Yes, hard to believe, but it was exactly one year ago today that I wrote my first post on sampling error. At the time, I was not sure if this experiment would last more than a few weeks, much less a year and counting. The hundreds of thousands of page visits and views logged by sitemeter are for me, nothing short of amazing.
I suppose this post would be the ideal forum to reflect a bit on "what it all means," but unfortunately the demands of day job cut into my blogging time. Tomorrow is the anniversary of when some of you first discovered this site, thanks to those first links from Mickey Kaus and Glenn Reynolds. So a bit more tomorrow…
Meanwhile, let me offer a huge thank you to all who continue to visit and recommend this site. It has been a wonderful adventure, and I am looking forward to much more of the same in the coming year.
So You Want to Know More about Polling
I think everyone who does political polling is surprised by the amount of misinformation in the media about what we do. And we also get asked the same questions at dinner parties over and over again, usually related to margin of error.
If everybody r…
Congratulations Mark! I’ve enjoyed reading your site since before the election.
I’ve had an idea rattling around in the back of my mind for a while that maybe you or someone else could address.
One of the questions that always gets asked about polling is the randomness of the sampling. Does anybody try to take that out by surveying the same group repeatedly over time to determine if that particular group of people’s opinions changed?
Interview 1000 people. Ask the same questions of the same people in the same order a month later. Adjust for non response by dropping their responses to both surveys. Then you can report a trend and are on solid ground that sampling error did not influnce the results (Other than the ones who self sampled the out by not respnding.)
The idea is to measure the actual change in a certain population over time and extrapolate that to the population at large. Random sampling always brings up the question, did my sample change, or the population’s attitudes?
Like I said, just a thought that’sbeen rattling around.
Again, congrats!
Marty
I have a very strong stats background over 30 years going back to graduate school. It certainly helps reading a pro who is current with the latest developments and issues in polling to validate my gut instincts about what the numbers mean and what’s noise vs what’s a trend or change in trend. Keep up the good work.
Links of the Week
Mark Blumenthal’s excellent Mystery Pollster blog turns one year old. Cathy Young looks at the bizarre attempts of Women’s Studies professors to find a feminist angle on hurricanes. Duncan Currie explains how Prime Minister Junchiro Koizumi’s big win i…
Congratulations!
It’s not an exaggeration to say your blog changed my life.
It was a lifesaver after the election, and now an addiction I am unsuccessfully trying to kick.
Now, where was that dissertation I was writing…
Congratulations Mark on a job well done.
Congratulations. I think you have a nice site and I respect your opinions. Still, as a Bush supporter, I am also looking forward to another anniversary around Nov.2. Let’s go the archives!
“OK: I’ll say the popular vote will be Kerry 49% Bush 48.5%, Nader 0.8% Electoral college? I’m just too sleepy….
My instincts are telling me that the Dispatch poll is right, that the incumbent rule holds and that Ohio will be incredibly close. I also have a hunch that the traditional likely voter models are underestimating the impact of the new registrants just enough to have Bush about a percentage point too high. So I still think Kerry will win Ohio, even though 7 of 8 most recent polls out tonight seem to say otherwise.”
Happy Birthday, MP!
Congratulations! Not only do you examine and explain polls in words that I sometimes steal for conversations with others, you provided the best forum I found for discussion of the 2004 election and exit polls.
Loading the virtual confetti cannon … 3 … 2 … 1 …
!!! # @ + #* @ ++ #* @ +* @ # +@ * # *+ # @# ++ @ # + @ *## *#+ #@* + *@ # ++ *@ +* ## +@ +* # + @ @+ +#+@ *!!!