CDZ A discussion about polling companies.

[CrusaderFrank]

After 2016, the smart thing was to completely ignore the polls.

As far as "it's their job"...so what? Paul Krugman makes a living from being wrong - and wrong out in the TRILLIONS column -- multiple times, and he's making a living and some small handful of lunatic fringers take him to be a serious economist

 

[SassyIrishLass]

After 2016 and now 2020 it's obvious polling is worthless

Another thing idiot demoquacks ruined

 

[sparky]

A drunk in a bar could make better predictions

I predict i'll have another before i check the election results again......~S~

 

[Mac1958]

Here's an attempt at an explanation, but I don't know. It's specific and confined to Trump being on the ballot? Trump voters are harder to find? They're less likely to take phone surveys? I guess that's possible, but I don't know if it's really a satisfying theory:

The polling industry blows it again

“It just seems to be that if the name ‘Donald Trump’ is on the ballot,” said one pollster, “all bets are off when it comes to the polls being right.”

www.politico.com

There's little evidence that poll respondents are lying, however. More pollsters believe it’s actually a difficulty reaching voters more likely to support Trump in the first place, either because they’re harder to find or are less likely to take phone surveys even if reached.

“The continuing and growing problem of non-response is something that we have to look at quite closely,” said Don Levy, the director of the Siena College Research Institute, which partnered with The New York Times for dozens of battleground-state polls.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Started in the CDZ with the faint hope that we can just have a normal discussion. So, two "thoughts" on this:

First, as I understand it, these polling companies made significant changes in their methodology in an effort to improve their accuracy over 2016. From what I saw, they weren't really that far off in 2016 but clearly made some mistakes. Unless I'm reading something wrong, they did even WORSE in 2020.

Second, I don't think this is about honesty or partisan politics. These pollsters make a LIVING doing this. This is about their JOBS, their BUSINESSES, so watching their reputations go up in flames like this can't have been their goal.

So what gives? What role do these companies play going forward, and how do they repair their shattered reputations?

Until we stop shaming people for their political beliefs polls on such matters will continue to be useless IMO.

“You support Trump!?! You racist!!”

That rhetoric has no place in our society yet while falling short of using the “R” word many here shame those Who voted for Trump. OP included.

 

[Mac1958]

Started in the CDZ with the faint hope that we can just have a normal discussion. So, two "thoughts" on this:

First, as I understand it, these polling companies made significant changes in their methodology in an effort to improve their accuracy over 2016. From what I saw, they weren't really that far off in 2016 but clearly made some mistakes. Unless I'm reading something wrong, they did even WORSE in 2020.

Second, I don't think this is about honesty or partisan politics. These pollsters make a LIVING doing this. This is about their JOBS, their BUSINESSES, so watching their reputations go up in flames like this can't have been their goal.

So what gives? What role do these companies play going forward, and how do they repair their shattered reputations?

Until we stop shaming people for their political beliefs polls on such matters will continue to be useless IMO.

“You support Trump!?! You racist!!”

That rhetoric has no place in our society yet while falling short of using the “R” word many here shame those Who voted for Trump. OP included.

The OP has a long history here of being vehemently anti-PC, anti-Identity Politics, and anti-Cancel Culture.

So please don't introduce lies and ugly accusations into the thread. Thanks!

 

[sparky]

Here's an attempt at an explanation, but I don't know. It's specific and confined to Trump being on the ballot? Trump voters are harder to find? They're less likely to take phone surveys? I guess that's possible, but I don't know if it's really a satisfying theory:

The polling industry blows it again

“It just seems to be that if the name ‘Donald Trump’ is on the ballot,” said one pollster, “all bets are off when it comes to the polls being right.”

www.politico.com

There's little evidence that poll respondents are lying, however. More pollsters believe it’s actually a difficulty reaching voters more likely to support Trump in the first place, either because they’re harder to find or are less likely to take phone surveys even if reached.

