Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 565 posts

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#31

Post by smabie »

x87678r wrote: post #24

I think no one really knows what the different parties represent any more. Most people I know voted Republican were low-wage working people, where my highly paid educated friends voted Democrat. Isn't it supposed to be other way around? No wonder everyone is confused.

anecdotally, knowing some very rich people, they mostly voted for trump in 2016. Pretty much every single one voted for Biden or declined to vote this year.

I voted for myself and have been getting a lot of shit for it for some reason.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#32

Post by bpodgursky »

daxfohl wrote: post #16
ericb wrote: post #9

Has 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.

? A huge percent of ballots this year were mail-in, and all paper. And the polling error was worse in 2020 that 2016.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#33

Post by smnrchrds »

rootusrootus wrote: post #18

Maybe 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 t…

> what does the general public get out of polling?

The laypeople, not much. But for politically active people, not to mention political parties, polls are the best tool to determine where to do what. If you are way ahead in one race but neck and neck in another, it makes sense for parties and activists to focus their efforts and donations to the competitive race. There is never enough resources to focus on every race equally and to the fullest extent. Decisions need to be made. Polls are the best tool to make informed decisions.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#34

Post by EEMac »

twelfthnight wrote: post #13
kanox wrote: post #11

TL;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.

> People tell the truth, when you ask them who they’re voting for. They really do, on average.

That might have been true in the past.

From 2016-2020, Trump supporters have been loudly and repeatedly called racistNaziMisogynistHomophobe, or the polite version, "deplorable". That is not an environment that encourages honesty.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#35

Post by yaacov »

rootusrootus wrote: post #18

Maybe 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 t…

Campaigns and parties buy polling and use it to make decisions on what messages to use, what races to invest in, etc. Those private polls were just as wrong as the public ones. From the campaigns perspective that’s wasted money.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#36

Post by bryanlarsen »

x87678r wrote: post #24

I think no one really knows what the different parties represent any more. Most people I know voted Republican were low-wage working people, where my highly paid educated friends voted Democrat. Isn't it supposed to be other way around? No wonder everyone is confused.

People 2020 said that in 2016, yet the average income of Trump voters was higher than Clinton voters. It'll be interesting to see if that changes in 2020.

Although there is something to what you say; the income gap between Republican and Democratic voters did narrow substantially in 2016.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#37

Post by paulryanrogers »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #27
x87678r wrote: post #24

I think no one really knows what the different parties represent any more. Most people I know voted Republican were low-wage working people, where my highly paid educated friends voted Democrat. Isn't it supposed to be other way around? No wonder everyone is confused.

It’s pretty obvious from election maps and donor data that the democrats are now the party of coastal/urban elites, despite what they may advertise.

This discounts tens of millions of Democrats living inland who are obscured by maps depending on the electoral college.

It seems to me the pattern is that where population density increases the people tend to be more politically leftward-leaning.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#38

Post by francisofascii »

rootusrootus wrote: post #18

Maybe 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 t…

It gives people a better sense of the political preferences of the various parts of the country. In a weird sort of way, it helps validate the election results, even if the numbers are off. If you are a liberal living in SF and see Trump win in 2016, you might have seriously questioned the validity of the election results, if you didn't have numerous polls backing up that Trump did indeed have supporters.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#40

Post by watwut »

x87678r wrote: post #24

I think no one really knows what the different parties represent any more. Most people I know voted Republican were low-wage working people, where my highly paid educated friends voted Democrat. Isn't it supposed to be other way around? No wonder everyone is confused.

Statistically it seems that he did well in higher paid groups. But also, he did better among people without college degree and badly among young with college degree.

So in some ways your acquitances are not that odd. Voters cluster, they are not randomly distributed.

Post reply on HN