It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Before delving into the results, it’s important to understand why Civis polls are unlike the surveys sponsored by news organizations or universities. Nearly all public polls try to interview adults by randomly calling telephone numbers, a technique known as random digit dialing. They adjust the responses to match the demographic characteristics of the adult population, then remove those people who say they’re not registered to vote.
What we do is a bit different than what you’ve been reading:
1. We collect a lot more data. We’ve gathered an enormous amount of survey data on the GOP primary so far. Back in August, we released data from an initial poll of 757 self-identified Republicans from a total sample of 3,007 Americans (you can read more about the findings in the New York Times). Since that initial survey starting August 10, 2015, we’ve collected over 10,000 more survey responses to the GOP Primary horserace question on our ongoing weekly national tracking survey of 2,000+ respondents (if you’d like to add your own question, learn more here).
2. We’re using math that isn’t typically used in election analytics. To build the maps you’re looking at, we’re running tens of thousands of simulations using proprietary Bayesian algorithms that leverage all of that data to make estimates of survey responses in small geographies or demographic subgroups (if you’re interested in learning more, check out multilevel regression and post-stratification).
Using these methods we’re able to confidently generate estimates within 8.7 percentage points at the Congressional level which is 5.2 times better than what we could do with surveys alone.
Civis Analytics conducted 40,050 live telephone interviews of adults in the United States contacted on telephones from August 10, 2015 to December 27, 2015. Among respondents of these surveys there were 11,441 self-identified Republican or lean Republican adults. These respondents were asked their candidate preference in the GOP primary. Undecided respondents are not considered as part of the analysis, map, or trend lines.
originally posted by: matafuchs
I have been hammered in the last few weeks by presenting polling data.
Were they given the choice of "If you were republican.....?"
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: DelMarvel
To address the gif it is showing who is leading in each state. That would be Trump. How else could it be interpreted?
originally posted by: matafuchsSecond, If we you use your logic, it would mean the second runner Cruz has 80% who back someone else, with 35% of them Trump supporters. This leave 50% of the voters tipping the hat to someone else. Right?
As my old statistics professor used to tell us, "Never be afraid of a formula. The longer it is, the more work it does for you. Plug in the numbers and do the math."
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: schuyler
As my old statistics professor used to tell us, "Never be afraid of a formula. The longer it is, the more work it does for you. Plug in the numbers and do the math."
You can get whatever results you want with that theory, as long as you put in the numbers you want.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: schuyler
What is your professors algorithm? Is it open source? What numbers get plugged in?
An algorithm usually means a method of computation done in a computer language. A statistical formula is not, strictly speaking, an "algorithm" at all until it is is embedded and translated into a program
The numbers that get plugged in depend on what you are measuring. The formulas will tell you what the most common average is, the range where 68% of the averages fall, etc. If you're measuring scores on Stanford-Binet IQ test, your "answer" might be that the "standard deviation" on this particular test is 16 so that 68% of the population has an IQ between 84 and 116 and 97% of the population has an IQ between 68 and 132 in a "normal distribution" with a "confidence level" of .05, which means 19 out of 20 times this formula will work and 1 out of 20 the answers you get will be attributable to chance. That's an example of measuring variance in a population.
But if you're doing something a lot more strange, like comparing the price of housing in an area to the amount of clay in the soil you'd measure both on their own scales and see if there is a "correlation" between the two with an entirely different kind of formula.
The formulas themselves can be found in any statistics textbook and are therefore entirely "open source."
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: schuyler
Political polling falls out of the range of your professor I guess, these things called variables and such.