls are better, just because *poof* you say so. Argue against the information in the SciAm article, as opposed to hand waving.

As for why the media, political parties, etc use polls? Because they can make you tune in, donate money, and so on. Ever ask yourself why so many polls are in disagreement with each other? They are not using common methodologies - if they were, then by the law of large numbers, the results of all those polls should be statistically equivalent. And, in many cases, they aren't. This is not the case in the prediction markets - every market I've been following for the last few months has been consistent with all the others.

And I will continue to criticize polls here, because I'm still talking about polls. If you don't like it, put me on ignore.

 

[not_so_new]

DW, did you even read the SciAm article I referenced? It very clearly outlines the case for prediction markets vs. polling and why such markets are usually more trustworthy. Don't sit there and spout how you know that traditional polls are better, just because *poof* you say so. Argue against the information in the SciAm article, as opposed to hand waving.

As for why the media, political parties, etc use polls? Because they can make you tune in, donate money, and so on. Ever ask yourself why so many polls are in disagreement with each other? They are not using common methodologies - if they were, then by the law of large numbers, the results of all those polls should be statistically equivalent. And, in many cases, they aren't. This is not the case in the prediction markets - every market I've been following for the last few months has been consistent with all the others.

And I will continue to criticize polls here, because I'm still talking about polls. If you don't like it, put me on ignore.

I am with ya man. If anything I think it is really interesting to see the prediction markets side by side with traditional polls.

Thanks for the posts and the link.

 

[David Wong]

Ignored.

That's better!

It's bizarre, the things teenagers get worked up about. He reads one magazine article and suddenly he's on a crusade, and pity the man who dares stand in his way! DESTROY ALL POLLS!!!!!111

 

[David Wong]

I am with ya man. If anything I think it is really interesting to see the prediction markets side by side with traditional polls.

No one has a problem with bringing up the prediction market alongside traditional polls. The problem was mattus seeming intent to spam the polls thread with "POLLS SUCK" over and over and over again, from now until election day, because he read that one article.

Yes, he was enraged by mention of polls in the polls thread.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Ignored.

That's better!

Okaaay, nice to see that DW never attempted to actually defend his arguments

It's bizarre, the things teenagers get worked up about.

Actually, I'm 36. Those who met me at TAM6 can certainly testify that I'm not a teenager.

He reads one magazine article...

Note to others, DW asked me where I first got onto prediction markets. I responded with the Feb. 2008 Scientific American article, and he then made comments about how traditional polls get it right, without any references or any remarks concerning the article I cited. And, btw, if DW had actually continued the conversation as opposed to running away I would have told him that the SciAm article was the beginning of my study of prediction markets, not the sole source as he assumes.

And now we get this? Wow...

and suddenly he's on a crusade, and pity the man who dares stand in his way! DESTROY ALL POLLS!!!!!111

Meh

Is anybody else here actually interested in a discussion on this?

 

[MattusMaximus]

No one has a problem with bringing up the prediction market alongside traditional polls. The problem was mattus seeming intent to spam the polls thread with "POLLS SUCK" over and over and over again, from now until election day, because he read that one article.

Nice hyperbole. I mentioned "polls suck" twice, and once was in jest - hence the

As for the rest, see previous comments.

Yes, he was enraged by mention of polls in the polls thread.

Yes, "enraged" - that was it. Enraged opponents always cite their sources and challenge others to do likewise, then stick around to discuss their disagreements.

Wow...

ETA: I should also note that it appears that prediction markets were brought up here before I posted in this thread.

 

[Brainster]

It is always useful to look at the Prediction Markets as a check to see if the poll is being accepted. For example, last week's surprise Zogby Poll which showed McCain with a two-point lead made nary a ripple at InTrade indicating that traders heavily discounted it (as I did as well when I posted it).

My guess is that Mattus will stop talking about the superiority of markets the moment McCain shares top 50 cents, which I anticipate as a possibility by Monday.

 

[Pookster]

Polls suck. Prediction markets are the better way to go...

Better way? This far out from the election, I doubt it. In fact, the markets change, in part, as a reaction to the polls. They're just a look at how people really feel about what's going on to the point of risking their own money on it. In prior elections, the markets have changed quite abit over the months leading up to the election.

All that said, I'd rather my candidate be leading in them right now than not. Obama is positioned much better right now in the electoral college. But, if a slew of State polls come out next week showing McCain leading significantly in those States I listed above, the markets will change accordingly.

 

[gdnp]

Better way? This far out from the election, I doubt it. In fact, the markets change, in part, as a reaction to the polls. They're just a look at how people really feel about what's going on to the point of risking their own money on it. In prior elections, the markets have changed quite abit over the months leading up to the election.

All that said, I'd rather my candidate be leading in them right now than not. Obama is positioned much better right now in the electoral college. But, if a slew of State polls come out next week showing McCain leading significantly in those States I listed above, the markets will change accordingly.

There is also the tendency to say "the polls were wrong" because the final results are different. If Dukakis was up by 10 and then lost the election, "the polls were wrong". Well, sometimes the polls were wrong, but more often they were probably only reflecting the volatility of the electorate. Had the election been held when Dukakis was up by 10 he would probably have won.

