HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Impossible results all th...

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:55 PM

Impossible results all throughout every single Gravis poll this year

Hey guys, I've missed you all! Grantcart asked me to take a look at the Gravis polls and give my opinion. Well, if you know me, I can't leave a statistical stone unturned (blame my OCD lol), so I looked at them all for this year. Every single poll shows crosstabs with mostly impossible results, since they calculate out to fractions of individuals instead of calculating out to full integers of individuals.

The Logarchism article shows one example of this type of result with mostly impossible results. I take it a little further and illustrate a few more examples below at each link:

https://www.box.com/s/9nfb9uqdaqcyf9jt8v2p

https://www.box.com/s/3jj5pcubo2ayvexqarno

https://www.box.com/s/b0qcnf6b0dbe4nps44ii

Gravis Marketing's polls are absolutely nothing but frauds, in my opinion. It's incredulous to me to see their polls given any weight, or any serious consideration for that matter. Print them out and line the kitty crapper with them, that would be a better use for them.

(Sorry for the links instead of embedding the pictures, I forgot how!)

- Phrig

40 replies, 2761 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Impossible results all throughout every single Gravis poll this year (Original post)
phrigndumass Oct 2012 OP
Panasonic Oct 2012 #1
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #7
cthulu2016 Oct 2012 #2
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #6
cthulu2016 Oct 2012 #8
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #9
myrna minx Oct 2012 #20
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #28
jsmirman Oct 2012 #34
jsmirman Oct 2012 #37
jsmirman Oct 2012 #39
grantcart Oct 2012 #3
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #10
Raster Oct 2012 #4
jsmirman Oct 2012 #5
LiberalAndProud Oct 2012 #11
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #12
reflection Oct 2012 #13
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #14
Doremus Oct 2012 #15
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #23
grantcart Oct 2012 #16
myrna minx Oct 2012 #17
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #21
myrna minx Oct 2012 #25
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #27
myrna minx Oct 2012 #30
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #33
Waiting For Everyman Oct 2012 #18
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #22
OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #19
Spazito Oct 2012 #24
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #26
Spazito Oct 2012 #29
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #32
MuhkRahker Oct 2012 #31
phrigndumass Oct 2012 #36
68 Rex Oct 2012 #35
Spazito Oct 2012 #38
MuhkRahker Oct 2012 #40

Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:57 PM

1. Nice to see you back. I remember your 2008 analysis well.

 

Was wondering if you'll be making an appearance soon...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 03:09 PM

7. Thanks! Nice to see you, too!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:57 PM

2. Gravis is a fraud but I'm not sure about your critique

It sems to me that any weighted poll (which all real polls are) can end up with fractional people.



If your sample has more "other/unsure" responses than your demographic model then wouldn't the weighting of the sample reduce each response from an "other/unsure" to a fraction?

I wouldn't be surprised if Gravis did not poll anyone at all and just made up the numbers. I am satisfied that Gravis is a RW fraud created to influence polling averages.

I am just not sure that fractional people are a major part of the critique of Gravis..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 03:07 PM

6. True but ...

In my illustrations I gave room for fractions up to a tenth for that very reason, weighted polls can end up with fractional people. But only up to a point, and never half a person, or two-thirds or one-third for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 03:10 PM

8. Fair enough

I am not worried about their methodology much either way, since I am not sure they even have a real sample to subject to a methodology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 03:13 PM

9. Agreed!

Couldn't have said it better lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:12 PM

20. Just so you know, phrig kept us calm in 2008.

His widgets and analysis were spot on in 2008. We're fortunate to have an old friend back in the fray to calm us (me ) all down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to myrna minx (Reply #20)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:29 PM

28. Aw shucks, I'm blushing :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 07:20 PM

34. Could you lay out the math for us on that

I see cthulu's point, that obviously, you do a "re-weighting" essentially, to turn your survey respondents into a properly weighted sample (to match the right weights suggested by the demographics).

Could you work us through the math as to what the limits are in a "re-weighting" that can only spit out a "partial person," diminished, at most by a tenth due to re-weighting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsmirman (Reply #34)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 12:10 PM

37. Would still love a walk-through on the math on this part

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsmirman (Reply #34)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 02:56 AM

39. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:58 PM

3. Its great to see a great friend back at DU.


If you followed DU in 2008 you know that Phrig's model was as good as anyones.

I challenge any statistician to disprove his assertions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 03:15 PM

10. Just "as good as" ?? hehe ...

I was showing 365 to 173 as late as two days before the election! (btw you helped)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:58 PM

4. "Gravis Marketing's polls are absolutely nothing but frauds...."

Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 03:00 PM

5. Argh - have to run out for an appointment

can't wait to read when I get back!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 03:19 PM

11. I'm no statistician, but I don't see how your "impossible numbers"

could be explained away. I'd like to read Gravis' rebuttal to your analysis, but I'm not holding my breath.

And it *is* good to see you here, phrig.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #11)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 03:22 PM

12. I wouldn't hold my breath either :)

Might turn blue! Great to see you here, too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 03:26 PM

13. Ahem

Gravis Marketing's polls are absolutely nothing but frauds, in my opinion. It's incredulous to me to see their polls given any weight, or any serious consideration for that matter. Print them out and line the kitty crapper with them, that would be a better use for them.


Nah, the cat would just look at them and say "That would be redundant."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reflection (Reply #13)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 04:01 PM

14. LMAO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 04:12 PM

15. Thank you for taking a look at this.

I too remember your 2008 posts very well. Glad to see you back.

:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doremus (Reply #15)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:17 PM

23. Thanks Doremus!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 04:53 PM

16. How did this get to the bottom?

Back to the top!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:02 PM

17. Where have you been!?

I'm ready to drag my fainting couch out of cold storage. It's great to see you, my dear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to myrna minx (Reply #17)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:12 PM

21. Hey You!!!!

Hi myrna minx! I think I still have a picture of that fainting couch, maybe I'll try and dig it out later, lol ...

It's terrific to see you here, too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Reply #21)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:20 PM

25. Who doesn't adore a statistician who lets a gal decorate the place.





It really is wonderful to see you. It hasn't been the same without out you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to myrna minx (Reply #25)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:27 PM

27. THERE IT IS!!!

Break out the bon-bons and drape yourself elegantly over the arm! You have mad decorating skills, sister!

I had to prioritize this year, so unfortunately election-tracking was out. But this election cycle hasn't been the same without seeing you lots and lots!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Reply #27)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:45 PM

30. I understand but see to your priorities, young man!

Hey, every statistician needs a Gloria Swanson type to drama up their threads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to myrna minx (Reply #30)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 06:12 PM

33. LOL!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:08 PM

18. Yup, those fractions-of-people voting are a real PITA!

Maybe it's the zombies among us!

Someone should check their ID's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Waiting For Everyman (Reply #18)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:16 PM

22. LOL ... zombies

Zombies don't have ID's, only a thirst for blood and flesh. Just ask a zombie for his ID and I'll bet he looks at you funny and eats your brain.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:10 PM

19. K & R. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:18 PM

24. It's great to see you back!

Your work in 2008 was fascinating and very informative, I remember it well. Thanks for this analysis and I totally agree with you when you state your opinion that "Gravis Marketing's polls are absolutely nothing but frauds".

I do not understand why Nate Silver continues not only to use them but, at times, gives them a very high rating. It makes me much more sceptical of his analysis than I otherwise would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #24)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:24 PM

26. Hi Spazito!

Thanks for your kind words. Perhaps Nate Silver believes in the law of averages, since there are a couple D-leaning pollsters out there. What he might not understand, though, is that there are far more R-leaning pollsters than D-leaning, making the law of averages unworkable here, unless you weed out some of the R-leaning and balance them. I believe Nate Silver's results are skewed to the right this year, just by looking at them.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:41 PM

29. Yes, I understand his need for aggregate numbers/polls and his weighting which is/was...

based on whether the poll he is using is understood to be one biased toward either the repubs or the Dems. His use of this sketchy poller is, in itself, an outlier and definitely causes, imo, his results to be less trustworthy than they might.

Using Gravis Marketing makes me think, right or wrong, Nate is focusing on making the numbers work for him rather than letting the numbers speak for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #29)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 06:11 PM

32. I totally agree

"making the numbers work for him rather than letting the numbers speak for themselves"

Exactly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:55 PM

31. Great update!!!

Thanks for your work phrigndumass!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MuhkRahker (Reply #31)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 06:45 AM

36. Thanks Muhk


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 07:48 PM

35. Gravis?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 68 Rex (Reply #35)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 01:02 PM

38. Here is an excellent thread that explains much about Gravis Marketing...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1579317

It is quite educational and eye-opening as to the polling done, the owner, etc.

Well worth the read, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phrigndumass (Original post)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 06:26 AM

40. Everyone needs to see this.

So KICK!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread