Post-Debate SLOPs

A SLOP is a self-selected opinion poll, usually conducted online at some web site, and are excellent examples of crappy polls based on biased samples. The only people who participate are those who frequent a site, and if it's partisan you know the direction they'll lean, and those who bothered enough to take part. A real sample is random, or as close as we can get it, with people having a more-or-less equal chance of being included.

That brings us to last night's first presidential debate and the subsequent polls -- legitimate, and less so -- that quickly emerged.

CNN/ORC is usually first with these snap polls and it showed Clinton "won" the debate. OK, no surprise there to the casual viewer, especially as Trump unraveled a bit at the end. But what also emerged was a reliance by Trump supporters on a host of SLOPs that showed -- shocker -- Trump won. See a tweet below.

Does it shock anyone, for example, that folks who visit Drudge thought that Trump overwhelmingly won? Or Brietbart? Some more legitimate sites like CNBC, Time, and Fortune have it closer, but these are still SLOPs. They may measure enthusiasm, or a fanbase likely to bother voting on such things, but they don't measure by any stretch of the imagination public opinion about who "won" a debate.

Never pay attention to SLOPs. And news orgs should never use them and, if they do for the hell of it, should never report on them as being meaningful.

Was the CNN/ORC poll biased? It does include more Dems than Republicans, but it reflects the population it's trying to describe -- people who reported watching the debate. Maybe more Trump fans were watching NFL football. I dunno. A later poll, using real methodology, also found Clinton won (though not by quite as big a margin). In other words, real polls find Clinton won. Polls with absolutely no methodological rigor find Trump won. You decide which to believe.

Trump and the Birthers

There's a PPP poll out that's gotten some attention out in the wild world of cable news (and some wacky news sites).

First, overall, 44 percent of Republicans in this survey believe Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. That's higher than usual. Over half (54 percent) think Obama is Muslim. That's high too. I've written extensively, and conducted actual research, on both topics. But what's fascinated some folks is the analysis of Donald Trump supporters. I even heard this reported today on Morning Joe, thankfully with some skepticism. Here it is:

• Sixty-one percent of Trump supporters believe Obama was born outside the U.S.
• Sixty-six percent of Trump supporters believe Obama is Muslim.

Wow. But let's do the math. Set aside the Dems, who aren't that interesting. The survey was of 572 Republican likely primary voters. So if Trump has 29 percent, that means an N here of about 166 respondents. That's a really small number to base a result on. Indeed, if you did into the crosstabs at the bottom of the link I provided above, you'll see stuff reported for candidates with only a handful of supporters. For example, 100 percent of Jim Gilmore supporters believe Obama is Muslim. All six of them, if my math is right.

I also worry, a little, about question order effects. If the questions were asked as presented (and they may have been randomized, it's hard to tell), then the questions about Obama followed a series of questions asking if you're a member of the Tea Party or are an evangelical Christian. Could these prime a different response to the Obama birther/religion questions? Perhaps. Which may explain the somewhat inflated numbers above, but those numbers may also simply reflect a more conservative voter who participates in primaries, versus general elections.