TL;DR: People lie to pollsters.
One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
11–20 of 565 posts
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#12I'm curious where polls actually work, are there any retrospectives polling agencies conduct and post online for scrutiny and constructive feedback? It'll probably help to enumerate all the premises that polling begins with and question whether those premises are in fact the case.
Exactly this. Where is the verification?
Predictions don’t count for much unless you check that the expectations line up with reality.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#13TL;DR: People lie to pollsters.
> People tell the truth, when you ask them who they’re voting for. They really do, on average. The reason why the polls are wrong is because the people who were answering these surveys were the wrong people.
The takeaway from the article is not that people lie, but just that people who are more trusting (according to the GSS survey) are more likely to take surveys and are also more likely to vote Democratic.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#14Could you select a random group of individuals up front and then bid on their collective participation in a poll (say, beyond 95%, you all get $10)? You might have to pick a few groups and bid between them.
In the future if you are chosen to be polled, you will be stalked, harassed, and bribed until you respond.
I imagine that will be a huge boost to candidates who promise to pass laws that make aggressive polling against the law.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#15It seems obvious to me that there was massive bias in media towards Biden, and they all happily accepted the narrative that Biden would win in a landslide and dismissed anyone saying otherwise as know-nothings.
IMO that's tantamount to election interference, if there's near unanimous media coverage for the entire election season of inaccurate polling that assumes a landslide Biden victory.
I didn't vote for Biden or Trump, so I'm not really interested in defending either camp here. I just think the media and big tech are so demonstrably contemptible and partial.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#16Has anyone done a study that maps voting machine software used vs. "polling error" in key states?
Before 2016, polls were much more accurate. And paper ballots were the norm. So there's that.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#17One of the biggest issues I think is that the polling is still done by just randomly calling people. I think I agree that there is a large skew introduced by the simple fact of only reaching people willing to answer a call from an unknown number.
Even the method of contact would skew toward people who have a means for the method of contact or location. Cell phones might include less seniors. Questioning people walking into Whole Foods is going to give you a different set than people walking into Cracker Barrel.
If the source set of names and numbers is truly representative, I think random calling could work if you make sure to include "did not response" as a line item. Then you might get something like:
> 45% Biden, 39% Trump, 1% Jorgensen, %15 ???
With the no-response removed you get a skewed:
> 52% Biden, 45% Trump, 1.1% Jorgensen
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#18Maybe it doesn't really matter much. I mean, sure, we need some amount of polling because it informs decisions such as who gets to participate in televised debates, etc. But other than that, what does the general public get out of polling? It's a spectator sport. In the end, all that matters is the votes, and people should really be encouraged to remember this. I'd think 2016 and 2020 would be a healthy reminder of that.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#19When and where was the last poll that predicted an election accurately?
Polling is starting to feel more like a weather forecast - presented with absolute certainty, only right about half the time.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#20Could you select a random group of individuals up front and then bid on their collective participation in a poll (say, beyond 95%, you all get $10)? You might have to pick a few groups and bid between them.
The problem is that some of the people in your random group won’t answer the phone at all, to negotiate with you on whether they’ll answer a survey.