« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Nate Silver pretends to forget how polling works

The last time we checked in on Nate Silver, the top-flight baseball analyst turned bottom-feeding partisan shill (appropriate for a guy who started out in politics as a Daily Kos diarist) was launching a crusade against Strategic Vision so lacking in integrity or even basic mathematical sense that it left many of us wondering whose payroll he’s on.

The sad part is, though, that his analysis is so bad, it would honestly surprise me if anyone were actually paying for this. Take this attempted broadside from Sunday. It’s full of so much bad math and so little critical thinking that I lack the time tonight to address it all. Here are the highlights, though.

The first objective claim he makes about the Strategic Vision poll in question, after his rambling anecdotal sideshow, is that the results are underdispersed. This claim is entirely unsupported in the most literal sense, in that he neither demonstrates what kind of distribution the data should have followed, nor does he show that the actual variance of the data contradicts that predicted distribution. The technical term for this is ‘hand waving,’ however when our professor waves his hands we at least can check the textbook for confirmation. Silver’s just making this up as he goes along, though.

From there we get some more anecdotal rambling, in which a Democrat politican’s words are recorded with the same kind of blind, unquestioning support that a Hitler Youth would have recorded Der Führer’s own speeches. After all that, we get what is supposed to be a smoking gun: A different poll with different results.

However it’s not surprising that Cannaday’s poll has different results. It is conducted with a different pool of students (high school seniors in his district, not students from all high school grades all across the state). The samples were not random (special education students were picked out, according to Silver). The survey environment was different (students were questioned in a school environment with authority figures present, rather than asked at home by strangers over a telephone).

No amount of special pleading can make the two surveys comparable, especially given the menacing glares of teachers ensuring the students try on the tests, and the teachers themselves under political pressure from a state officeholder.

And again, Nate Silver knows this. Different methodologies testing different pools, with samples drawn using different methods, will produce different results. He chooses to disregard this in order to shill for his Democrat superiors.

I sure hope he’s getting paid, because his integrity was surely worth at least a combo meal at Carl’s Jr, with large fries.

COMMENTS

  • charleskirtley

    Don’t worry. No one read it.

  • mschmitt
  • bk

    Then they can somehow manage to hold a straight face while using their famous “There are those who say that (insert some lie)…” approach to “reporting”.

  • sacody

    Reading his commentary on how unlikely the responses of various high school students relating to U.S. politics and history must be is quite comical. How serious do you think they were being with the pollster in the first place? I have seen crazier answers, and they were on real tests with real grades attached to them. If he’d spend a little more time in the classroom with teenagers for a while, then he would understand where the pool of people this information was coming from. Seriously, most of my students could not even tell you the events surrounding 9-11. To them that is ancient history and is not relavent to their daily lives.

  • dantes

    You are saying the Strategic Vision poll is the inferior poll because obviously students were giving bogus answers over the phone, instead of taking a test in a classroom-like environment.

    Now which class taken between 9th grade and 12 grade did most Oklahoma students finally figure out that George Washington was the 1st President?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Enough with the bitter sarcasm. I don’t have time for bad attitudes.

  • mikefisk

    …regarding the Cannaday poll, even if one wanted to use that as the baseline for comparison, (assuming they have statewide standardized tests in OK, I don’t know) how well do seniors in the pollster’s state compare to the rest of the state?

    You test in a good school, you get better results. Also, testing seniors in one school seems less like a “poll” and more like “anecdotal evidence”.

  • 8r1k

    It isn’t just Nate Silver who has questions about SV. The American Association for Public Opinion Research started the ball rolling when they raised objections to SV not releasing any essential background on their polls during the primaries in 2008. http://aapor.org/AAPOR_Raises_Objections_to_Actions_by_Strategic_Vision_LLC.htm
    A similar thing also happened with the folks over at Pollster.com http://www.pollster.com/blogs/did_the_dog_eat_the_data.php

    Mr. Silver showed why he thought the SV poll’s results were underdispersed in a previous post: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/did_the_dog_eat_the_data.php.

    I think you are right when you say there is absolutely no way to compare the two results as anything close to equal. However, there is really no way of knowing if their survey results are valid as they refuse to release their raw responses, cross tabs, or any other background info. Which is pretty standard for Strategic Vision on everyone of their polls.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Must have taken a while to work through the grapevine to Silver’s boot lickers.

  • 8r1k

    The reports criticizing SV came out before Silver posted anything on them, so I think calling them his boot lickers is a little misdirected. I just don’t see the point in defending an organization that is the laughing stock of the professional polling community.