You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #27: Ahhh...we're talking 'raw' numbers... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Chi Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Ahhh...we're talking 'raw' numbers...
I did not know what you meant by 'pristine' (not criticizing).
I thought you were saying they were the late night numbers, the ones Mystery Pollster says are the best to use (post election, not yet adjusted to the vote tally).
Which are not available, that I know of, for previous years.

Actually Mistwell had posted them before that, and insisted that they were comparable to weighted/un-adjusted numbers 0f 2004. It took me a few attempts to get her to read Ruy Teixeira's analysis that I kept quoting for her.
"Consider this. The unweightedcompletely unweighteddata from the last four presidential
elections before this year are as follows:"
<shrug>

Thanx for the link, I ended up reading quite a bit there. But I did have a question on something that stuck out while I was reading.
Here it is....

"Warren Mitofsky, who ran the 2004 exit poll operation along with partner Joe Lenski, wrote the following in the Spring 2003 issue of Public Opinion Quarterly (p. 51):

An inspection of within-precinct error in the exit poll for senate and governor races in 1990, 1994 and 1998 shows an understatement of the Democratic candidate for 20 percent of the 180 polls in that time period and an overstatement 38 percent of the time...the most likely source of this error is differential non-response rates for Democrats and Republicans:"

Then I read this...

(MPollster is taking about the recently released raw data from Mitofski)
"The data do no disclose the actual precincts sampled.

In response to an email query, an Edison Mitofsky spokesperson referred me to the following passage from the Code of Professional Ethics and Practices of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR):

"Unless the respondent waives confidentiality for specified uses, we shall hold as privileged and confidential all information that might identify a respondent with his or her responses.""

To me, I see Mitofski willing to access for his report, the same information (different year) he later says his 'code of ethics' does not allow to be disclosed (10 months later).

I was just wondering what your thoughts on that might be.

Thanx in Advance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC