Reply #30: a brief word on simple/complex down here [View All]

[OnTheOtherHand]

I wasn't so much thinking about methodology as about data fit. No one has tried to show that some constant "rBr" parameter, plus random noise, could account for the observed data. I guess that USCV satisfied its collective self that no constant "rBr" parameter could account for the observed data. Unfortunately for USCV, most survey folks Just Didn't Care. We can imagine some of the variables that might influence the extent of non-response bias, but we wouldn't expect to be able to measure them all -- so the project of building a model that would either match the observed data, or generate simulated data 'like' the observed data, would not enthrall us.

Besides, it doesn't really seem that the proponents of fraud have even tried to meaningfully account for the variance, unless someone really thinks that Bush was trying to cut into Kerry's (putative) 30-point margin in Vermont in order to make better TV in the early evening.

So, given that most of us think that non-response bias could account for the general magnitude of the exit poll discrepancy, the burden shifts to the proponents of fraud to change our minds, whether that is fair or not. We won't burn the midnight oil trying to model all the variance. (Well, some of us especially sick puppies might do it now and then.)