This is awesome, NYT gave data from its FL poll to 4 diff pollsters to show interpretations change
Results using the same data:
NYT: C +1
Franklin: C +3
Ruffini: C +1
Omero: C +4
Corbett-Davies: T +1
Polling results rely as much on the judgments of pollsters as on the science of survey methodology. Two good pollsters, both looking at the same underlying data, could come up with two very different results.
How so? Because pollsters make a series of decisions when designing their survey, from determining likely voters to adjusting their respondents to match the demographics of the electorate. These decisions are hard. They usually take place behind the scenes, and they can make a huge difference.
To illustrate this, we decided to conduct a little experiment. On Monday, in partnership with Siena College, the Upshot published a poll of 867 likely Florida voters. Our poll showed Hillary Clinton leading Donald J. Trump by one percentage point.
We decided to share our raw data with four well-respected pollsters and asked them to estimate the result of the poll themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/20/upshot/the-error-the-polling-world-rarely-talks-about.html?_r=0
Nate Cohn's Upshot is doing some really awesome things in polling analysis and explanation. He's really improved what Nate Silver started when 538 was hosted by NYT.
= new reply since forum marked as read
