And the people who calculate "poll accuracy" assume unconditionally across all election types and state makeup that undecideds will always split evenly to the major candidates.

The tldr version is exactly correct as you summarized Assuming a precise and unconditional resolution of undecided (not to mention third-party mind changers) across all election types, states, and various other dynamics is such a basic violation of statistical reasoning lmao

Assuming the polls are "biased" because they don't predict the election margin is like saying this photograph was biased because it didn't predict the margin of victory The statement itself requires a fundamental misunderstanding of what the data means in the first place

Made this with conversations like this in mind

Every person that studies poll data must be able to answer the question below It's extremely basic And yet, with exactly zero exceptions in the literature, they all get it wrong. Before my work, there was NO framework to explain what the right answer is, or how to find it.

"What is your book about, why does it matter?" As short as I can: The consensus of experts in the field believe that polls, if accurate, will predict both the election outcome and its margin...and that's incorrect. In my book, I build a proper foundation for analyzing poll accuracy, starting with the painfully simple (but necessary) "what do polls measure?" and introduce some new concepts that should be adopted by stats classes and experts alike. Then, with a proper foundation, I contrast my work to that of the field's established methods (Spread Method in the US, Proportional Method most other places) and outline in detail why they're wrong...but why they're appealing. After that, I introduce some nonpolitical polling examples to illustrate some other concepts...ideal polls, compensating error, poll masking, changing attitudes, undecided ratio...that also exist in political polls Finally, I tackle head-on some real election data, 2016 US and 2015/17 UK and Brexit, analyzing them according to a more proper scientific standard... opposed to the current polls-as-predictions one.

In all seriousness (I know I'm being an asshole) This practice of comparing polls to elections is not valid The analysis of what a poll says based on "margin" is also not valid But this is how it has always been done. They don't know better because they don't know better.

Correct If someone says "smoking causes cancer" and insists that this is a scientific truth that everyone must accept Then it's pretty important that they can define the terms @zaelefty et al being unable/unwilling to define what it means for a body to be "organized around" 🚩

Just asking ignorant ideologues like @zaelefty to adhere to standards of basic science and provide objective, falsifiable criteria to support their position Last time he tried, I called him out on it and he ran away like a bitch And he's too big of a coward to try me

The reason COIs exist is BECAUSE of gerrymandering Gerrymandering was so bad, the government had to make a law to restrict it. Not stop it, mind you, but restrict it And now we're relying on increasingly partisan judges to enforce it My proposal would end gerrymandering

I love the system of letting partisans draw maps to maximize partisan advantage then relying on partisan and/or biased courts to determine whether said map is technically illegal or not :)

You love terrorists Your own words

Hi Chris. Data scientist here about to put you in your place. "Decades ago, scientists predicted that global warming would cause 𝑓𝑒𝑤𝑒𝑟 cold snaps and fewer cold extremes" Is that what has happened? Respond with a direct yes or no and cite your source(s)

What kind of intelligence is it when you run a query in a coding language you don't understand, it returns this chart, and you conclude on this alone, publicly, that tens of billions of dollars are being sent via Social Security to dead people? What kind of intelligence is that?

Here's a poorly made chart of what Survation's 95% intervals would have looked like had they used a level of confidence closer to Economist Understanding there's a good chance your median could be bad is basically the whole reason you need pretty wide bars for 95% confidence

I was so drunk last night that I was updating my tracker as if I didn't hit anything I really need everyone to know that being this hot for this extended of a period is not sustainable. Even if I'm VERY GOOD (which I might be) it's inexplicable how I'm making money every week