“The continuing and growing problem of non-response is something that we have to look at quite closely,” said Don Levy, the director of the Siena College Research Institute, which partnered with The New York Times for dozens of battleground-state polls.

.....
After 2016, pollsters engaged in an effort to examine their methods, searching for something that could explain how they missed Trump's victory. The leading cause, they concluded, was the widening chasm between how more highly educated Americans vote versus those who did not graduate from college.

busted! ~S~

 

[JoeB131]

Until we stop shaming people for their political beliefs polls on such matters will continue to be useless IMO.

“You support Trump!?! You racist!!”

That rhetoric has no place in our society yet while falling short of using the “R” word many here shame those Who voted for Trump. OP included.

The thing is, if the GOP didn't have racism, what would be their selling point?

Work harder for less money?

Anyway, the polls didn't get it that wrong. Assuming that Biden prevails in PA, then the only states the polls got wrong were FL and NC.

Biden won MI, WI, AZ, PA, GA just like the polls said he would. (although a lot closer)

Trump won TX, OH and IA. He was expected to.

In 2016, the polls got NV, WI, PA and MI wrong.

In 2012, they thought Romney would win FL, but he didn't.

In 2008, they thought McCain would win NC and IN

 

[Mac1958]

Here's an attempt at an explanation, but I don't know. It's specific and confined to Trump being on the ballot? Trump voters are harder to find? They're less likely to take phone surveys? I guess that's possible, but I don't know if it's really a satisfying theory:

The polling industry blows it again

“It just seems to be that if the name ‘Donald Trump’ is on the ballot,” said one pollster, “all bets are off when it comes to the polls being right.”

www.politico.com

There's little evidence that poll respondents are lying, however. More pollsters believe it’s actually a difficulty reaching voters more likely to support Trump in the first place, either because they’re harder to find or are less likely to take phone surveys even if reached.

“The continuing and growing problem of non-response is something that we have to look at quite closely,” said Don Levy, the director of the Siena College Research Institute, which partnered with The New York Times for dozens of battleground-state polls.

.....
After 2016, pollsters engaged in an effort to examine their methods, searching for something that could explain how they missed Trump's victory. The leading cause, they concluded, was the widening chasm between how more highly educated Americans vote versus those who did not graduate from college.

busted! ~S~

Yeah, I saw that. But I don't understand how that translates into distorted responses.

 

[sparky]

Here's an attempt at an explanation, but I don't know. It's specific and confined to Trump being on the ballot? Trump voters are harder to find? They're less likely to take phone surveys? I guess that's possible, but I don't know if it's really a satisfying theory:

The polling industry blows it again

“It just seems to be that if the name ‘Donald Trump’ is on the ballot,” said one pollster, “all bets are off when it comes to the polls being right.”

www.politico.com

There's little evidence that poll respondents are lying, however. More pollsters believe it’s actually a difficulty reaching voters more likely to support Trump in the first place, either because they’re harder to find or are less likely to take phone surveys even if reached.

“The continuing and growing problem of non-response is something that we have to look at quite closely,” said Don Levy, the director of the Siena College Research Institute, which partnered with The New York Times for dozens of battleground-state polls.

.....
After 2016, pollsters engaged in an effort to examine their methods, searching for something that could explain how they missed Trump's victory. The leading cause, they concluded, was the widening chasm between how more highly educated Americans vote versus those who did not graduate from college.

busted! ~S~

Yeah, I saw that. But I don't understand how that translates into distorted responses.

perhaps not being able to articulate one Mac?

~S~

 

[Mac1958]

Here's an attempt at an explanation, but I don't know. It's specific and confined to Trump being on the ballot? Trump voters are harder to find? They're less likely to take phone surveys? I guess that's possible, but I don't know if it's really a satisfying theory:

The polling industry blows it again

“It just seems to be that if the name ‘Donald Trump’ is on the ballot,” said one pollster, “all bets are off when it comes to the polls being right.”

www.politico.com

There's little evidence that poll respondents are lying, however. More pollsters believe it’s actually a difficulty reaching voters more likely to support Trump in the first place, either because they’re harder to find or are less likely to take phone surveys even if reached.

