Posts by Pete George
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Who wants to put together a graph as an example? TV is good for visuals, if they see how it can be done it could catch on.
-
Some good explanations there, thanks to Patrick (and Russell). But there’s one point that stands out:
Winston comes in at 4.9 and I instantly think, hey, he’s good for 5% on election day.
“But you’ve got to stick with the information that you’re given. And you’ve got to stick with it from month to month and pretend that there is nothing else out there, for the sanctity of that information.
That ignores (or is ignorant of) how polling works. A 4.9% result has other critical information associated with it. There’s a +/- 1.4 margin of error giving a 95% confidence of it being in a range from 3.5-6.3% which is slightly less than a fifty fifty chance of making or breaking the 5% threshold.
So ‘sticking to the information’ should mean considering both alternatives equally.
-
Hard News: Poll Day 2: Queasy, in reply to cindy baxter,
cindy, Gavin's research is interesting but a couple of points on it.
Polls don't estimate what a vote will be on election day, they try to accurately measure public opinion (and as Bart says with statistical margins error with certain confidence levels) on the days they poll, which are never on election day.
Last election it appears that support for National dropped in the last couple of weeks of the campaign, if so polls before the election wouldn't reflect the actual result but opinion at a point prior to that.
And polling companies continually try to improve - in the latest Colmar Brunton poll they state: "The interview introduction was changed in this poll to remove any reference to politics, and the weighting specifications were updated. This may impact comparability with the previous poll".
So you can't take historical polls not on election days as indications of possible inaccuracies now.
-
"Which is what I think I’ve done in the post above."
Yes, and I hope Paddy responds. He's been MIA but may have had the day off yesterday.
And I agree that the claiming of scalps and calling for and pressuring for resignations is often odious. It's not as if journalists are held to anything like the same standards they insist on from politicians.
-
As Ben says political bias in media is very hard to measure. One one off coverage there's valid criticism from the left and the right - 'bias' is often misused as a description for unfavourable coverage someone's preferred politician and is a common one eyed excuse.
Selective claims of bias are common - I've seen Gower praised at The Standard (and here) for his Oravida overdrive and then slammed for going over the top on Cunliffe by the same people. Similarly John Campbell is praised as great by lefties and condemned by righties, and Fran O'Sullivan has reverse fans and foes.
Both Key and Cunliffe do and say things that look bad and deserve to be reported as such. In the item being discussed here it mostly clobbered Cunliffe but I don't think Key came across well either, selected snarky sneering clips of him are not a good look either.
To effectively address this I think the focus has to move away from political bias and concentrate on confronting poor news and poll coverage. Complaints about bias are easily dismissed as politically motivated sour grapes - and the grizzles are often at least as biased as the coverage.
Now that polling companies are starting to release comprehensive information - I hope others follow the examples of Roy Morgan and Colmar Brunton - then it's easier to hold journalists to account if they are inaccurate or ignorant, based on facts rather than politics.
The egos and competitiveness of some journalists are a problem at times - but those characteristics also mean they can be sensitive to being confronted and criticised. If this is done based on facts without political bitterness it can be effective in influencing behaviour and practices.
-
I don't see it as political bias generally, it swings both ways. I thought last night was done poorly and I also didn't like him doing over the Oravida office, I thought that was pointless and diverting from the important stories in China. It's not all bad, I think his interview with Russel Norman on The Nation was very good overall.
But too often Gower (and others) get a story in mind and construct it for their own ego, choosing and making news rather than reporting on others.
-
"people like Gower are powerful, unaccountable and therefore think they are untouchable."
Media are a critical (two meanings) part of our democratic system but their increasing power, their increasing use of that power and their virtual unaccountability (especially to voters) is a major concern.
-
“Do you personally think Judith Collins should remain a cabinet minister following the Oravida conflict of interest allegations?”
-
It would be interesting to have the Don't Knows analysed. There could be a number of categories like:
Don't Care
Don't Know Anything About Politics
Don't Bother About It Until The Election
Follow Politics But Don't Decide Until Election DayI'm the last of those, I've always had a bit of interest in politics and evaluate the voting options and possible outcomes. The campaign gives you a lot more exposure of politicians and parties to evaluate, and things can change through the campaign, so the final decision is made on election day.
Polls are a useful part of the evaluation. Understanding what polls actually mean and don't mean helps. Understanding that late swings are always on the cards also helps. Remember that no polls are taken on election day, they are snapshots of opinion prior to that so they cannot predict what will happen on election day, just sentiments at some point prior.
I think genuine thinking swing voters are an important part of the voter mix. We annoy the hell out of political activists who can't understand a lack of blind dedication to their own cause. And we may frustrate polsters.
We get called fence sitting wishy washy shallow flip flopping traitors - but we're the ones that decide elections (along with the fence sitting wishy washy shallow flip floppers).
When you see National go from 21% in 2002 to 47% in 2011 it's obvious there's a large number of potential swing voters. And when you see 13% don't knows - don't forget that if people being polled weren't pushed to make a choice the Don't Knows number could be much higher.
Journalists like a few simple facts to build their sensations around. Hence:
"Winston Peters is likely to be kingmaker, according to a ONE News Colmar Brunton poll." The poll has no idea what people will decide on one day in September.3 News "And New Zealand First is on 4.9 percent. It is so close, but leader Winston Peters would not make it back. If he got that little bit extra to 5 percent, it would change everything." That's a current approximately 50/50 chance of NZ First making 5% but no guarantee at all that that would make them a 'kingmaker'.
NZ First can easily swing significantly either way. And there's a high chance of a late swing depending on how things stack up late in the campaign. Peters is practiced at spotting opportunities to get media attention and know the media will lap up his attention seeking, but that's a gamble. The possibility of Labour+Greens+NZ First may scare swing voters off NZ First - or might have them flocking.
And if Peters had a significant health issue it really could change things a lot if not everything.
It depends on a lot of things we don't know about yet - and the 'don't knows' include polsters and journalists.
-
Assuming that National and Green variances last election will be repeated this election are risky. There's no way of knowing if polling companies have changed their weightings, and each election has different circumstances.
I think National last support late in the last election because of the cup of tea fiasco, because some people didn't want them to rule alone (they'd been polling over 50%) and because some people didn't vote because they knew National would 'win' easily.
I could swing the same way for different reasons this time, but it could just as easily swing the other way. For example people may be motivated to vote against a potential Labour+Green+NZFirst+ Mana+Internet Party coalition. That could change as people evaluate possibilities closer to the election. 13% is a lot of undecided voters.