Slog - Comments on Re: Those Slog Tracking Poll Results http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results Last week I promised to Slog about a difference I noticed between our September and August presidential race tracking polls. It's taken me a bit longer than promised, but here goes. First, the usual caveats. I know these polls are unscientific. I know I'm only getting a sense of the opinions of a self-selected group of people (poll clicker-oners) within a larger self-selected group of people (Slog readers). Still, I'm interested in what the Slogosphere thinks about the Democratic presidential candidates (or what it tells me it thinks about them) and how what it thinks about them changes over time.... Copyright 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:40:25 -0800 Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:18:32 -0800 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Comment by Ivan Cockrum Or maybe it's the fact that Gore keeps saying, "I WILL NOT RUN."

]]> Ivan Cockrum http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806315 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806315 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:50:07 -0800 Comment by elenchos Computing the margin of error on this type of poll would be like computing the margin of error on reading chicken entrails.

THAT'S WHAT UNSCIENTIFIC MEANS, YOU MORON.

]]> elenchos http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806316 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806316 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:50:08 -0800 Comment by Levislade What 2 said (minus "you moron"). This poll is, as they say, not even wrong.

]]> Levislade http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806317 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806317 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:51:20 -0800 Comment by hunh? I like to see that at least not everyone commenting on slog is totally racist and Obama gained some points. Is he the new model minority?

]]> hunh? http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806325 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806325 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:55:11 -0800 Comment by monkey The next president should make Gore Secretary of the Interior. But get over Gore being president himself.

]]> monkey http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806326 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806326 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:55:43 -0800 Comment by ellarosa and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? maybe the next unscientific poll can be devoted to that burning question.

]]> ellarosa http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806327 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806327 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:56:24 -0800 Comment by Mr. Poe @4

Uh huh. Anybody who didn't vote for Obama is a racist. Is that you, Ecce Homo? Back from the dead?

]]> Mr. Poe http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806328 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806328 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:57:05 -0800 Comment by twee I was unfortunate enough to be drinking some coffee when I read about this poll's "margin of error" and I spit it up all over my keyboard -- thanks a lot!

]]> twee http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806330 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806330 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:01:28 -0800 Comment by E. Steven Okay Eli, cards on the table. Is it something you're thinking about? Do you think Gore will jump into the race?

]]> E. Steven http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806337 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806337 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:08:26 -0800 Comment by Jordyn Oh I would so vote for Santa Claus.

]]> Jordyn http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806338 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806338 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:08:48 -0800 Comment by Mahtli69 Are people over Gore? Yes, about 8 years ago.

Is this due to growing satisfaction with current candidates? No.

Is the margin of error much greater than +/-6%? Certainly yes. First, sample size is significantly different (998 in August vs 620 in September). That alone will skew your results.

Who responded in the first poll because seeing Gore listed was funny? It wasn't so funny the second time, so they didn't bother to respond. In August, the "with Gore" poll had 86% the number of respondents as the "without Gore" poll. In September, that dropped to 81%, a difference of 5%!

As for the 39% who still picked Gore in the last poll? I'm guessing they also watch Seinfeld reruns and think they are every bit as funny as when they first aired.

]]> Mahtli69 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806341 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806341 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:10:56 -0800 Comment by Ziggity @11 - Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .

]]> Ziggity http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806343 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806343 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:12:36 -0800 Comment by N in Seattle Ivan Cockrum has it wrong.

Gore says, basically, "I am not running", a statement very different from "will not run".

]]> N in Seattle http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806345 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806345 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:12:43 -0800 Comment by ertyt I think as the first primary (in whichever state it ends up being, which is clearly not going to be Washington) gets closer, it just looks less and less likely that Gore is going to jump in.

So, the erstwhile Gore people are deciding which of their second choices are most likely to win and/or least objectionable.

]]> ertyt http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806347 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806347 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:14:56 -0800 Comment by N in Seattle Oh, Eli, if you're going to ask for advice on "margin of error", it might be nice to tell us the vote count. If we assume that the poll is valid (OK, let's pretend...), it remains impossible to estimate MOE without N.

]]> N in Seattle http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806350 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806350 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:17:40 -0800 Comment by Katelyn @11 Nice analysis, except for the jibe at Seinfeld. Next you're going to tell us that you don't like Chris Crocker. Puhleeze! The vox populi has spoken!! :P

]]> Katelyn http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806356 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806356 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:24:55 -0800 Comment by Kim I'm still missing the Obama fascination. The guy's running on personality, not policy. Where's the beef, yo?

