you know, turnout may be up absolutely, but it's relatively low at under 70%, so i think it's reasonable to suggest that a lot of these soft tory but really undecided voters that they got over the phone just stayed at home, in addition to a clear shy labour bias.
the online polling may not be scientific, but it at least controls for apathy better than the phone polling does. i mean, you can imagine how this goes.
you get the voter on the phone, and she's watching the telly, barely listening.
"yeah."
"tory, i guess. that's what the papers say."
"i dunno."
"listen, i'm watching the telly, so bugger off."
*click*
then you get these 10% tory leads in the polls that are based on frustrated people trying to hang up the phone.
randomization is irreplaceable, and you're going to eventually run into online polls that get it horribly wrong (we've already had some in canada) because they aren't random. but, if you're lucky, the online polls are at least self-selecting for likely voters. it's one of those situations where something is wrong by method, but in being wrong by method is also accidentally consistently right in outcome.
Thursday, June 8, 2017
just to clarify for those unclear...
this graphic they're using is bollocks. media claimed the tories had a 13 seat majority, but that only includes the 8 from the irish conservatives. in fact, they only had a 5 seat majority (including the speaker). but, then the guardian goes and daftly places the irish conservatives on the left, as though the irish cannot figure it out or something.
the tories have currently lost a net of 11 seats, but the irish conservatives have gained 2. that means they've lost a total of 9. the magic number is 13. if the irish numbers hold, that means you need to see the british at -15 or greater, which is still plausible.
otherwise, the tories will be able to form a government with the support of the irish conservatives, and it will probably be stable enough.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/08/live-uk-election-results-in-full-2017
this graphic they're using is bollocks. media claimed the tories had a 13 seat majority, but that only includes the 8 from the irish conservatives. in fact, they only had a 5 seat majority (including the speaker). but, then the guardian goes and daftly places the irish conservatives on the left, as though the irish cannot figure it out or something.
the tories have currently lost a net of 11 seats, but the irish conservatives have gained 2. that means they've lost a total of 9. the magic number is 13. if the irish numbers hold, that means you need to see the british at -15 or greater, which is still plausible.
otherwise, the tories will be able to form a government with the support of the irish conservatives, and it will probably be stable enough.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/08/live-uk-election-results-in-full-2017
actually, what i hope that i've demonstrated is that reading the polls is not at all complex, it's just that you cannot believe the way the media has spun them. yes: the aptitude tests tell me i'm brilliant, and i will not deny that. but, i haven't done anything more complex than check the source. you could have done the same thing with credentials that are no more complex than grade 10 math.
my insight is simply that you cannot trust the media. but, that is not the insight of a genius. it should be common knowledge, at this point.
polling firms need to get the point: the undecideds do not necessarily distribute. they may distribute, or they may not. it is a poor assumption, at any rate. you need to provide an argument one way or the other. and, you can determine these biases empirically by simply looking at the polling differentials that appear between who provides full results and who tries to force undecided voters to pick a choice.
my insight is simply that you cannot trust the media. but, that is not the insight of a genius. it should be common knowledge, at this point.
polling firms need to get the point: the undecideds do not necessarily distribute. they may distribute, or they may not. it is a poor assumption, at any rate. you need to provide an argument one way or the other. and, you can determine these biases empirically by simply looking at the polling differentials that appear between who provides full results and who tries to force undecided voters to pick a choice.
but, who is a typical member of this 13%?
a large percentage of them actually voted neither tory nor labour but ukip in the last election, but historically voted for labour. so, the potentiality of a shy socialist effect is that much more exaggerated. they've been carefully steered from ukip to tory, but are they just telling the pollsters what they want to hear?
but, it follows that the "shy" here may be neither tory nor socialist but ukip itself.
this is all speculation. i'm just pointing out that it appears that enough people are undecided and merely leaning tory to conclude that the decision will be made by people in the ballot box - or by people that decided in the end that they would rather do something else.
a large percentage of them actually voted neither tory nor labour but ukip in the last election, but historically voted for labour. so, the potentiality of a shy socialist effect is that much more exaggerated. they've been carefully steered from ukip to tory, but are they just telling the pollsters what they want to hear?
but, it follows that the "shy" here may be neither tory nor socialist but ukip itself.
this is all speculation. i'm just pointing out that it appears that enough people are undecided and merely leaning tory to conclude that the decision will be made by people in the ballot box - or by people that decided in the end that they would rather do something else.
