News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Peter Thiel to Donate $1.25M in Support of Donald Trump. Parent comment

Re:Peter Thiel to Donate $1.25M in Support of Donald Trump by blhack on Sunday October 16, 2016 @12:40AM (#12716969)
Looking at this specific poll in isolation is fine as long as you understand that you are looking at it in isolation.

I say so because of its polling methodology, which is unique.

If you're a politics/polling nerd, this poll is interesting. If you're not, then yes, you are probably better off either just reading 538, or looking at the RCP polling average.

https://news.usc.edu/109339/why-the-usc-dornsifel-a-times-pr...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Peter Thiel to Donate $1.25M in Support of Donald Trump by threeseed on Sunday October 16, 2016 @12:46AM (#12716999)
Most politics/polling nerds look at aggregations of polls. Not sure where you get this idea that they are interested in a poll like USC which is such an outlier.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Peter Thiel to Donate $1.25M in Support of Donald Trump by blhack on Sunday October 16, 2016 @12:50AM (#12717015)
The fact that it's an outlier doesn't interest you? Maybe we have different definitions of "nerd".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Peter Thiel to Donate $1.25M in Support of Donald Trump by snovv_crash on Sunday October 16, 2016 @02:17AM (#12717257)
The fact that it's an outlier means, statistically, that it is more likely to be wrong.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Peter Thiel to Donate $1.25M in Support of Donald Trump by sagarm on Sunday October 16, 2016 @06:10PM (#12721312)
Yes, it's more likely to be wrong.

But this poll performed well in 2012[1] with the same methodology. As a polling nerd, wouldn't you be interested in why it is producing unusual results this year and what implications that might have for polling in general?

[1] http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-poll-faq-20161006-...

[ Parent | on HN ]