Jump to content

Latest Polls and Latest Odds


Lex

Recommended Posts

She's fucking weird. She worships Salmond as some kind of shield from nasty Cameron, but thinks we're too wee and poor to actually go it alone.

She sounds as kinky as f**k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My partner is English. She's a Yes.

My ex-wife is English and she's a Yes.

My ex-wife's partner is English and guess what? He's a Yes.

f**k YouGov and their blatant statistical cherry-picking. I believe in my fellow citizens of Scotland and the majority will vote Yes.

I know how 4 English people are voting and they're all voting no, do I win?

As for the dig at YouGov, why pick them? Yes is losing even in the polls that favour yes. You've not been ahead in one properly weighted poll anywhere.

Transport yourself back 2 and a bit years to May 2012, the day the yes campaign was launched. Had you been told then that in July 2014 yes would still be behind in every single poll, how would you have felt?

Pretty pessimistic I'd wager, but that's what's happened. I admire you for putting a brave face on it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My partner is English. She's a Yes.

My ex-wife is English and she's a Yes.

My ex-wife's partner is English and guess what? He's a Yes.

f**k YouGov and their blatant statistical cherry-picking. I believe in my fellow citizens of Scotland and the majority will vote Yes.

Not sure if serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know how 4 English people are voting and they're all voting no, do I win?

As for the dig at YouGov, why pick them? Yes is losing even in the polls that favour yes. You've not been ahead in one properly weighted poll anywhere.

Transport yourself back 2 and a bit years to May 2012, the day the yes campaign was launched. Had you been told then that in July 2014 yes would still be behind in every single poll, how would you have felt?

Pretty pessimistic I'd wager, but that's what's happened. I admire you for putting a brave face on it though.

Which part of the RUK would you have moved to by now if the YES campaign were showing leads in the polls?

Just so as we know where to find you next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Impressive whinge. Not an actual rebuttal to Kellner's argument, indeed he accepts that Kellner may even be correct in his analysis that incorrect voter recall is only statistically significant for SNP voters. The sum total of this blogpost amounts to "BUT IF HE'S WRONG YOUGOV ARE PURE SHITE EH?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Impressive whinge. Not an actual rebuttal to Kellner's argument, indeed he accepts that Kellner may even be correct in his analysis that incorrect voter recall is only statistically significant for SNP voters. The sum total of this blogpost amounts to "BUT IF HE'S WRONG YOUGOV ARE PURE SHITE EH?"

I imagine he's still angry about pollsters playing games with the future of this country...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Impressive whinge. Not an actual rebuttal to Kellner's argument, indeed he accepts that Kellner may even be correct in his analysis that incorrect voter recall is only statistically significant for SNP voters. The sum total of this blogpost amounts to "BUT IF HE'S WRONG YOUGOV ARE PURE SHITE EH?"

I think, the issue here is that YouGov has said that 'about half' of SNP support in 2011 came from what you might call 'passing nats' - in any sample YouGov has of this lot, there may only be a very few respondents who match this 'passing nat' description who will be upweighted dramatically to make up YouGov's 'passing nat' quota. Now, if said subsample is small, then it cannot be taken as statistically relevent or accurate, and that error is then mulitplied when the subsample is upweighted. That could lead to dramatic changes in the headline numbers.

Why do it anyway? Why not simply rely on a single SNP group and asking them yes/No - as the other pollsters do. They all show a 15-18% No rate amongst the SNP on 2011 recall. Why suspect that as wrong? It feels like his assumption is that there must be more No voters, so let's go find them, akin to ICM and their search for shy Nos. Yet I can think of a few problems with Kellner's proposition, his assumption is that if he has a small subsample of 'passing nats' he needs to upweigh, then any error he finds is irrelevent since this group must all be closet Unionists lending a vote to the party of competent administration. we all know these people exist, like HB and Lex. However, Kellner doesn't seme to factor in that some folk voting SNP for the first time in 2011 did so, because between '07 and '11 they'd genuinely begun to believe independence was viable and desirable - as I did.

no doubt there are other hues of the same colour, Kellner's binary assumption seems to be that the 2007 vote is the SNP's only true pro indy constituency and that any additional 2011 votes gained were merely unionists in favour of competent government. That seems to me to be the only way he could get away with multiplying up fractional subsamples without introducing an error - if he assumed said sub group was very uniform in it's outlook.

Now, it may be that there is a big enough sub group in there such that any multiplied error would not be egregious. If so, publish the data tables showing the two SNP groups split - you'll note that they don't. Thus we can't interrogate this subsample for it's size or demographic outlook - if Kellner is uplifiting 45 55-65 year old women from the top two percentile, then no wonder the No lead is amplified. Not to stray from the basic point, fractional subsamples dramatically upweighted must introduce error. It's an issue all pollsters will run into from time to time, particularly in terms of age groups - ICM had previously produced massively varying headline figures base don trying to get more or less youth voters in to their polls. In this instance I see no valid reason why Kellner would introduce this further subsample.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really doubt that a company like YouGov would deliberately skew the polling results. They are a business, based on producing accurate public polls, and if they were to get the referendum result significantly wrong it would be damaging to them as a company.

Survation have responded here - http://survation.com/response-to-yesterdays-times-yougov-articles-and-yougovs-published-research-about-survations-scottish-independence-methodology/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...