“The continuing and growing problem of non-response is something that we have to look at quite closely,” said Don Levy, the director of the Siena College Research Institute, which partnered with The New York Times for dozens of battleground-state polls.

.....
After 2016, pollsters engaged in an effort to examine their methods, searching for something that could explain how they missed Trump's victory. The leading cause, they concluded, was the widening chasm between how more highly educated Americans vote versus those who did not graduate from college.

busted! ~S~

Yeah, I saw that. But I don't understand how that translates into distorted responses.

perhaps not being able to articulate one Mac?

~S~

Well, poll questions don't ask for essay answers.

 

[sparky]

Here's an attempt at an explanation, but I don't know. It's specific and confined to Trump being on the ballot? Trump voters are harder to find? They're less likely to take phone surveys? I guess that's possible, but I don't know if it's really a satisfying theory:

The polling industry blows it again

“It just seems to be that if the name ‘Donald Trump’ is on the ballot,” said one pollster, “all bets are off when it comes to the polls being right.”

www.politico.com

There's little evidence that poll respondents are lying, however. More pollsters believe it’s actually a difficulty reaching voters more likely to support Trump in the first place, either because they’re harder to find or are less likely to take phone surveys even if reached.

“The continuing and growing problem of non-response is something that we have to look at quite closely,” said Don Levy, the director of the Siena College Research Institute, which partnered with The New York Times for dozens of battleground-state polls.

.....
After 2016, pollsters engaged in an effort to examine their methods, searching for something that could explain how they missed Trump's victory. The leading cause, they concluded, was the widening chasm between how more highly educated Americans vote versus those who did not graduate from college.

busted! ~S~

Yeah, I saw that. But I don't understand how that translates into distorted responses.

perhaps not being able to articulate one Mac?

~S~

Well, poll questions don't ask for essay answers.

thankfully no, yet they do seem to employ canned Q's that are hard to answer Y/N

~S~

 

[rightwinger]

If a poll is wrong to within the margin of error, it's not wrong. That's why the numbers provide the only context necessary to have this discussion like actual scholars, as opposed to the usual low-quality message-board banter.

Margin for error is usually given as a plus or minus.
It means the actual results may be higher and may be lower than the prediction. That is statistical variance.

But what we are seeing is polls being consistently wrong against Republicans. You cant hide that behind margin for error. It shows a set bias against Republicans

 

[G.T.]

If a poll is wrong to within the margin of error, it's not wrong. That's why the numbers provide the only context necessary to have this discussion like actual scholars, as opposed to the usual low-quality message-board banter.

Margin for error is usually given as a plus or minus.
It means the actual results may be higher and may be lower than the prediction. That is statistical variance.

But what we are seeing is polls being consistently wrong against Republicans. You cant hide that behind margin for error. It shows a set bias against Republicans

That's still not a post mortem.

Numbers, data - please. I'd love to ACTUALLY have this chat, but I'm too lazy to do the data collection while I'm "ear to the news" waiting for a President.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Started in the CDZ with the faint hope that we can just have a normal discussion. So, two "thoughts" on this:

First, as I understand it, these polling companies made significant changes in their methodology in an effort to improve their accuracy over 2016. From what I saw, they weren't really that far off in 2016 but clearly made some mistakes. Unless I'm reading something wrong, they did even WORSE in 2020.

Second, I don't think this is about honesty or partisan politics. These pollsters make a LIVING doing this. This is about their JOBS, their BUSINESSES, so watching their reputations go up in flames like this can't have been their goal.

So what gives? What role do these companies play going forward, and how do they repair their shattered reputations?

Until we stop shaming people for their political beliefs polls on such matters will continue to be useless IMO.

