Skip to main content

A November 3 poll  for Colorado released by YouGov showed the Colorado presidential race to be in favor of Obama 48-47. So what's to kvetch about?

Well, some folks were dismayed because this apparently represents a 2% improvement for Romney since YouGov's October 11 poll. On the other side, as in the case of Pennsylvania (see yesterday's diary) this kept the fuse sputtering under Karl Rove's ample bum, filling the CO airwaves with their foulest emanations, and the R&R boys scurrying around Colorado like Energizer rats. Once again, good. Waste of Republican energy, $$ and focus. For, while marginally better than the Susquehanna garbage lowlighted yesterday, the YouGov polls are also trash.

As I wrote then, in order to examine a poll, we try to get behind the headlines to look at the underlying questionnaire and, more importantly, the demographics of the respondents. These are not always easy to get to (see Note 1 below), but, in this case they were, to YouGov's credit (links provided earlier in the text). We then check the demographics against two gold standards: (a) the 2008 CNN Exit Polls (b) the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. If there are significant discrepancies between the poll demographics and the standards, we use various methods to adjust and "normalize" the results for a more accurate projection.

The YouGov Polls

The three categories in these polls which varied most egregiously from the corresponding categories for Colorado in the CNN 2008 Presidential Election Exit Poll and the 2010 US Census are shown below, with the biggest offenders highlighted.

(Data in cells are percentages. Row total in category may not equal 100 because of rounding)

Source: YouGov Colorado Polls, CNN 2008 President Colorado Exit Poll, US Census Colorado 2010


Two problems just jump out at you from the chart.

(1) The "thumb on the scale" problem is most pronounced in the October poll - the typical Republican-favoring skew: fewer young, more oldies and of course, whiter and less brown.

(2) The "apples vs. oranges" problem: they apparently tried to compensate for the October farce by gathering a more representative sample for November. But now the composition of the two samples is so wildly different that no comparisons can legitimately be made. Thus, the claim of a two percent improvement for Romney is pure imagination..

The October poll has so many other problems and is out-dated anyway, it can be tossed. As for the November 3 poll, we used the same techniques described yestreday for "unskewing" or unbiasing the sample to resemble more normal voting demographics -- we used the 2008 CNN numbers for our model -- and recalculating. The results could not be more heartening. GO COLORADO! But don't rest on your bums -- Karl Rove isn't on his. GOTV.

YouGov Nov. Poll:  Obama 48.20   Romney 46.60
Remove Age Bias:  Obama -0.10   Romney -0.26
Remove Race Bias: Obama +1.00   Romney -0.70
2008 Vote Bias    : Obama +0.75   Romney -0.75
which all adds up to:

Barack Obama: 50%   Mitt Romney: 45%

which actually represents a 2% improvement for Obama and not the other way round, compared to YouGov's own October polls.

This 5 point lead for Obama is virtually unassailable even in the unlikely event that the entire 5% "Other/Undecided" broke the other way.
The likeliest outcome: Obama: 52% Romney: 47% in Colorado 2012

It is not my intention to keep skewering pollsters who skew. But when they clearly screw up (as in YouGov's case) or screw with the public (as with Trib/Susquehanna yesterday), we'll keep nailing 'em.
Note 1: Most reputable polling organizations will provide the backup questionnaires, demographics and cross-tabs for published polls. Most University affiliates (Suffolk, Marist, Franklin & Marshall etc.) are especially good in this regard, the commercial pollsters less so. Most are signatories to the American Association for Public Opinion Research Transparency Initiative, but significantly NOT YouGov, nor, as mentioned yesterday, Susquehanna and Rasmussen (or its parent: Pulse Opinion), notorious for its Republican tilt. Be warned.
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  We're unskewing now? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Ugh. Some skepticism over samples is fine, but blatant unskewing is what we've all been making fun of the Republicans for doing.

  •  No need to "unskew." We're winning (0+ / 0-)

    Let the crazy wingnuts delude themselves by "unskewing" polls. When I worked with polling data in a political job, we often found it better not to weight by age because the reported ages were decent indicators of who would turn out. You can't just weight age to match the census, since young voters historically have turned out in lower numbers than seniors (even in 2008).

    •  No need to "unskew." We're winning (0+ / 0-)

      Thanks for your comments. But statistics well practiced isn't delusional, bad statistics as practiced by the other side may well be. I know we're winning. And by a lot more than the polls are showing! Which was the point of the post.

      I don't follow your point about age demographics: in fact, since their inception, the CNN exit polls by age have been in remarkably constant ratio vis-a-vis their census counterparts (excepting 2008, and we hope, 2012 when young voters had a marked uptick).

  •  The problem I have is not the unskewering, but (0+ / 0-)

    using the 2008 numbers.  I doubt Obama is going to get the same number of votes he did in 2008.  I would lower the dems votes by 2% to be safe.

  •  Thank you for the analysis. I think we (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gautam, pollbuster

    have a lot of other data points from CO (2 others today that have Obama +6 and +4 respectively) that allow us to put this poll in perspective.  I think this analysis helps to show that this poll is aligns better with the results of the other 2 surveys.

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Mon Nov 05, 2012 at 01:54:07 PM PST

  •  Thanks for "unskewing" (0+ / 0-)

    This is apparently a bad word now because the Republicans have been misusing it. But someone on our side needs to do it -- the Republicans play fast and loose with the numbers and think the public will swallow it. Good work.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site