Slashdot Mirror


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."

26 of 546 comments (clear)

  1. Give them credit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unlike the many Republican outfits which used partly- or wholly-fabricated polls by Strategic Vision, or the many media outlets which continue to use the horribly flawed Rasmussen polls to create eye-catching headlines, Kos immediately dumped the pollster, did an investigation, owned up to the errors publicly, and is now pursuing legal recourse.

    This is exactly how you would expect an honest media organization (if one with a considerable political agenda) to behave. Too bad the mainstream media and those on the other side of the aisle don't seem to want to do the same.

    1. Re:Give them credit. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Give them credit. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

      +1 on this.

      If Stephen Glass worked for a conservative rag like the National Review, he wouldn't have been fired, he would've been promoted.

      You mean the way that NYT promoted Jayson Blair several times even though his superiors were complaining about his inaccurate stories, until it became public knowledge that he just made things up?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  2. R2K not alone in this. by Zephyr14z · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:R2K not alone in this. by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And if Diebold scored it:

      24% Funny
      10% Insightful
      15% Interesting
      51% Republican

  3. misleading headline... by emagery · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps you misread the summary? The Daily Kos is not at fault here.

  6. the truth is, polling sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    of course this will turn into a "bash the left" and a "bash the right" thread. when ideology isn't the point. polling is the idiocy in question

    and the guy who manipulated the numbers is clearly an amateur. the way you do proper poll manipulation is LOAD THE QUESTION. you poll people with a question with the proper turn of phrase to lead them towards the answer you want. then, when you present the answers to the poll, you also cage the results in such a way to lead the audience in the way you want them to interpret the results

    polling is fucking joke. all results from the left, or the right, is complete bullshit, and a waste of your time

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by mea37 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're assuming the motive was to manipulate the outcome.

      Did it not occur to you that maybe the motive was to provide any outcome that would look real enough to get paid, while not doing as much work?

    2. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      polling is fucking joke. all results from the left, or the right, is complete bullshit, and a waste of your time

      Or, to put it another way, it's absolutely impossible to know what the people want without asking every single one of them.

      Genius.

      No, wait, sorry, I meant "bullshit". Polling is a tool, and an extremely important one. Can it be done very poorly? Yes, of course, But that needn't necessarily be true. And it's the only option for understanding a population when there's millions and millions of individuals.

  7. Re:To be fair... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Somebody really fucked up the metamoderation. I used to metamoderate all the time when you had to rate moderations as fair, unfair, or neutral. I thought that worked pretty well, but now metamoderation is an up or down vote, and worst of all, by doing so you have tagged the post and it shows up on your damn profile page! I only made that mistake once, and I'm not metamoderating again until that goes away. I don't want my profile page cluttered with random posts from other people.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  8. You Are Not a Republican by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 4, Informative
    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."

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:You Are Not a Republican by Anonymusing · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      I know there is discussion. Even your quote says differences "can emerge from legitimate differences of opinion about how to model the electorate" and FiveThirtyEight has, in the past, noted Rasmussen's surprising accuracy in predicting election outcomes. Your link would not support the GPP's description of "horribly flawed" to Rasmussen -- merely "hmm that's interesting".

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
  9. Echos of Cryptonomicon by coaxial · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, there's a scene early in the book where the Allies are assembling the personnel for Station X (aka Bletchely Park). Statistician, turned Nazi codebreaker Lawrence Waterhouse, points out that his Nazi counterpart Rudy von Hacklheber, would notice something was amiss with the Allied personnel changes based the statistics of people being transfered to Bletchely Park, and then quickly deduce that the Allies are attempting to break the Enigma code. To camouflage the transfers, Waterhouse suggests creating ficticious personnel and have some of them transfered to Bletchely Park as well. However the military can't just make any random fake person, the fictious people must be statisitically drawn from a distribution that when added to distribution of real Bletchely Park personnel, the combined distribution is statistically insignificant (i.e. fail to reject the null hypothesis) than any other large military base.