“You support Trump!?! You racist!!”

That rhetoric has no place in our society yet while falling short of using the “R” word many here shame those Who voted for Trump. OP included.

The OP has a long history here of being vehemently anti-PC, anti-Identity Politics, and anti-Cancel Culture.

So please don't introduce lies and ugly accusations into the thread. Thanks!

Started in the CDZ with the faint hope that we can just have a normal discussion. So, two "thoughts" on this:

First, as I understand it, these polling companies made significant changes in their methodology in an effort to improve their accuracy over 2016. From what I saw, they weren't really that far off in 2016 but clearly made some mistakes. Unless I'm reading something wrong, they did even WORSE in 2020.

Second, I don't think this is about honesty or partisan politics. These pollsters make a LIVING doing this. This is about their JOBS, their BUSINESSES, so watching their reputations go up in flames like this can't have been their goal.

So what gives? What role do these companies play going forward, and how do they repair their shattered reputations?

Until we stop shaming people for their political beliefs polls on such matters will continue to be useless IMO.

“You support Trump!?! You racist!!”

That rhetoric has no place in our society yet while falling short of using the “R” word many here shame those Who voted for Trump. OP included.

The OP has a long history here of being vehemently anti-PC, anti-Identity Politics, and anti-Cancel Culture.

So please don't introduce lies and ugly accusations into the thread. Thanks!

You asked for opinions and I provided one. An opinion cannot be a lie. Thank you. I stand by my statement.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Until we stop shaming people for their political beliefs polls on such matters will continue to be useless IMO.

“You support Trump!?! You racist!!”

That rhetoric has no place in our society yet while falling short of using the “R” word many here shame those Who voted for Trump. OP included.

The thing is, if the GOP didn't have racism, what would be their selling point?

Work harder for less money?

Anyway, the polls didn't get it that wrong. Assuming that Biden prevails in PA, then the only states the polls got wrong were FL and NC.

Biden won MI, WI, AZ, PA, GA just like the polls said he would. (although a lot closer)

Trump won TX, OH and IA. He was expected to.

In 2016, the polls got NV, WI, PA and MI wrong.

In 2012, they thought Romney would win FL, but he didn't.

In 2008, they thought McCain would win NC and IN

Backwards. If the Democrats didn’t have racism what would their platform be? Higher taxes for those who are working harder to provide for their family? GOP platform is strong borders, made in America, nuclear family, small government, lower taxes, fewer regulations, pro 2nd amendment.

Polls had Clinton with 400+ electoral votes in 2016 and had Biden winning Wisconsin by 17 pts. Also said Texas was a toss up.

 

[G.T.]

Hmm, 538's final winding path seems pretty fuckin spot on, States-won-wise. Wrong in Fla.:

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The entire media has shifted over the years from reporting the news to shaping culture. The pollsters are now more interested in it, too, as they are trying to create desired outcome in order to influence others instead of conducting bias free analysis.

 

[JoeB131]

Backwards. If the Democrats didn’t have racism what would their platform be? Higher taxes for those who are working harder to provide for their family? GOP platform is strong borders, made in America, nuclear family, small government, lower taxes, fewer regulations, pro 2nd amendment.

Most people don't care about those things. They don't get much out of tax cuts to the rich, and they know programs they benefit from would have to be cut.

Most Americans don't own guns. They are really worried some maniac might shoot their kid. It's even more likely than their kid having to compete against a tranny.

You can't legislate "Nuclear families" (Actually, Nuclear families aren't even traditional. The more traditional thing is the extended family.)

The GOP is very good at using race to get dumb white people to vote against their own economic interests. That and fake moral panics.

[

 

[JoeB131]

Hmm, 538's final winding path seems pretty fuckin spot on, States-won-wise. Wrong in Fla.:

Hey, GT, nice to see you back.

Looks like he got FL, NC and ME2 wrong. ME2 though is a tough one, very little polling.