
Donald Trump, Marco Rubio Won GOP Debate, Poll Finds - larrys
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/11/donald-trump-marco-rubio-won-gop-debate-poll-finds/
======
larrys
I posted this and wanted to put the word "flawed" before "poll". Mainly
because this got front page mention on the WSJ website but if you read how the
poll was done it's clearly suspect in it's methodology.

~~~
theophrastus
What independent indicators would there be if the majority of national polls
had margins of error so far underestimated as to be meaningless? Particularly
this far into the future from an election which would provide some assessment
of accuracy. Or, put a different way, what published assurances exist that a
particular poll has resulted from a properly random sampling of the voting
populace? (often: the cell-phone screening problem) At the very least there's
a bias to judging a poll as having some accuracy because of the "weather
prediction paradox", which is: I say I can predict the weather 23 days from
now with perfect accuracy because I can change and refine my prediction as
that day approaches and say I was 100% correct in my prediction 22 days ago
given my data then as now conditions (or voters' minds) have changed.