    If Research 2000 did what is suggested, they failed to taint the polls with the right kind of fake data, just like what the novel warned about.

  10. Re:To be fair... by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody expects the Daily Kos to be accurate. It would be like trusting Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or anything ever aired on "Air America" before it went bankrupt.

    On matters of fact, they're pretty scrupulous, especially when it comes to owning up to their own mistakes, like hiring R2K.

    On matters of opinion and ideology, well, it's a political blog. What exactly is an "accurate" opinion?

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  11. Re:To be fair... by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Funny

    On matters of opinion and ideology, well, it's a political blog. What exactly is an "accurate" opinion?

    "Mine."

  12. Re:To be fair... by skids · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Olbermann continued to close his show with the number of days since "Mission Accomplished" right up until a month or so ago, when he switched to the number of days since the deepwater horizon leak started. Much of the left does not pull punches against Obama for taking his time extracting us from these debacles.

    The far left idealists can get quite heated against Obama. Me, all I have to do is imagine how McCain would have responded, then after I've wiped off all the cold sweat and stopped gritting my teeth, I have no regrets about 08.

  13. Re:To be fair... by skids · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They explain the criteria by which they selected R2K, and it seemed fine. (RTFA)

    That they caught R2K at this, and were willing to expose it, while other polls have also exhibited some of these patterns and continued to be used by their clients, says more good things about dkos than bad.

  14. Re:nothing's shocking by Wildfire+Darkstar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They did look at it critically. Research 2000 was fired by Daily Kos before anyone noted any impropriety in the figures, simply because the numbers weren't matching up with reality. Shortly after this happened, Grebner, Weissman, and Weissman approached Markos with evidence of deliberate impropriety.

    Does Daily Kos have a responsibility to not promote questionable information as truth? Of course, and they've apologized for the situation. But keep in mind that this information is only coming to light because someone with sufficient statistical background took the time to pore over the data. That sort of expertise is hard to come by, which is the reason why smaller media/news outlets contract out to firms like Research 2000 in the first place!

    It's only relatively recently that there's been much interest in the science of polling. Before the emergence of aggregation sites like FiveThirtyEight or Pollster.com, it was extremely rare that you'd ever see this kind of statistical analysis of polling data. The traditional method of testing a pollster's reliability was simple trial and error over a period of several elections. Really, that's *still* the primary method. If anything, Research 2000 only got scrutinized in this case because of the issues with their accuracy that led to them being dropped in the first place.

    For me, it's not really a partisan issue, despite the highly politicized nature of Daily Kos. It has more to do with the size of the media outlet. I would expect a major news organization with dozens or hundreds of employees, like Fox News or MSNBC, to be able to detect problems like these very quickly. A relatively small blog with maybe a dozen part-time employees like Daily Kos, or Red State, or whatever, I'm more willing to give a pass. At least at first: I'd expect Markos to learn his lesson from this and be more proactive in ensuring that it doesn't happen again.

    --
    Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
  15. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To an educated mind, snarky ad-hominem attacks do more to discredit you than your opponent.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  16. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 5, Informative

    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=

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  17. Re:To be fair... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Haha. You guys still haven't figured out that "progressive" is a term we've been using for a deviant sexual act. LOL! That's why we guffaw when you call yourself a "progressive". I mean, the only thing we can thing to ourselves is, "well, yea, somebody tried to progressivize me in college, but I just wasn't drunk and horny enough to get into it."

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  18. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every Single Health Care Reform Idea is... ... a Republican idea.

    You seem to forget that the National health reform model is modeled after the Massachusetts one, instigated by Mitt Romney, a Republican.

    The Republican Party is only out for itself. If it's their idea,

    Oh fuckit. I'm not writing this for the billionth time. Fuck the GOP, Fuck the Teabaggers, and Fuck you and your fucking short term memory.

    --
    BMO

  19. Re:To be fair... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  20. Re:To be fair... by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

    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