'Wrong' track, Interlude--Prof's primer on polls, part II

Rusting locomotive, Skagway, Alaska, Not all polls are as reliable as others and can lead to the wrong track

Old Alaskan trestle  and tracks--like some polls, deserve skepticism

Back in 2012, because of their polling, Mitt Romney, his family and campaign people were confident of victory and then literally stunned and shell-shocked as the election night results rolled in. http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/110597/exclusive-the-polls-made-mitt-romney-think-hed-win#
This link explains why they were on the "wrong" track. What they really needed was my "Prof’s Primer on Polling," especially this editor’s checklist for evaluating polling, or any research.

Poll aggregators show a better idea than just one poll

Four years later, it's more true than ever that Americans need to understand polls in this election, rather than just attacking them if we disagree with their results.  We get new ones every day.

My advice is not to trust any one poll, but look at a bunch of them, and it's easier than ever, given computers and aggregators, especially Real Clear Politics and 538, which called every state's results four years ago.
Americans are justifiably suspicious of polling, and not just for political reasons. Some of the fault lies with newspapers and broadcast which have reported off-beat “research” to try to snag audience.  Last post I referred to USA Today once carrying a Women’s Day’s poll saying readers wouldn’t marry the same man is just one example. The poll was loaded with faults, and the media failed to point them out. Then Fox picked up the myth and continued with it.

On London's "Tube," the "right" track is always clear

So here is this prof's voter checklist for evaluating polls, so at least you can be sure you're on the "right" track with them, even if you think the country is on the "wrong" track, as I do. I think this should also be every American’s checklist too. 

• When was the poll conducted? Results  change overnight as the RCP chart shows.
• Check more than one poll for more accuracy.
• Who sponsored the polling? Is there a conflict of interest?  Political polling is especially suspect if it’s loaded with distrust for the other side. Beware any polling done by a PR firm for a client. I understand the Republicans with their distrust of the so-called “liberal media” wanting to conduct their own polls.  But Romney's campaign fell  victim to the same faults they suspected from the other side.
• Who was included in the polling? If you poll certain age groups or geographic areas or don’t reach likely voters, you’re results will not be valid. See number three.
• How were the people chosen? Was it a true “random” sample? If not the results will be skewed (as with Romney’s polling).
• How many people were in the sample? If the poll has fewer than 1,100 respondents, your margin of error is going to be more than three percent.
• What was the response rate? If your sample was 1,000 and only 400 answered, you get results like the Women’s Day article which threw out more than it counted. Don’t seriously consider any response rate less than 60 percent.
• How accurate are the results? Always compute the margin of error—it results were within it, then “it’s too close to call.”
• Who were the interviewers? Were they professionally trained and neutral? If not, prejudice, inflection of the voice and other factors can affect results.
• How was the polling conducted? Robo-call? In person? If it was a call-in or send-in, the results are worthless because they’re not "random." See definition in previous post.
• What were the actual questions asked? Wording can influence results, and can lead to opposite results on the same matter, depending on wording.
• Are the results cause and effect or just correlation? I saw a headlined story once: “Want to live a longer life? Marry yourself a younger wife.” The poll found that men with younger wives lived longer. But—this might not be cause and effect because there are many other factors involved—health, wealth, etc.
• Does the headline match the polling results? 

If you can’t answer these questions satisfactorily, be suspicious.
 A few of the faults of the Women’s Day poll and article: 1. It’s not random for all women in America, only subscribers. 2. Women’s Day has more than one million subscribers. About 100,000 responded. 3. The results were clipped out of the magazine and sent in (pre-Internet). 4. Once the magazine got the results, some of them were not counted.
So, a responsible newspaper or broadcast station reporting polling results should include an explanatory item with every story. If it doesn't, be suspect. It should be written along these lines:
“The Daily Geezer poll of 1,200 registered voters in Geezer County was conducted Oct. 31, 2016, and asked two questions: ‘Will you vote Nov. 8?’ and ‘Which presidential candidate will you vote for?’ The results have a margin of error of plus and minus three percent.”

Next--polls showing America on the "wrong" track.

                            Accurate polls are like well run railroads--inspected 
               and run with very little error, as Forest Park railroad, Fort Worth

'Wrong' track...Interlude, prof's primer on polls-I

Clark looking for the 'wrong' track, and right polling

It’s a long way and time from the banner headline “Dewey Defeats Truman” in the Chicago Tribune.
I’m not talking about politics and the press, but about something else most Americans are probably sick of about now, polling. Back in 1948, public opinion polling was in its infancy, contributing to that journalistic fiasco.
In the current election, and the one four years ago, we are being  deluged with more polls than ever. In 2012 they remarkably foretold the results, correctly predicting the electoral outcome in every state. 2012 poll accuracy
How? This year is still open to questions, and lots of time.
Forget the poo-pooers who argued with what they showed because they disagreed or didn’t want to believe, or thought they were biased.  There is room for suspicion and questions, but not denials of the science involved, if you just disagree with it...if you're a realist. Forget your political views of Huffington Post, or 538 or Real Clear Politics. In 2012 the poll aggregators of hundreds of polls nailed the results: 2012 polls.
It is a fact that most Americans don’t understand scientific polling and are right to be suspicious of them.
You rarely see polling explained. This is a version of what I wrote four years ago, urging Oklahoma newspapers to explain them.
So before we go to the poll findings about America being on the "wrong" track, here are some facts and explanations.

               Prof's primer on polling, part one

Hence, here’s the "Prof’s press primer on polling, part one."
Definition of terms is first.
    •    Population—The group to be surveyed, such as likely voters, residents of Oklahoma, likely voters in any election, etc.
    •    Random—Random does not mean “haphazard.” It means that every person in the "population" has an equal chance of being chosen. It’s easy in a classroom—you put every name in a hat and have a few names pulled out. Bigger groups require phone numbers or addresses, all more easily available than ever with computer data.
    •    Sample—The portion of the population to be chosen randomly to ask the poll questions.
    •    Valid—A poll is valid if the results collected from the sample can be applied to the entire population.
    •    Margin of error—Expressed as a plus and minus percentage. Every poll has flaws and variables that will affect the accuracy of the results, but the larger the sample, the lower the margin of error (If you poll everyone in the population there will be no margin of error, but that isn’t possible in most cases).
Now the key question—how big a sample do you need to conduct an accurate poll?
You’re not going to believe the answer. So first things first. Timing, wording of questions, training of the pollsters, polling methods, and other factors also affect a poll’s validity, not just the sample size. And sample size is not dependent on "population" size.
That said, to get a sense of how people in Oklahoma might vote on any issue,  or people in the United States,  for a five percent margin of error, you need roughly only 400 registered, or likely, voters selected randomly. Yep, that’s all. The better national polls try for 1,100 to 1,300 respondents, for about a three percent margin of error.
Here’s how the margin of error figures. Suppose the results come back showing Panhandle residents favor seceding from Oklahoma by a 52-48 percent margin, with a sample size of 400 people. The results are within the three percent margin of error so the election could go either way—it could be 52-43, or 47-52, or any combination. If on the other hand it was 75-25, Oklahoma would have a problem.
Also important in polling is the timing. A poll or electability two days after Romney winning the first debate is valid that day. But as fast as things change in this digital news country, it wouldn’t be valid in five days. Same is true in the current election--Americans are fickle. A poll the day after either convention is no longer "valid." That's what the pollsters mean by "bounce."
Other factors can affect outcome. People who say they will vote and don’t show up. Or a Hurricane could shut the place down. Or you could live in Florida.
As with everything in journalism, sources also matter in polls. Who conducted it?
But that’s a separate subject. Next, an American’s checklist for evaluating a poll.
Hint: USA Today once ran a story and headline at the top of the page about most American women wouldn’t remarry the same man, based on a Women’s Day survey. What was wrong with that?

Next, your checklist to evaluate all these polls.

Photo in National Railway Museum, York England, at the controls of one of the Royal locomotives (The King and Queen have their own trains)

Back-tracking on the "wrong" track for 45 years

Neruda: "Is there anything sadder than a train in the rain?"

Americans apparently like being in the dumps, or blue, as my small watercolor from Pablo Neruda's poem suggests.
We think the country has been "on the wrong track" for almost a half century, apparently, including now.
Let's "backtrack" some.
That dissatisfaction fueled the Democrat's mid-term election "whuppings" of George Bush and the Republicans' of Obama.
Warning...I spent almost as much time searching my photos for appropriate train photos as I did writing. Hey, I like trains.

This "old one" is rusting  and abandoned on an old track at Skagway, Alaska, but perhaps that is the right track for old ones like me.

So what is the history of the country being on the "wrong track"?
Since 1972, polls have found most Americans have thought the country is on the "wrong track." Some pollster reported asked in 1971: " “Do you feel that things in this country are generally going in the right direction today, or do you feel that things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?”
Keep in mind that was in the middle of the Vietnam War, inflation was climbing, unemployment was up. Source, the Daily Beast: Wrong track. 

In fact, polls show that Americans have rarely thought we're on the right track. When did we derail and hit the ditch?--Eight years ago, in the fall of 2008, when the economy imploded. Per Gallup, between September through about November 2008, only 7 to 9 percent of the country thought the country was in the right direction. 

What were the highest points in the past 45 years? Three times--(Gallup polls)
In Reagan's second term it bounded to  60 percent on the right track. It soon dropped  to under 50 percent; during Clinton's impeachment, the economy was great and 71 percent thought the country was on the right track; and after 9/11, it soared, but seven  months later it dropped to 60 percent thinking we were on the "wrong track."
My conclusion, (opinion), Americans are fickle, short-sighted, spoiled, and whiners.
 

Canada in the background as the locomotives switch ends on the right track.

Getting on the right track politically is a matter of many opinions. But not in railroads. At the White Pass and Yukon railroad between Alaska and Canada, they take you up to the pass made famous in the Gold Rush, and the locomotives park you just inside Yukon Territory, Canada on a siding. They then move around and attach to the other end of the train for the trip back to Skagway. There's always a "right" track. So simple, in railroad operation if not democracy. 

Next--more tracks.

 

"The country's on the 'wrong' track"?

This blog is rarely political, but sometimes delves into education, media and social issues that can't help but overlap with government and politics. That's because most people are tired of all the political claptrap, don't read it, and none of it seems to change anyone's minds.

Forest Park Railroad, Fort Worth

I prefer to write about traveling, photography, watercolor, books, education and more, as the past seven and a half years illustrate.
But the phrase about the country being on the "wrong track" has caught my attention more and more recently, especially in election year with such a polarized country fed by hatred, fear, and politics and media gone wild. 
Polls show a majority of Americans think the country is on the "wrong" track. What does that mean? 
Plus, given my love for anything to do with trains, and words, it just seems natural to write about it. 
Besides, I too think the country is sometimes on the wrong tracks, but you'll have to wait till the concluding article in these postings to guess why, though I won't tell you.
So I thought I'd do a little research into the phrase, using basic journalism questions.

• First question--Where did the phrase come from?
• Second question--Why? or (What is the "right" track?) or (Who gets to determine what is "right" or "wrong"?)
• Third question--What are the facts?
• Fourth question--unanswerable except by opinion perhaps--Is there only one "right" or "wrong" track?

"All a'boaaard!" (Next--first question, background)

 (Forest Park Railroad--Make sure your sound is on)