do the math
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jan 11, 2010
A special election will be held in Massachusetts next week, to fill the Senate seat that opened with the death of Ted Kennedy.
Last week, a Boston Globe poll of likely voters show the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, leading the Republican, Scott Brown, by a comfortable margin: 50- 35%.
A Public Policy Polling survey of likely voters, released the same day, showed Brown ahead, 48- 47%.
The Globe poll claimed a margin of error of +/- 4.2%; the PPP poll said its margin of error was 3.6%. Go ahead: try the numbers. They don't work.
Wait; there's a possible explanation. The Globe poll was taken January 2- 6; the PPP poll was January 7-9. So you might say that as a Little Christmas gift, Scott Brown got 13% of the likely voters.
Alternatively, you might say that there's a margin of error to the pollsters' margin of error.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our January expenses ($8,103 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: The Sheepcat -
Jan. 11, 2010 11:01 PM ET USA
There needn't be anything fishy about this. Boilerplate statements about the margin-of-error of polls say the findings are accurate plus or minus however many points, 19 times out of 20. This could simply be the 1 time in 20.
Posted by: -
Jan. 11, 2010 11:05 AM ET USA
Alternatively, you could say the Boston Globe appears to have hired Dan Rather to do its polls.