Daily Kos Pollster Made Up Numbers

jamie found a story up on Daily Kos revealing that the polling firm they had contracted with for 18 months, Research 2000 or R2K, apparently made up or at least manually tweaked its polling results. The blog published a preliminary report by a team of statistics gurus (Mark Grebner, Michael Weissman, and Jonathan Weissman), and it is an exemplar of clarity and concision. The team reports, "We do not know exactly how the weekly R2K results were created, but we are confident they could not accurately describe random polls." Daily Kos will be filing a lawsuit against its former pollster. "For the past year and a half, Daily Kos has been featuring weekly poll results from the Research 2000 (R2K) organization. These polls were often praised for their 'transparency,' since they included detailed cross-tabs on sub-populations and a clear description of the random dialing technique. However, on June 6, 2010, FiveThirtyEight.com rated R2K as among the least accurate pollsters in predicting election results. Daily Kos then terminated the relationship. One of us (MG) wondered if odd patterns he had noticed in R2K's reports might be connected with R2K's mediocre track record, prompting our investigation of whether the reports could represent proper random polling. ... This posting is a careful initial report of our findings, not intended to be a full formal analysis but rather to alert people not to rely on R2K's results."

Comments

R2K not alone in this.

[Zephyr14z]

I used to work a different major polling company, and I can assure you R2K is not alone in just making up numbers. Easily 80% of surveys that went through my region were completely falsified, and the remaining 20% rarely matched the demographic they were supposed to be answering for. Survey administrators have quotas, and then get paid extra for additional surveys past that, but there is basically nothing done to verify any of the surveys turned in, and everybody in the company knows it. Don't always trust what you read, especially not statistics.

misleading headline...

[emagery]

For headline skimmers, this post would produced a completely inaccurate sense of what the article was all about... at length, the D.KOS are the ones who found out about this and are doing something something about it. That's good... but if you just read the headline, you'd come away thinking that D.KOS were the culprits instead.

You Are Not a Republican

[Gary W. Longsine]

You're also lazy, and ill informed. You could have spent a fraction of a second (0.15 seconds) with Google to find about 3,860,000 results for the search term "Rasmussen bias" to discover that, yes, in fact, there is some discussion of this point.

Nate Silver on Possible Biasin Rasmussen Reports
"What Rasmussen has had is a "house effect". So far in the 2010 cycle, their polling has consistently and predictably shown better results for Republican candidates than other polling firms have. But such house effects can emerge from legitimate differences of opinion about how to model the electorate. And ultimately, these differences of opinion will be tested -- based on what happens next November. If Rasmussen's opinion turns out to be wildly inaccurate, that will impeach their credibility, and believe me, we will point that out. Likewise, if they turn out to be right when most other pollsters are wrong, we will point that out too."

Re:Give them credit.

[Attila Dimedici]

The quote you gave merely says that the results that Rasmussen is getting at this time show a public more greatly favoring Republican positions not that Rasmussen is fudging the numbers to get those results. The rest of the article can be dismissed since the source for the article clearly favors Democratic policy over Republican

Re:To be fair...

[spun]

Wrong. Now that teabaggers know what the term means, they call themselves tea partiers. But back in the day, they carried teabags around and called themselves teabaggers.

Here's an article backing up that fact, but I warn you, it is from that den of liberal iniquity, Billy Buckley's The National Review, so take it with the grain of salt that any reading of The National Review requires.

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=

Re:To be fair...

[Curunir_wolf]

Nope, that proves nothing other than some people are as ignorant as yourself. That article was written in December, 2009. And the author apparently didn't know anything about the Tea Parties that had been happening for almost three years - he seems under the (mistaken, or intentionally misleading) assumption it had something to do with Obama's election.

Here's some insight from some of the progenitor tea parties.

Re:To be fair...

[DJRumpy]

Actually no. They carried the very signs that started all of this:

http://washingtonindependent.com/69660/correcting-jay-nordlinger

In January of 09, they had a Facebook page that had some back and forth discussion about the 'alternate' meaning of teabag with some surprised disdain when they were informed as to what the term meant. They were apparently unaware at that point.

This is from the rally in DC on April 15th of 2009:
http://washingtonindependent.com/31868/scenes-from-the-new-american-tea-party

One final little tidbit...the debate by conservatives as to whether or not to wear the title with pride ;)

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/to-teabag-or-not-thats-still-the-question-for-conservatives.php