There are plenty of posters here who made their presidential choice months ago, and short of a major bombshell are unlikely to change their opinions. But I have several friends that are still on the fence. Something as small as a speech by Palin or Obama may be enough to switch them from one side to the other.

We'll see early next week how much bounce McCain got from Palin. I doubt he'll get much from his own mediocre performance. What will be more important is whether the bounce persists. My guess is that her act may wear a bit thin, but this may be wishful thinking. It will depend a lot on how well the McCain campaign can script her appearances. I'm guessing lots of speeches in front of enthusiastic audiences and few if any Q and A sessions with probing journalists. She can't afford too many more "I don't know what the VP does" episodes.

 

[Pookster]

Rasmussen has Obama up by 3 today (49%-46%) ...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Tracking Poll results are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, roughly two-thirds of the interviews were completed before McCain’s speech on Wednesday night. One third were completed before Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s speech on Wednesday.

As McCain has begun to chip away as Obama’s convention bounce, most of his gains have come among women voters. Obama still leads 51% to 44% among women, but that seven-point edge is just half the fourteen point lead he enjoyed last Tuesday. McCain leads by three among men, little changed in recent days.

 

[David Wong]

As McCain has begun to chip away as Obama’s convention bounce, most of his gains have come among women voters. Obama still leads 51% to 44% among women, but that seven-point edge is just half the fourteen point lead he enjoyed last Tuesday. McCain leads by three among men, little changed in recent days.

Yep, the women bought it. And thus Palin probably has won the election for McCain.

Or should I say, enough women bought it. Certainly not all of the women, not even most of them. But a significant chunk of the Hillary supporters cared zero about the issues she stood for, and simply wanted to vote for a woman, any woman. Palin is biologically a woman, thus she gets their vote.

But this goes back to what we've talked about all through these forums, which is that America doesn't vote according to issues; America votes according to demographics. Tell me that voter's race, gender, income level and religion, and I'll pretty reliably tell you which candidate they voted for.

Obama knew it when he chose an older white male for his running mate, and McCain knew it when he picked a woman for his. But with the percentage of people who will never pull the lever for a black candidate, it didn't take much to tip the scales to McCain's direction and it's really looking like Palin was it.

Still two months to election day and who knows what else will happen in the news, but nothing will change the demographics.

 

[gdnp]

49 year old white male, top 2% income, regular church attendance: Who do I support?

 

[Pookster]

But a significant chunk of the Hillary supporters cared zero about the issues she stood for, and simply wanted to vote for a woman, any woman. Palin is biologically a woman, thus she gets their vote.

I think you're reading way too much into that quote from Rasmussen.

Here's a comparison at the moment to 2004 taking into consideration the volatility of the polls at this point in time. Obama is sitting right where Kerry scored with women in 2004 (51%/Kerry - 44%/Bush). Obama stands to gain once the undecideds sort out. However, McCain's lead over Obama with men is 7 points less than Bush's margin in 2004 (55%/Bush - 44%/Kerry). So, Obama is matching Kerry with women, and outdoing Bush with men.

 

[Pookster]

Gallup has Obama up by 2 today (47%-45%) ...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110047/Gallup-Daily-Obamas-Lead-Shrinks-Points.aspx

Obama had led McCain by as much as eight percentage points in recent days, both during and immediately after the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Those results reflected a convention bounce for Obama of four percentage points in his support among registered voters (from 45% to 49%). It appears that McCain is now enjoying a rebound bounce coming out of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul that is nullifying some of Obama's gains.

The interviewing for today's report partially reflects public opinion following the highlights of the Republican National Convention on Wednesday and Thursday nights when McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, made their acceptance speeches. This includes a strong night for McCain in Friday's interviewing, the first full night of interviewing following his acceptance speech.

 

[gdnp]

Gallup has Obama up by 2 today (47%-45%) ...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110047/Gallup-Daily-Obamas-Lead-Shrinks-Points.aspx

Are these using rolling averages? if so, when will we have results based only on data from after the speeches?

 

[David Wong]

49 year old white male, top 2% income, regular church attendance: Who do I support?

Charles "Chuck" Baldwin, of the Constitution Party.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Are these using rolling averages? if so, when will we have results based only on data from after the speeches?

It's a three-day rolling average, so Monday's numbers (edit: reporting results from Fri-Sun) will be the first in which all the interviews took place after McCain's speech.

 

[David Wong]

Are these using rolling averages? if so, when will we have results based only on data from after the speeches?

It's in his link, this is from polling down Wednesday through Friday. So most of the polling was done after Palin spoke Wednesday night, some was done after McCain spoke Thursday night. The polls we see tomorrow and Monday should have McCain up by a point or two.

The only hope for the Obama people is that these convention bounces fade, so that it could return to an equilibrium where Obama is still up by 3 (as I was joking about last week).

 

[chipmunk stew]

It's in his link, this is from polling down Wednesday through Friday. So most of the polling was done after Palin spoke Wednesday night, some was done after McCain spoke Thursday night. The polls we see tomorrow and Monday should have McCain up by a point or two.

The only hope for the Obama people is that these convention bounces fade, so that it could return to an equilibrium where Obama is still up by 3 (as I was joking about last week).

Convention bounces always fade somewhat. If McCain surpasses Obama, it's likely to be short-lived (barring some other unforeseen news).