this was predictable, actually.
the survation poll - the one where the tories are only up by 1% - is the only one with an undecided option. whether that is good or not is a tricky question.
so, the polls where you can't pick "undecided" have the tories up by as much as 13 points, whereas the polls that allow you to pick 'undecided', and track 'refused', only have the tories up by a few points. one even has labour winning by 2.
polling companies tend to dislike the 'undecided' response because it decreases confidence in the results. but, this is a business consideration. they are scientifically superior.
the survation poll, then, and it's only one poll, but what it actually says is:
tories: 33.9%
labour: 32.6%
undecided: 12.1%
lib dem 6.4%
refused: 6.3 %
what that means is that 18.4% of the sample did not answer.
"but it distributes!"
well, it might seem a reasonable suggestion that it might, but then why is this poll so different? let's at least distribute the refuseds:
tories: 36%
labour: 34.6%
undecided: 12.9%
lib dem: 6.8%
the biggest difference in the other polls was 13%.
so, there is a bigger consistency here than initially apparent.
but, these swings usually exist on the left. certainly, they always do in canada. so, this is a bit of a reversal of the expectations and may confuse some models.
see, the "shy tory" effect was identified in a period where the media and broad society was clearly on the soft left. tories were afraid to speak in public, lest they be outed as such. but, i think the situation has reversed. the same conditions would instead apply to a "shy socialist" effect, as it is the less socially acceptable position in the uk as of today. and, this is consistent with the results - when you force people to answer, the undecided voters claim they will vote tory in disproportionately higher numbers, no doubt because that is what the media is implying they ought to do.
i've identified this problem elsewhere: the election is in the hands of the least capable voters. what this 13% is telling pollsters is that they don't know who they should vote for, but are leaning towards doing what they're told to do by establishment media. they could, of course, be lying. but, we have to assume that they aren't.
i think that this election may actually work the opposite way in turnout, as well. if a lot of these very soft tory voters stay home, it could end up closer than expected.
i think there is reason to expect a hung parliament, or something close to it. i do not expect a landslide, at least.
the survation poll - the one where the tories are only up by 1% - is the only one with an undecided option. whether that is good or not is a tricky question.
so, the polls where you can't pick "undecided" have the tories up by as much as 13 points, whereas the polls that allow you to pick 'undecided', and track 'refused', only have the tories up by a few points. one even has labour winning by 2.
polling companies tend to dislike the 'undecided' response because it decreases confidence in the results. but, this is a business consideration. they are scientifically superior.
the survation poll, then, and it's only one poll, but what it actually says is:
tories: 33.9%
labour: 32.6%
undecided: 12.1%
lib dem 6.4%
refused: 6.3 %
what that means is that 18.4% of the sample did not answer.
"but it distributes!"
well, it might seem a reasonable suggestion that it might, but then why is this poll so different? let's at least distribute the refuseds:
tories: 36%
labour: 34.6%
undecided: 12.9%
lib dem: 6.8%
the biggest difference in the other polls was 13%.
so, there is a bigger consistency here than initially apparent.
but, these swings usually exist on the left. certainly, they always do in canada. so, this is a bit of a reversal of the expectations and may confuse some models.
see, the "shy tory" effect was identified in a period where the media and broad society was clearly on the soft left. tories were afraid to speak in public, lest they be outed as such. but, i think the situation has reversed. the same conditions would instead apply to a "shy socialist" effect, as it is the less socially acceptable position in the uk as of today. and, this is consistent with the results - when you force people to answer, the undecided voters claim they will vote tory in disproportionately higher numbers, no doubt because that is what the media is implying they ought to do.
i've identified this problem elsewhere: the election is in the hands of the least capable voters. what this 13% is telling pollsters is that they don't know who they should vote for, but are leaning towards doing what they're told to do by establishment media. they could, of course, be lying. but, we have to assume that they aren't.
i think that this election may actually work the opposite way in turnout, as well. if a lot of these very soft tory voters stay home, it could end up closer than expected.
i think there is reason to expect a hung parliament, or something close to it. i do not expect a landslide, at least.
maybe i can join the below. i mean, i don't want to join the top....
(recycled line: reaching for the top means i must have left my beer on my bookshelf)
the underneath? the underground?
ffs. and, max is right: these are not high school dropouts. they can spell things on their signs. and, in normal circumstances, they can put together complete sentences.
get me out of here.
get
me
out....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)