Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

What a Survey Really Says

Huckabee may be leading in Iowa polls, but how much will it matter? (AP).

This is the season when the polls swarm. They blitz your inbox, they infiltrate your home page, they creep up on you when you're not looking and goose you in the hindquarters. They lurk in the dark in prime toe-stubbing locations. In the morning you'll see a dead mouse on your doorstep, and you'll think: Dang polls.

The profusion of polls is the inevitable consequence of this year's historic disassociation of campaigning and voting. Nowadays candidates mostly campaign as a way to become sufficiently plausible to raise a lot of money. But in the past, campaigning was inextricably and intimately connected to voting. There were RESULTS. The data wasn't (weren't?--even words have a margin of error) hypothetical, weighted, projected or extrapolated. Reporters could say, this is what happened. Bottom line: Voting is clarifying. Polling, not so much.

Can you trust the polls? I dunno, ask President Kerry.

What's tricky when you're a journalist is resisting the temptation to read too much into a narrow lead that's within a poll's margin of error. Like, if Obama is up by three points over Clinton in Iowa, which is within the margin of error, do you say he's in the lead, or that it's a dead heat? If I had to write that story, I'd say, "Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) is sorta winning in Iowa, kinda," or language to that effect. Journalists are always so reluctant to use excellent words like "might" and "maybe" and "kinda" and "sorta" and "shoulda" and "woulda."

One thing that worries me about the margin of error of a poll is that I suspect that even the margin of error has a margin of error. You know, they'll say there's a margin of error of 4 percent, but do they mean EXACTLY 4 percent? Or 4 percent with a margin of error of .15 percent?

Turning to Wikipedia - speaking of things with an innate margin of error - this is what we read:

"A poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population. A 3% margin of error means that 95% of the time the procedure used would give an estimate within 3% of the percentage to be estimated."


There are different kinds of biases in a poll, including sampling bias, response bias and non-response bias. For example, Wikipedia tells us:

"Survey results may be affected by response bias, where the answers given by respondents do not reflect their true beliefs."

Gettin' kinda murky.

Of course I do my own polling when I'm on the campaign trail, in the sense that I accost strangers and ask their opinion. People wearing hats are the best. You rarely meet a person in a hat who doesn't have interesting thoughts. Also nuns are great. So hats and habits, those are the flares that say "Interview me." Also anyone wearing a sandwich board sign, and punks on skateboards. So perhaps when I do my surveys there's an eccentricity bias.

Compounding the confusion for political prognosticators in Iowa is that it isn't a normal election, but rather a "caucus" process in which people can, over the course of an evening, CHANGE THEIR MINDS. This introduces the little-understood effect known as "squishiness bias." People can switch from one candidate to another, kind of like those football voters who at the last second elevated Louisiana State into the title game.

Listen to what my friend David Von Drehle writes at Time:

"Huckabee has never lost sight of the core fact of the Iowa caucuses: turnout is minuscule. Because of inconvenient scheduling (on a school night and opposite the Orange Bowl this year) and arcane rules for voting, candidates can look like giant killers here with about as many votes as it takes to be elected to the Fresno school board."

Today some New York-based newspaper had a piece about cellphones causing pollsters headaches, because you can't poll people who only have cellphones and don't have landlines. A friend tells me, "The great thing about this trend is that it could at least theoretically put an end to polling as we know it. If the pollsters can't reach you they can't poll you. And even if they can reach your cell phone, it isn't tied to any specific location, so how will they do an "Iowa" poll if half the people in Iowa have 917 or 646 or 202 area-code cell phones?"

Oh, they'll do one, you can bet on it.

--Joel Achenbach

By Washington Post editors  |  December 7, 2007; 10:37 AM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Joel's Two Cents  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: For Some, Negative Turn is a Turn-Off
Next: Reid Saves the Day After All


People are beginning to realize that they would like to see an end to the nepotism. Hillary's spouse was the President. That does not make her any more qualified than George W's wife or Margaret Thatcher's husband for that matter. America is not a monarchy... we are a representative democracy. It's time we started acting like one.
Being married to the boss...
failing at enacting health care initiatives...
carpet bagging into a weak senate race post...
and giving Bush the green light to invade IRAQ...
do not qualify one as experienced.

It's time to WAKE UP America...

- so Rise and Shine.

Obama 2008.

Posted by: PulSamsara | December 9, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Mike Huckabee will save you tons a money if you elect him as President.

Benefits you will receive if you vote for Mike Huckabee:

1. He will eliminate the IRS
a. You can take home 100% of your pay.
b. Government reduces spending by $50m/yr
c. Companies return from overseas outsourcing.
d. More jobs become available in America.

2. He will switch to alternative fuels in 10 years.
a. Middle East feels the pressure, drops oil prices.
b. Gas prices drop like a rock saving you thousands.
c. Middle East cracks down on terrorists very hard.
d. The environment improves making air cleaner.

Whether you are Democrat, Republican or in between Independant, all of you would want these benefits. Mike Huckabee is the ONLY canididate willing to make these changes.

Do not let all the other canidates, media and naysayers of negative politics get in the way of you receiving these huge benefits. It's only possible if you vote for Mike Huckabee.

GO MIKE GO!!!!!!!!

Posted by: vote4mikehuckabee | December 8, 2007 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Yes, words have a margin of error, but in this case the correct choice is "data weren't", because "data" is a plural noun. (The singular is "datum.")

Posted by: teague | December 8, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

All candidates strike as hypocrites
when explaining their religion.
Hopefully the candidate to emerge
will not fall in this trap.

Posted by: tabita | December 7, 2007 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Avraam, please stop spamming the exact same thing every thread. It's tiresome.

Posted by: Nissl | December 7, 2007 11:09 PM | Report abuse

It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKKlan or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKKlan and Nazi Party.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you:

Posted by: avraamjack | December 7, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Those corn ears behind Huckabee have a disturbing shape. Nobody reads Faulkner anymore?

Posted by: ShriekingDenizen | December 7, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Polling is fine. But the negative campaigning disguised in the form of polling used by advocacy group is just polluting the polling process.

Posted by: daiwanlan123 | December 7, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

You know, I think the polls are saying that voters want to get this election right this time...

Posted by: nquotes | December 7, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company