tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post7295277156903452921..comments2024-03-26T05:22:08.256-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: About Those Zogby Interactive Polls...(The McCain Bounce Revisited)Josh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-1188849334898923552008-09-23T08:52:00.000-04:002008-09-23T08:52:00.000-04:00I'm still waiting on John Zogby for the counterpoi...I'm still waiting on John Zogby for the counterpoint.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, their inclusion was based on a lack of polls during the period immediately following the July 4 holiday. And the inclusion of subsequent iterations was more legacy than anything. I really don't have a problem continuing to included them...in states where we have a significant amount of polling. But the inflation for Obama in states like Oklahoma and Tennessee, where there has been far less polling -- and for good reason -- the shift with/without the polls was significant. <BR/><BR/>And you can't included the polls in some instances and not in others. This is one black and white scenario we have in this race.<BR/><BR/>I'm inclined to remove them from the data if only because the reason for inclusion was tenuously based in the first place. <BR/><BR/>This one really is a no-brainer. But now that we've had these polls incorporated for a while, we can see what and where their effect is felt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-45412238382453776432008-09-23T08:06:00.000-04:002008-09-23T08:06:00.000-04:00Drop them. Even if noise is negligible, or is a wa...Drop them. Even if noise is negligible, or is a wash, it's still noise. We have both methodological and empirical evidence for distrusting these polls.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14690577323454357276noreply@blogger.com