I wonder why pollsters don't have a control sample? Each poll taken is with a different group of people and these groups are compared to one another. There is actually no common reference point between the groups. The pollsters could set up a large control group (say 3 times the usual sample size) and interview them on an ongoing basis during the campaign. Their regular polls can then be compared to the control group. Comparing how the control group changes versus the regular polling could highlight trends and such.

Pollsters and media and biased toward the liberal and NDP agenda…they do not understand the pulse of the Canadian people.

The polls were all over the place too because nobody could correctly model the left-right split in Ontario. In the end, the fear of an NDP government was just too much for some on the centre and the right, and Iggy was too right wing for those on the left.

Or the pollsters are biased against or don't account for conservative support. The Conservatives have outperformed the polls in just about every election they've been in. Rob Ford decimated the pollsters' predictions in the Toronto mayoral race. Funny that.

From now on, I'm going to forget looking at polls and just listen to what Chantal Hebert is predicting.

But the 'split' means that the Conservatives benefit from the vote divided up amongst the opposition. He's talking about the modeling of that. So just measuring Con support doesn't help to predict. Are you paying attention at all?

Projections are nice and all, but why is anyone at all surprised they all got it so wrong last night? Basically all pollsters and predictors admitted that their models aren't set up to deal with the unprecedented happening.

Really, if anyone actually manages to get a working crystal ball, please let me know. I'd like to borrow it for a bit.

Chet was closer!

Perhaps EKOS tried to be too fancy and applied too many fitlers.

hahahah, yes, we all need to change the channel, take a deep breath & relax knowing that PM Harper will get the job done. :)

We've all had quite the adrenaline pump these past couple of weeks. Royal Wedding, bin Laden's death,
Conservative Majority, NDP as opposition & the death of Libs & Bloc.
Yep, we sure have had a bumpy fun ride, haven't we! hahahah

But shouldn't pollsters then take that bias into account in their sampling? Instead, they seem to bask in feeding into it, or even use it as a form of push polling.

That's the funniest part.

His words:

"it appears that what was previously thought unimaginable has become a point of consensus."

"As shocking as those numbers would have seemed just a few weeks ago, they are now more or less stable and undoubtedly accurate. The only real question remaining — and, frankly, this is more a matter of anecdotal curiosity at this stage — is how these translate into the new seat distribution in Canada’s next Parliament."

He sounded absolutely certain. No talk about his shoestring budget. Just absolute undeniable certainty about the accuracy. Sort of like the global warming zealots.

LOL
http://ipolitics.ca/2011/05/01/frank-graves-last-…

Now he says:

"We were almost spot on about the popular vote, but where we really screwed up was with the Tory majority"

as if that makes any sense whatsoever, and also:

"This is done on a shoestring budget, and while we do our best to try and understand our failures it requires analysis and time and nobody is really interested in that"

That's exactly the worst thing you could hear from a pollster.

Social desirability bias (or the Bradley effect as it is sometimes called) is really not a measurable bias because it changes according to the current climate of public opinion about the subject at hand. Some pollsters do count this as one reason to use robo-calling services instead of live operators, or for the use of internet polls. I actually doubt that it is very important in this case, more likely is a failure to capture turnout effects.

Small 'c' conservatives, men, and older people are more private. They hang up on pollsters, or tell them to f$%k off. Lefties, young people, and chicks can't wait to tell the world how they are going to vote…and how much more wonderful this makes them. This is why polls always short-change the vote for conservative parties and inflate the vote of left-wing parties.

How about a simpler explanation? They were wrong. Some overestimated Conservative support. Most others under-estimated it. It's a very inexact science, and it is not surprising that some got it wrong. Some were close. They aren't likely corrupt or even biased. Just working in a field that isn't all the accurate.

I spent a good portion of today listening to progressives talking with grave concern about the election results. Couldn't wait to share with each other. I remained silent – as I always do on political issues at work – until someone dragged me into it. When I said how I voted, one guy – who is usually quite friendly and reasonable – told me I was part of the "stupid 40".

This exchange seems typical. Progressives are wonderfully warm and friendly as long as they think you're one of them. When they find out you're not, they call you stupid and worse. I merely smiled and told him that while I may be stupid, reminding me of that fact is not likely to make me come around to his point of view. Left him with nowhere to go. How does one respond to something like that? :) He blushed so red I could almost feel the heat coming from him.

This is a big problem for progressives. They think everyone is like them, because most vocal people are like them. The conservatives tend to be very belligerent online, but socially very quiet about their views. There are exceptions of course. But I rarely express mine publicly. (British pollsters called this the "Shy Tory" effect after John Major's surprise majority victory in 1992). Unlike progressives, we don't eat, sleep and breathe politics and government. In fact, most of us go long periods of time without thinking of it at all. Unfortunately for progressives, we aren't shy about voting when the time comes. And we aren't likely to vote for those who dismiss us as stupid. You'd think they'd clue in sooner or later. Evidently, it will be later.

Chet has one he might not be using anymore.

I think it would be safer to wait and see before asking to borrow it. I have a suspicion it'd tell me to buy IBM, or to bet on Winnipeg, or perhaps on the Jays based on belief rather than their actual prospects, you know?

To clarify I don't mean its existence can't be measured in other kinds of studies, I just mean that it can't be measured in such a way as to fix it on a poll to poll basis.

But wouldn't any pollster worth their money, or the profession in general, be interested in dealing with this anti-conservative bias? Instead, they seem intent on leaving it alone, or even use it as a form of push polling. Reason #1488 to despise pollsters?

We also sometimes plan weekend events around long term weather forecasts, even though they aren't much good. Pollsters are the best tool available. They aren't perfect, but they aren't completely useless either. In the absence of crystal balls, we rely on pollsters. A little too much it seems, but there it is.