Further analysis of Strategic Vision polling data by Nate Silver

[SallyMander]

Nate follows up on yesterday's post, Strategic Vision polls exhibit unusual patterns, possibly indicating fraud

with another analysis, this time comparing the SV data to Quinnipiac: Comparison study: unusual patterns in Strategic Vision polling data remain unexplained

To recap, it is not clear that the distribution of trailing digits in polling data is, or should be, entirely uniform or random. For a relatively heterogeneous set of polling data (many different questions from many different states), the most likely hypothesis seems to be that the distribution is somewhat uniform, and somewhat "Benfordian", with some concentration toward the lower digits.

For a more homogeneous set of data -- if we were looking only at McCain versus Obama polling in New Hampshire, for instance -- these assumptions very well might not hold at all. However, both the Quinnipiac and Strategic Vision data sets are in fact quite heterogenous. Moreover, they are about as heterogenous as one another, so if we saw deviations of a certain magnitude it one sample, we'd probably expect to see deviations of a broadly similar magnitude in the other.

But that's not what we see at all. The Strategic Vision data is much, much, much more nonrandom than the Quinnipiac data, as compared to a uniform distribution. If the comparison is to a fully or partially "Benfordian" distribution instead, then the discrepancy is even worse.

Bottom line: It is highly unlikely, in my opinion, that the distribution of the results from the Strategic Vision polls are reflective of any sort of ordinary and organic, mathematical process.

Stay tuned, as Strategic Vision's David Johnson is apparently threatening lawsuits!

[SallyMander]

1. Kick for Nate

Because nerds rawk! :headbang:

[bemildred]

2. Excellent!

:popcorn::popcorn:

[BlooInBloo]

3. He triple-checked before putting up his original post, appropriately qualified the post...

and is continuing to check.

Good man.

[SallyMander]

4. He is nothing if not thorough!

I always enjoy his posts.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Yep - he's a mathematician.

[grantcart]

5. the fact that the pollster is reaching for his lawyers tells you all you needed to know about

this.

All he had to do is show his work, just like Mrs. Symington in the 6th grade, it wasn't enough to have the correct number you had to show your work!