Public Relations & Social Marketing Insight
443.4K views | +2 today
Follow
Public Relations & Social Marketing Insight
Social marketing, PR insight & thought leadership - from The PR Coach
Curated by Jeff Domansky
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Jeff Domansky
Scoop.it!

The polls didn't fail. We just chose to ignore the math

The polls didn't fail. We just chose to ignore the math | Public Relations & Social Marketing Insight | Scoop.it

There’s a lot of talk right now that polling failed. But Trump’s win was hardly an unpredictable “black swan” event. All the evidence was there, if you knew how to read it.In fact, the polls did ok, 2016 was not even a particularly large miss by historical standards.

 

Most states ended up within the polling margin of error, and the more careful forecasts only gave Clinton a 70 percent chance. By the last week before the election, a Trump victory was twice as likely as losing a game of Russian Roulette.

 

Yet the most optimistic predictions gave Clinton a 90 percent chance, because they missed a fundamental fact: polling errors tend to affect many states at once, and in the same direction.

 

To understand the vast gulf between 70 percent and 90 percent it helps to convert probabilities to odds, the ratio of chances to win against chances to lose. A 50% chance is a coin flip, or 1:1 odds. A 66% chance – around where FiveThirtyEight’s put Clinton the last week before the election – is 66:33 or 2:1 odds. If you roll that die, it shouldn’t be surprising when it comes up red....

Jeff Domansky's insight:

A rationalization, an excuse and an explanation all wrapped up in one post on how the polls actually weren't wrong, people were. Do you buy it?

No comment yet.
Scooped by Jeff Domansky
Scoop.it!

Sam Wang Is This Year’s Unsung Election Data Superhero

Sam Wang Is This Year’s Unsung Election Data Superhero | Public Relations & Social Marketing Insight | Scoop.it

Forget Nate Silver. There’s a new king of the presidential election data mountain. His name is Sam Wang, Ph.D.

Haven’t heard of him just yet? Don’t worry. You will. Because Wang has sailed True North all along, while Silver has been cautiously trying to tack his FiveThirtyEight data sailboat (weighted down with ESPN gold bars) through treacherous, Category-Five-level-hurricane headwinds in what has easily been the craziest presidential campaign in the modern political era.

When the smoke clears on Tuesday—and it will clear—what will emerge is Wang and his Princeton Election Consortium website and calculations (which have been used, in part, to drive some of the election poll conclusions at The New York Times’ Upshot blog and The Huffington Post’s election site). What will be vindicated is precisely the sort of math approach that Silver once rode to fame and fortune....

Jeff Domansky's insight:

Meet Sam Wang, 2016 pollster superstar, according to Wired.com. Or not, as we learned in tonight's vote.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Jeff Domansky
Scoop.it!

Why the Remain Campaign’s Persuasion Strategy Backfired

Why the Remain Campaign’s Persuasion Strategy Backfired | Public Relations & Social Marketing Insight | Scoop.it

For supporters of Britain staying in the EU, a simple question remains this morning: How did we fail to persuade voters of our position? Steve Martin, director at Influence at Work in London and best-selling author of several books on persuasion, spoke with HBR about the ways in which the Remain advocates’ message failed to get through, or even backfired. Martin was joined by Joseph Marks, a behavioral scientist on his team.

HBR: From a persuasion science point of view, how do you explain the vote for Britain’s exit from the EU?
Steve Martin: There seems to have been a focusing effect. The Leave side made sure that immigration became a focus. Not only a focus but the focus. And once that’s a focus it’s hard to get other messages through. What we see is all there is. Danny Kahneman said that clearly. We can only pay attention to a limited number of things and if we see that immigration story every day, that’s what affects us more than a rational argument that predicts what would happen if we left.

But they saw the economic arguments every day, too. Why couldn’t the Remain side focus the voters on that?
Joseph Marks: I think both campaigns were built around fear of loss. One was what we’re losing in terms of immigration coming in. And one was loss to the economy and your pocket. Normally that wins. That’s number one. But right now, you can see that immigration issue as happening now, in the present, whilst the economy is doing well. In the optimism literature, we’ve seen that people are generally optimistic about their own futures when the economy is good, so that’s maybe how the economic argument lost to something that feels more pressing to people. So ironically the very people who helped get our economy on track created an environment that makes it harder to communicate their message of potential negative impacts of leaving the EU. The health of the economy created a good economic environment that had a disproportionate influence over decision making at that moment....

Jeff Domansky's insight:

Valuable lessons from Brexit for marketers and politicians alike.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Jeff Domansky
Scoop.it!

The trouble is not with polling but with the limits to human interpretation of data

The trouble is not with polling but with the limits to human interpretation of data | Public Relations & Social Marketing Insight | Scoop.it

When the US presidential election was called, even Republican strategist Mike Murphy declared data dead. Others have said it’s the end of polling.

 

To those who felt a Hillary Clinton victory was all but certain, Donald Trump’s success at the polls might undermine faith in big data. But this sentiment misunderstands statistics. Data is impartial and accurate; when things go wrong, it’s usually when we try to interpret it.

 

How different people assess risk and make decisions often comes down to how we perceive probabilities. Assigning a probability to an uncertain outcome is part art and science. The most scientific way is to use data—in this case, polling numbers.

 

This time, election forecasts based on polling data were spectacularly inaccurate. They predicted an easy Clinton victory, and assumed that women and college-educated voters would turn out for her in large numbers. In fact, according to exit polls, 42% of women voted for Trump, including 45% of white women with college degrees.

 

Forecasts also predicted hardly any minority voters would consider Trump. But they did. Minority groups voted more for Obama than Clinton. A non-trivial number, nearly one third of Hispanics and Asians, voted for Trump.

 

What seems like a failure of polling data, though, is really our inability to approach the data objectively....

Jeff Domansky's insight:

The end of polling or simply the failure of humans to interpret correctly? Thoughtful reflections on polling.

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Jeff Domansky from Learning & Technology News
Scoop.it!

Tools for creating polls and surveys

Tools for creating polls and surveys | Public Relations & Social Marketing Insight | Scoop.it
Any internet search will show that there are a huge number of online tools available for the creation on polls and surveys.

 

The ones included here are some of the best I have used and show some of the variety of polling tools available....


Via Nik Peachey
Jeff Domansky's insight:

Top tools for effective online surveys and polls.

Juan Carlos Avendaño Cuéllar's curator insight, October 26, 2016 4:22 AM
Herramientas para evaluar conocimientos online. Útil para recoger información para sondeos, altas de fichas de inscripción y evaluaciones continuas con los alumnos.
Lydia Brown's curator insight, November 3, 2016 1:21 PM
Eliminate the confusion of choosing the best tools for your business
 
Ignacio E. Rodriguez's curator insight, July 10, 2017 5:28 PM

...

...