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

71–80 of 565 posts

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

#71

Post by tshaddox »

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.

What does "coastal/urban elites" mean? Just anyone who lives in a coastal or urban area? 80% of the American population lives in urban areas, and that's only going to increase when you include whatever your definition of "coastal" is. Where does the "elite" factor in?

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

#72

Post by dragonwriter »

jonplackett wrote: post #19

When 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.

> When and where was the last poll that predicted an election accurately?

Polls don't purport to predict elections; though people do poll-based forecasts.

538, for instance, does a lot of them every cycle. And seems to be fairly close on the odds, though generally the most-likely predicted outcome occurs at a slightly higher rate than their predictions.

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

#73

Post by tshaddox »

dragonwriter wrote: post #50
TechBro8615 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It’s pretty obvious from election maps and donor data that the democrats are now the party of coastal/urban elites Urban populations, sure. Not particularly coastal aside from the fact that there's more urban population on the coasts, as county-level maps show pretty clearly. “Elites” are more dubious. Sure, Democrats and Republicans (counting leaners) are closer to parity for voters with less than a college degree…

What are we calling "urban" here? More than 80% of Americans live in urban areas. Are we using a circular definition of "urban" that means "big cities with a large Democrat majority"?

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

#74

Post by bryanlarsen »

dragonwriter wrote: post #65
bryanlarsen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> People 2020 said that in 2016, yet the average income of Trump voters was higher than Clinton voters. One person with $100 million income has a higher average income than 999 people with a $100K annual income. Averages aren't particularly useful here.

There aren't many people with $100 million income. Most billionaires don't have income that high -- there is a much higher wealth disparity than there is income disparity.

So while I'd rather the media reported the median income than the median income, it's the number we have and hopefully it's a useful approximation.

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

#75

Post by tshaddox »

ericb wrote: post #9

Has anyone done a study that maps voting machine software used vs. "polling error" in key states?

I don't know, but I believe that the models used by major forecasting organizations like NYT and FiveThirtyEight do attempt to control for voting method.

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

#77

Post by lanius »

losteric wrote: post #45
ianleeclark wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that not enough people bring up is the rampant robocalling. Before I left the US around a year and a half ago, I was getting 2-3 calls a day. Basically, if I ever got a call from a number not in my contact list, I would never answer. I know I'm not the only one like this, but I don't have any numbers to back it up. Even in Germany where robocalling seemingly doesn't exist, I still have this reflex, so it ma…

> Basically, if I ever got a call from a number not in my contact list, I would never answer. I know I'm not the only one like this, but I don't have any numbers to back it up. huh... I have literally never met a single person that answers cold calls on personal lines, this was already SOP when I was a kid. Seriously, who's picking up those calls?

Couriers often call me when they're unable to get into my building to deliver packages. One time I was expecting a delivery, I answered a call from an unknown number figuring it was the courier. To my annoyance, it was a cold-calling recruiter.

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

#78

Post by tgb »

tptacek wrote: post #58
TechBro8615 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trafalgar group did a pretty good job this election. They were also lambasted by Democratic media and called wackos and nutjobs. Meanwhile WaPo put its name on a poll that had Biden +17 in WI.

No, they didn't. They were off by 4 in AZ (and called it for Trump), by 5 in Georgia (again for Trump), 6 in Michigan (again), 8 in Wisconsin (and again), and 3 in PA (which they, again, called for Trump). They were also off by 7 in Minneapolis (which they correctly called for Biden) and 6 in Ohio (which they correctly called for Trump). There was a narrative on e-day that Trafalgar had done a good job, because Democ…

Moreover the Trafalgar head of polling went on Fox a day before the election claiming that there would be 4% points of systematic election fraud happening in Pennsylvania. So "nutjob" and "wacko" would be underselling them.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trafalgar-pollster-robert-cahaly...

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

#79

Post by tshaddox »

shinjitsu wrote: post #22
twelfthnight wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Especially if those polled fear for their jobs if they answer the 'wrong way' in the poll and others find out about it: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1324807776510595078 -> https://www.trumpaccountability.net/

How could that tweet possibly have anything to do with polls? Any remotely scientific poll would surely be anonymous. That has nothing to do with people willingly tweeting their political views and then attempt to cover them up or expect them to be forgotten in the future.
Post reply on HN