Raphael Nishimura
@rnishimura.bsky.social
Survey methodologist and statistician at the Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan
#survey | #sampling | #statistics | #RStats
#survey | #sampling | #statistics | #RStats
E o mais importante, a descrição metodológica da pesquisa:
January 13, 2026 at 4:20 AM
E o mais importante, a descrição metodológica da pesquisa:
Cenários de 2° turno: +
January 13, 2026 at 4:20 AM
Cenários de 2° turno: +
Cenários de 1° turno com Michelle: +
January 13, 2026 at 4:20 AM
Cenários de 1° turno com Michelle: +
Sorry, I have just seen this.
I have just answered there.
I have just answered there.
January 5, 2026 at 3:36 PM
Sorry, I have just seen this.
I have just answered there.
I have just answered there.
I'm just a mere survey statistician, I leave this sort of political analysis to my polisci colleagues 😛
December 31, 2025 at 4:41 PM
I'm just a mere survey statistician, I leave this sort of political analysis to my polisci colleagues 😛
I think most of the major pollsters that use household, face-to-face data collection is using some sound and robust methodology.
December 31, 2025 at 4:40 PM
I think most of the major pollsters that use household, face-to-face data collection is using some sound and robust methodology.
It's because, as in many other media outlets, they don't have anyone there with a good grasp of survey methods and they almost buy this pollster shameless self-promotion, mostly based on cherry picking and fallacious metrics.
December 31, 2025 at 4:37 PM
It's because, as in many other media outlets, they don't have anyone there with a good grasp of survey methods and they almost buy this pollster shameless self-promotion, mostly based on cherry picking and fallacious metrics.
As usual, regardless of the poll result, I'd always take any of their polls with a huge grain of salt. Maybe all the salt in the oceans? 😅
December 31, 2025 at 4:35 PM
As usual, regardless of the poll result, I'd always take any of their polls with a huge grain of salt. Maybe all the salt in the oceans? 😅
It essentially depends on two things: the amount of measurement error and how correlated the auxiliary variable is with the survey variables.
Just as with missing data (e.g., coverage, sampling or nonresponse), the math doesn't care about what is the source of error!
Just as with missing data (e.g., coverage, sampling or nonresponse), the math doesn't care about what is the source of error!
December 31, 2025 at 1:46 PM
It essentially depends on two things: the amount of measurement error and how correlated the auxiliary variable is with the survey variables.
Just as with missing data (e.g., coverage, sampling or nonresponse), the math doesn't care about what is the source of error!
Just as with missing data (e.g., coverage, sampling or nonresponse), the math doesn't care about what is the source of error!
Here are the slides: aapor.confex.com/aapor/2025/m...
aapor.confex.com
December 31, 2025 at 1:41 PM
Here are the slides: aapor.confex.com/aapor/2025/m...
I did a whole simulation on this and presented at AAPOR earlier this year!
December 31, 2025 at 1:40 PM
I did a whole simulation on this and presented at AAPOR earlier this year!
At this point, people shouldn't be surprised by this. Their methodology is crap, so you get this kind of unstable and unreliable estimates. You all should just stop fooling yourselves.
December 20, 2025 at 9:00 PM
At this point, people shouldn't be surprised by this. Their methodology is crap, so you get this kind of unstable and unreliable estimates. You all should just stop fooling yourselves.
The point here is: they were relying A LOT on weighting to adjust their heavily skewed sample towards Trump voters. Is their methodology still producing this kind of sample? And can the weights sufficiently address this issue?
December 20, 2025 at 1:16 AM
The point here is: they were relying A LOT on weighting to adjust their heavily skewed sample towards Trump voters. Is their methodology still producing this kind of sample? And can the weights sufficiently address this issue?
So, I have no idea whatever kind of adjustment they are making to obtain the result that got them the title of "2020 America's most accurate pollster". And why can't we replicate these weights with their microdata following what is described in their stated methodology? +
December 20, 2025 at 1:16 AM
So, I have no idea whatever kind of adjustment they are making to obtain the result that got them the title of "2020 America's most accurate pollster". And why can't we replicate these weights with their microdata following what is described in their stated methodology? +
I tried several different versions of weighting by those variables, but in none of them I was able to replicate their final estimate of Biden 52 Trump 47. In fact, in none of the weights, I was even able to get Biden ahead of Trump. The closest I got was Biden 49 Trump 50. +
December 20, 2025 at 1:16 AM
I tried several different versions of weighting by those variables, but in none of them I was able to replicate their final estimate of Biden 52 Trump 47. In fact, in none of the weights, I was even able to get Biden ahead of Trump. The closest I got was Biden 49 Trump 50. +
Also, I tried to replicate their weight according to the stated methodology. There is a discrepancy here because in one it's mentioned they weighted by 2016 recall vote, but not in the other. From other polls of the same pollster, I'm pretty sure they did weight by recall vote. +
December 20, 2025 at 1:15 AM
Also, I tried to replicate their weight according to the stated methodology. There is a discrepancy here because in one it's mentioned they weighted by 2016 recall vote, but not in the other. From other polls of the same pollster, I'm pretty sure they did weight by recall vote. +
On one hand, that's good: they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. On the other hand, if your sample data is usually THAT skewed that you are relying that much in the weights, that can be very problematic if for any given race the weights don't manage to correct that.
December 20, 2025 at 1:12 AM
On one hand, that's good: they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. On the other hand, if your sample data is usually THAT skewed that you are relying that much in the weights, that can be very problematic if for any given race the weights don't manage to correct that.
The unweighted result is Trump 66% Biden 33% (!!!). Recall 2016 vote is 70% Trump 30% Clinton. The weights are doing A LOT of work here! +
December 20, 2025 at 1:11 AM
The unweighted result is Trump 66% Biden 33% (!!!). Recall 2016 vote is 70% Trump 30% Clinton. The weights are doing A LOT of work here! +
Below is their 2020 national poll methods per Roper Center. Not much different to what a lot of other pollster are doing. However, if you look at the polling microdata also in Roper...+
December 20, 2025 at 1:11 AM
Below is their 2020 national poll methods per Roper Center. Not much different to what a lot of other pollster are doing. However, if you look at the polling microdata also in Roper...+
Let me bring that information here 🧵
December 20, 2025 at 1:10 AM
Let me bring that information here 🧵
December 4, 2025 at 10:26 PM