Impossible results all throughout every single Gravis poll this year
Hey guys, I've missed you all! Grantcart asked me to take a look at the Gravis polls and give my opinion. Well, if you know me, I can't leave a statistical stone unturned (blame my OCD lol), so I looked at them all for this year. Every single poll shows crosstabs with mostly impossible results, since they calculate out to fractions of individuals instead of calculating out to full integers of individuals.
The Logarchism article shows one example of this type of result with mostly impossible results. I take it a little further and illustrate a few more examples below at each link:
https://www.box.com/s/9nfb9uqdaqcyf9jt8v2p
https://www.box.com/s/3jj5pcubo2ayvexqarno
https://www.box.com/s/b0qcnf6b0dbe4nps44ii
Gravis Marketing's polls are absolutely nothing but frauds, in my opinion. It's incredulous to me to see their polls given any weight, or any serious consideration for that matter. Print them out and line the kitty crapper with them, that would be a better use for them.
(Sorry for the links instead of embedding the pictures, I forgot how!)
- Phrig 
= new reply since forum marked as read
It sems to me that any weighted poll (which all real polls are) can end up with fractional people.
If your sample has more "other/unsure" responses than your demographic model then wouldn't the weighting of the sample reduce each response from an "other/unsure" to a fraction?
I wouldn't be surprised if Gravis did not poll anyone at all and just made up the numbers. I am satisfied that Gravis is a RW fraud created to influence polling averages.
I am just not sure that fractional people are a major part of the critique of Gravis..
In my illustrations I gave room for fractions up to a tenth for that very reason, weighted polls can end up with fractional people. But only up to a point, and never half a person, or two-thirds or one-third for that matter.
His widgets and analysis were spot on in 2008. We're fortunate to have an old friend back in the fray to calm us (me 
all down.
I was showing 365 to 173 as late as two days before the election! (btw you helped)
could be explained away. I'd like to read Gravis' rebuttal to your analysis, but I'm not holding my breath.
And it *is* good to see you here, phrig. 
Might turn blue! Great to see you here, too!
I too remember your 2008 posts very well. Glad to see you back.
:
I'm ready to drag my fainting couch out of cold storage. It's great to see you, my dear. Hi myrna minx! I think I still have a picture of that fainting couch, maybe I'll try and dig it out later, lol ...
It's terrific to see you here, too!
[IMG]
[/IMG]
It really is wonderful to see you. It hasn't been the same without out you!
Break out the bon-bons and drape yourself elegantly over the arm! You have mad decorating skills, sister!
I had to prioritize this year, so unfortunately election-tracking was out. But this election cycle hasn't been the same without seeing you lots and lots!
Hey, every statistician needs a Gloria Swanson type to drama up their threads.
Maybe it's the zombies among us!
Someone should check their ID's.
Zombies don't have ID's, only a thirst for blood and flesh. Just ask a zombie for his ID and I'll bet he looks at you funny and eats your brain.
Thanks for your kind words. Perhaps Nate Silver believes in the law of averages, since there are a couple D-leaning pollsters out there. What he might not understand, though, is that there are far more R-leaning pollsters than D-leaning, making the law of averages unworkable here, unless you weed out some of the R-leaning and balance them. I believe Nate Silver's results are skewed to the right this year, just by looking at them.