]]> Kim http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806360 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806360 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:33:37 -0800 Comment by elenchos @11 and @15

Not even close. How many votes you counted in an unscientific poll doesn't matter in the least.

It is fun though. The same people who would mock snake handlers and Bush's faith based governing and other superstitious fools will smugly discuss a nonsense poll like this all day. I really enjoy seeing someone scoff at those who "wasted" their vote on Gore in this pseudo poll. Do you have any idea how ironic that is?

I'm waiting for someone to ask whether or not this poll has electrolytes.

]]> elenchos http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806371 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806371 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:45:35 -0800 Comment by Katelyn I think in the movie it was made clear that toilet water does NOT have electrolytes, elenchos. So that should answer the question.

]]> Katelyn http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806378 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806378 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:52:49 -0800 Comment by JC Gore should not run. When he lost the presidency, he had the stink of loser on him. Conceding the presidency and then fighting it in court and such... it was a big, long drawn out loss. He recovered and right now, he's the man. People love him for what he is. If he ran again and lost once more, he'd have the stink of mega-loser on him. He should just keep on doing what he does and continue being the man, the man the people love. His life is really good right now. He's doing his thing, hanging out with celebrities, winning all kinds of awards and get accolades. For strictly selfish reasons, why fuck with that?

]]> JC http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806381 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806381 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:54:46 -0800 Comment by Mahtli69 @18 - elenchos, 1 out of 1 person polled think you are a buffoon. That's 100%! The number of people counted doesn't matter in the least.

]]> Mahtli69 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806402 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806402 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:08:48 -0800 Comment by elenchos The difference in sample size only changes the size of the random error. But the problem with a self-selected sample isn't the random error. It's the systemic bias caused by whatever motivates people to vote or not vote in the poll.

Look. If you think the sample size "skews" the result, then answer a simple question. Which direction is the result skewed? Does the larger sample favor Gore? Or does it favor someone else? Most importantly, how do you know?

I might be a buffoon, but I can stop being a buffoon any time I please. You, however, can never change the fact that you were wrong about this. And very likely, you will always be wrong about it, because you don't want to learn.

]]> elenchos http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806683 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806683 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:56:37 -0800 Comment by Will in Seattle I think it's just that a lot of us Gore/Obama people are willing to vote Obama/Gore if need be.

]]> Will in Seattle http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806709 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806709 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:21:48 -0800 Comment by Mahtli69 @22 - The difference in sample size only changes the size of the random error in a scientific survey, which everyone agrees this is not.

My position is the sample size difference was not a random error, and more participation in the first survey skewed the vote towards Gore for the reasons I explained in @11 and here (@6).

There were less participants in the 2nd poll and, of the people who did participate, a smaller percentage bothered to fill out the 2nd part which included Gore.

The following is only my opinion and is definitely not scientific. I have no way to confirm any of this (other than taking a poll):
1. The "wow factor" of taking part in a poll with Gore as a candidate was significantly decreased the 2nd time around. Accordingly, Gore supporters were less likely to take part.
2. For the same reason, the 5% drop in "with Gore" participation between the two surveys was made up of a larger than typical proportion of Gore voters.
3. Calling you a buffoon was not necessary. Sorry.

I'll add one more thing ... If Gore was actually running, I don't think he'd be polling 45%, or even 39%. He'd be in the pack with Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. The fact that he's not running means we can all idealize him (just like Santa Claus and Gandhi).

]]> Mahtli69 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806778 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c806778 2008 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:33:52 -0800 Comment by KY. COL. of TRUTH Look Al-Gore-Rhythms: he's won an Oscar, now an Emmy. Why should he run for president when he has the oppportunity to join the very select group of nine (who've won the Big Four awards) by winning a Grammy ("Al Gore Speaks") and a Tony ("Internezzo: the Musical")? Then he could become the fourth elected president to win a Nobel. Google aweigh, kids.

]]> KY. COL. of TRUTH http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c807160 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c807160 2008 Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:03:26 -0800 Comment by fremont grandma pardon the interuption kiddies, but i just found some video on google, that, i think, should be addressed by presidential candidates.
norman minetta's testimony infront of congress http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3722436852417384871

and a big explosion sound
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5182535448932065917

]]> fremont grandma http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c807181 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/re_those_slog_tracking_poll_results#c807181 2008 Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:18:32 -0800