FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Are Polls Showing a Win for Accused Molester Roy Moore Accurate?

A steady drumbeat of poll numbers over the last ten days had shown a comfortable four to five point lead, on average, for accused child molester Roy Moore over Democrat Doug Jones in Tuesday’s special election to replace Jeff Sessions as U.S. Senator from Alabama.

Until yesterday.

Fox News’ polling is far less partisan than their news reporting, and it dropped a bombshell into the mix showing a double digit 50%-40% lead for Doug Jones. A Monmouth University poll followed which, while varying according to turnout modelling, is generally being pegged at a 46%-46% tie. Emerson University polling, often unreliable, has Moore leading by 9%.

Our method here at CounterPunch of averaging all polls in the last ten days without adjustments and including undecided voters has more accurately called two major elections (2016’s U.S. Presidential and 2017’s UK General) than other well-known poll aggregators. That method currently shows a 2.6% lead for Moore over Jones.

Those numbers may well be on target, even perhaps underestimating how committed GOP Alabamans are to the conviction that diddling kids is less bad than snuffing out their lives in the womb.

While the numbers in my polling methodology provide a strong guide, I have never felt slavishly tied to them, as when it was clear to me that Clinton was in more trouble in Michigan than polls allowed there ahead of November 2016.

In this case, I also think the polling average has it wrong. Some pollsters have done better than others at calling special elections since November 2016. Likely voter models, in my view, that assume Democrats are more motivated to vote than Republicans in Alabama today display the same kind of insight as pollsters who were more accurate in certain contests involving, for instance, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn (UK), and the recent Virginia election.

Taking, then, the average of better recent pollsters (without getting bogged down in the details of each decision to include or exclude by pollster and while rejecting Gravis’ late change in methodology) produces a 2% lead for Jones.

It’s always dangerous to pick and choose numbers, which is why I’ve included the unmolested numbers above. But the heart of the argument comes down to voter turnout modelling.

For a more in-depth argument on one of the particular issues, I’m weighing, see Nate Silver’s article of yesterday here on especially the differences between automated calling, traditional calling, and online polling. In essence, I’m going with a particular way of reading the Survey Monkey data because it fits at larger pattern of what I take to be the better way of handling likely voter modelling in situations where one side is more enthusiastic than the other (trust what voters are saying they will do, but do make reasonable adjustments for a variety of demographics in the population and with respect to recent previous elections).

In short, I’m going with a choice among numbers that matches what makes best sense of the narrative and a hard look at differences under the hood in dealing with data.

Doug Jones to win by 2%.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
April 19, 2018
Ramzy Baroud
Media Cover-up: Shielding Israel is a Matter of Policy
Vijay Prashad
Undermining Brazilian Democracy: the Curious Saga of Lula
Steve Fraser
Class Dismissed: Class Conflict in Red State America
John W. Whitehead
Crimes of a Monster: Your Tax Dollars at Work
Kenn Orphan
Whistling Past the Graveyard
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail