McPalin on the rise?

Hopefully the polls are random and numerous...thereby giving us a decent statistic.

If they're biased or the sample size isn't large enough, then they're essentially useless.

Or at least that's my opinion after taking a semester of stats.

~Zoo

Not just that it also drives the rollercoaster ride that goes with them. People see these polls and begin to question their own choices rather than simply making up their minds regardless.

Can't get any more truthful than that.

Anyone with a landline.  That is actually why polling may have gotten less accurate lately.  many people are opting to forgo landlines since Cell Phones are everywhere and the packages relatively cheap.  Indeed, if my wife did not need a fax line, we would not have one.

So who has dropped their land line for cell phone coverage only?  I would suspect the Yuppies (Young Upwardly-Mobile) are the biggest source.  And who do they vote for?  Good question.  I am not sure.  They may be evenly distributed over the spectrum of american politics.  Or they may favor one party over the other.  That is the question the polsters have to figure out.

The other issue to remember is that most, if not all, of the polls are based on popular vote not electoral.  Just because there is a dead heat in a popular votes doesn't mean that there will be in an electoral vote which is the one that counts.

As for who qualifies to be a respondent, any registerd voter qualifies.  Most polls, as Doc pointed out, are done by land line polling but there are some done on foot which means that you have to be where the pollster is.  This tends to exclude entire groups of people, like Doc pointed out, so the polls are horribly unreliable.  The main reason they are done any more is to give the 24 hour news agencies something to talk about.

Well - and us bloggers too (at least those who need something to argue about)

What amazes me about the polls are the undecideds.  I mean come on!  Who could possibly be undecided by this point.  Oh I know, the lazy and uninformed.

People who refuse to answer the questions are labelled "undecided" usually. And I personnally always refuse to tell for whom I will vote. More people should do that, since Politicians would be less likely to try to tack in the most recent fade.

They'll lump you in the undecided if you say "third party candidate", too. 

Ever notice how it's always "Red/Blue/Grey?"  A lot of the grey in the pie charts are third party voters.

IN the olympics, you do not get a medal for 4th place.

But you are still rated as such. And you still can be proud of your 4th place (stupid viewers' opinion nonwhistanding), because it's still hard to go as high as there.

If we followed your line of reasoning, we should only consider the one ahead in polls, and consider the rest as "others/undecided", since you get nothing if you rate 2nd for the presidential election.

I really think they should put a dichotomy between "undecided" and "other party"

It is not my line of reasoning, simply an observation of why they have grey, and not yellow, orange and green.

They should have Blue, Red, Yellow and Grey. Yellow are all the 3rd-parties, and grey are the really undecided.

That way, republicans wouldn't have daydreams about how many of the undecided could go their way

Or democrats in other elections.  It is the same old syndrome - close the door after you get in.  You see it on a smaller scale in upscale neighborhoods (once someone gets theirs - "that is enough growth!" syndrome).  The democrats and republicans both play it because they are both in it.  And in a machiavellian way, both support the other so that they stay the only 2.

I agreed with you on both counts

- That there should be a dichotomy between Third-party voters and undecided, while it crush the hope of either party who is not ahind

- That both parties just leave it right there, since it gives the impression to everybody that there are only 2 relevant choices.

That's me!

Republicans and Democrats (but usually favoring Reps).

But generally (and statistically speaking), they tend to vote democrats

I can see arguments for both sides, but I have never seen any empirical studies on it.  I think that it is just conjecture at this point.

the ratio of young people having cellphone is higher than older people

younger people tend to vote for Obama

It's all in a matter of %, off course. So "Obama favoritisim" is more in the 60%-40% than complete landslide...

Didn't read the other responses so sorry if this is a repeat.

The polls are done by taking US Census information.  So say for New Hampshire there are 900,000 people.  (That's just a random number btw). 

They take the sample size of the population, which involves a statistical formula with a 95% confidence level.  You'd think the more people in a state the larger the sample size, but that's not the case.  It's called the law of diminishing returns and you can look it up if you are interested.

So say a sample size for 900,000 is 700.  They poll 900 people (the good polls anyway) by using a computer to randomly pick telephone numbers of people in the state.

The questions are asked by a professional sounding voice.

Most polls have a formula for determining "likely voters."  They can be different for each poll.  Remember not everyone votes.

So in the end of the 900 they get 800 or 700 but it has to meet the sample size formula for that state.

Here this says it better...http://www.surveyusa.com/client/methodology4.aspx

There is a method to the madness, however you have to remember the last two presidential elections, the polls were wrong.  So if ya ask me, especially after studying ad nausea the last couple months, statistics and polls are a waste of time and money.  The only reason these expensive polls are so popular is because the media wants them.

I think of it as wanting to jump into a lake you've never been in before.  You're pretty sure what will happen, the size of the fish  you'll encounter, the temperature of the water, the feel of the bottom, is it sand or mud squishing between your toes, but just for the added benefit of knowing you send three people down to the water before you to check and give you their opinion.

They come back and one or more will confirm what you thought already, and maybe one or more will tell you something you didn't know, but in the end, until you get in the water and find out for yourself, you'll never know what's real and what's just talk.  And that's all polls essentially are, talk.

Many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. 

But which young people?  That is the rub.  One would nornally assume that the young that dump the land lines are the business types that usually vote conservative.  That is why I am not so sure. It could be as you say (and I can see that), and it could be the opposite.  I think it is needed by the polling firms so they can adjust their numbers accordingly, but so far, I have seen no one try to make a study out of it.

From my research that 18-24 group, and in some states that extends up to 34.  The only state I can find in which Obama isn't doing well with women and young people is Minnesota. 

I was only answering for myself as I tend to vote Republican but have been known to vote Democrat too.

But again, banding people by age and declaring they are of one mind in politics is misleading.  So the question of "which young people" asks the question of what are their other demographics.

Yeah, well its just a variable that polls look at...same as gender, race, etc.  I think they're a waste, but I'm not payin for them. 

Hum...

How old are you? I am disapointed to tell you that.. well, cellphone are very much commonly used by everybody of my generation - hippies and technocrats alike.