With less than a fortnight to go, here are some of the highlights of the blog over the last two weeks:
The manifestos compared – can you guess which one talks about chaos more?
Why the ippr don’t get the BNP – and why the BNP targets Islam.
Why Newnight Review don’t understand political fiction
How the polls aren’t really moving as much as you think
Why you should be sceptical about all the talk of this being an internet election
Plus:
Labour’s secret weapon: the World Cup
The benefits of attack ads
Gordon sings a song
And how to lose a TV debate, even if your opponent has punched a child in the face.
Professor Philip Cowley
Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts
Monday, 26 April 2010
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Polls stability again (well, sort of)
Again, the polls appear to be all over the place. Last night’s ComRes poll had the Conservatives in front by nine points, Populus by just one. You Gov had the Lib Dems ahead by three, Angus Reid had them ahead by just one. Lib Dem support had either ‘burst’ (ComRes had them back to 26%, albeit a level of support that many Lib Dems would have sold their souls for just a week ago) or was at its highest level (34%, with YouGov).
Monday, 19 April 2010
Life’s not fair, son
"Would the Lib Dems prop up a government that had come third in the popular vote? Now, there’s a question many of us didn’t think we’d be asking when this campaign began..."
Three things have changed as a result of the Lib Dems poll surge following Thursday’s debate. Two are (fairly) obvious, the third less so.
Three things have changed as a result of the Lib Dems poll surge following Thursday’s debate. Two are (fairly) obvious, the third less so.
Labels:
Election 2010,
Lib Dems,
Nick Clegg,
Philip Cowley,
Polls
Thursday, 15 April 2010
More MOE
"Move along, there’s nothing to see. Yet."
Yesterday I pointed out how the polls had been remarkably stable during the campaign, despite talk of their ‘volatility’, once you allowed for the margin of error inherent in sampling. Up till then, all but one poll during the campaign had put the Conservatives on 37 +/-3, Labour on 30 +/-3.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Polls in stability shocker
"Most people involved in politics know about sampling error, but, as last night, they often forget its implications."
There were four opinion polls last night, all showing different sized-Conservative leads, ranging from 3 to 10 points. Cue confusion, and lots of talk about the polls being ‘all over the place’.
There were four opinion polls last night, all showing different sized-Conservative leads, ranging from 3 to 10 points. Cue confusion, and lots of talk about the polls being ‘all over the place’.
Saturday, 10 April 2010
And so the first week ends...
This week’s blogs have included what polls aren’t telling you (and why the don’t knows may be crucial). Or when the first time Labour asked its supporters to design a poster (the answer is the distinctly pre-internet 1908). Why the newspapers aren’t powerful in the way everyone thinks (although they might be powerful in other ways). Or why corruption isn’t as electorally damaging as everyone thinks (although it’s harmful in other ways).
Thursday, 8 April 2010
What election polls do not tell us
"...in spite of the useful information that election polls offer, they are lacking in two important respects..."We can expect a large number of election polls to be published in the next four weeks. Not all polling agencies arrive at their numbers in exactly the same way, and they need to be read with care. And in spite of the useful information that election polls offer, they are lacking in two important respects, both of which relate to the difference between ‘hard’ choices and ‘soft’ ones.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
Politics academics all ignorant lefties
"I’m sceptical about much election forecasting...but I confidently acquit my colleagues of the charge of being groupthinking lefties."Politicalbetting.com had some fun this week with the results of a poll of politics academics, carried out back in 2006, which showed the vast majority both wanted and expected a Labour victory after the general election. A full 54% of politics academics wanted a Labour victory, compared to just 15% who wanted a Conservative win. Ditto their predictions for what the Commons would look like after the election: 53% expected a Labour victory, just 18% thought a Conservative victory was likely. And an overwhelming 80% thought Gordon Brown was the best chancellor of the post-war era. Given both this overwhelming Labour bias, and what currently look like very inaccurate predictions, why should we believe the academic election forecasts reported here a few days ago?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
