For example, here is the way the September 11th ABC News/Washington Post poll was reported by aggregator Real Clear Politics:
Clinton has 46 percent support among likely voters in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, with 41 percent for Trump, 9 percent for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 2 percent for Jill Stein of the Green Party.
Clinton’s 5-point advantage is within this poll’s margin of error, but it bears up in the context of consistent results among likely voters all summer.
The first paragraph leads the reader to believe Clinton has a percent edge. But, the second paragraph acknowledges a problem with a big C.I., implying it is okay to look at the mean values because other earlier polls showed the same trend. Shame! The author should know better; there is no statistical foundation for the claim that past results, which probably had the same problem, justify overlooking the C.I. dilemma here. As such, no inference about who is ahead can be drawn from this poll.
Op-ed: Rethinking the Polls. Why many polling stories mislead readers and viewers – and why that is really important in a scary election. – MediaFile
This is the first in a series of op-eds about polling in the election. John E. Newhagen is an associate professor emeritus at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism. Most polling stories go straight to the horserace – they focus on who
Latest posts by Eric Axelrod (see all)
- Metadata Automation |Tableau Community - March 1, 2017
- How Amazon Will Ride Big Data To $1 Trillion Market Cap - January 22, 2017
- Why physicists are a good fit for data science jobs - January 16, 2017