One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by kaitai » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

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.

I disagree with both you and the poster who talks about the high & low against the middle, though less with the other poster.

I'm from flyover country, one of those three states that went Biden this year surrounded by a sea of red. You know, one of the three states that elected half the members of 'the squad'. Sure, California rich people can throw in a lot of money, but that's true for both Republican and Democratic parties. Don't dismiss our importance in the Democratic party. We turn up & do the work, including the work of talking with our 'red' neighbors and actually trying to work things out in this country.

As for high & low vs middle, it just doesn't make sense to me. Lots of rich people supporting the Republicans -- lots, lots, lots. Lots of rich people supporting the Dems. Poor people split by race and geography. Middle class people split by race and geography. The split by geography and race is more significant than the split by income, in almost every presentation of data that I see.

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

#112

Post by Retric » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #89

tshaddox wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Where does the "elite" factor in? As a rough approximation, almost everyone in your social circles having a college degree.

Except that’s really not what the statistics show. Republicans gain a majority of support from high school graduates, individuals with some college experience, and college graduates. People without a high school degree or with a post graduate degree favor Democrats.

An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns. Democrats have a huge advantage (63 percent) with voters earning less than $15,000 per year. This advantage carries forward for individuals earning up to $50,000 per year, and then turns in the Republicans’ favor — with just 36 percent of individuals earning more than $200,000 per year supporting Democrats.

https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demogra...

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

#113

Post by gamblor956 » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #84

dragonwriter wrote: post #50

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 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…

> OTOH, Blacks, who are overwhelming not elites, overwhelming are (and even more overwhelming lean) Democratic, and the same is true predominantly (though less overwhelmingly) of Hispanics. I think that's actually the rub. Blacks and Hispanics are voting less and less for Democrats, and that is true more for this last election than 2016 [1] Despite the very visible rhetoric of racial equality and other movements, the…

Same data shows that Black and Latina women voted for Democrats at historically high rates, as did Asians. And Black and Latino men outside of conservative states.

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

#114

Post by jackcosgrove » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

beervirus wrote: post #76

Here's a good illustration of just how one-sided the polling error was: https://twitter.com/thomasjwood/status/1325103908319064065 The polls hugely and consistently underestimated the Republican votes.

I would be interested to see these errors plotted against state population density.

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

#115

Post by tomjakubowski » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

andybak wrote: post #56

losteric wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> Seriously, who's picking up those calls? People who don't live in countries where the problem is this bad? I'm in the UK and I get about 1 unsolicited call a month. If I didn't pick up numbers I didn't recognize I would have missed my Doctor (this week), several new client leads and multiple friends and acquaintences that changed their number.

If US presidential election pollster cold calls are reaching voters in the UK, things are really screwed up.

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

#116

Post by rayiner » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

> I reached out to the smartest polling guy I know: David Shor, an independent data analyst who’s a veteran of the Obama presidential campaigns who formerly operated a massive web-based survey at Civis Analytics before leaving earlier this year

Before being fired for pointing out that violent protests alienate people: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-...

Schor’s firing is a tremendous example of how free speech values make people better at their job, and attacks on free speech values can jeopardize organizations and political parties. It’s conventional wisdom now that failure to condemn violent protests earlier cost Democrats votes, including among minority groups. This was quite apparent from polling this summer. (By June, YouGov polls showed that Latinos were more worried about the “breakdown of law and order” than about “systemic racism.”) Creating a culture that makes people afraid to have dispassionate, context-appropriate discussions about what the data was saying made it harder for people to do their jobs effectively.

Obviously what kinds of facts are relevant to an organization’s mission differs greatly depending on the organization! In many contexts Schor’s comments wouldn’t have been relevant and may have been better left unsaid to foster workplace harmony. But in a political organization, obviously some heated issues will come up and people need to be able to have honest discussions about them.

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

#117

Post by randomchars » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

mason55 wrote: post #109

andybak wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seriously, who's picking up those calls? People who don't live in countries where the problem is this bad? I'm in the UK and I get about 1 unsolicited call a month. If I didn't pick up numbers I didn't recognize I would have missed my Doctor (this week), several new client leads and multiple friends and acquaintences that changed their number.

Wouldn’t all those people leave voicemails?

In some countries, voicemail is not a thing.

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

#118

Post by baldeagle » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

bpodgursky wrote: post #32

daxfohl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Were the mail in returns against the poll? Or only the in-persons? I know in my area of Texas, the mail-in returns were more Dem than the polls, but the in-persons were much more Rep. Could it be that one side focused on in-person voting and self selected into in person votes.... perhaps. Could it be hacking or other fraud, not very likely. Such accusations need a lot of support of proof, because faith in democracy depends on faith in elections. I don't think we're seeing enough proof anywhere. (I would look to any place that has a mandatory recount where ballots are hand counted). I don't think any Texas races were that close though.

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

#119

Post by tshaddox » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #89

tshaddox wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Where does the "elite" factor in? As a rough approximation, almost everyone in your social circles having a college degree.

A college degree sounds like a laughably low bar for being considered "elite." 27% of American adults have college degrees. In a state like Missouri which is presumably not considered a particularly liberal or Democratic or "elite" state, over 50% of adults have college degrees.

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

#120

Post by goostavos » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

mring33621 wrote: post #97

0x53 wrote: post #3

One 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.

Agreed. I would also suspect that there are some other factors: - people hoping for change are more willing to answer polls - people who are ashamed of their opinions are more unwilling to answer polls The second one, perhaps, gives too much credit for self-awareness, though.

Aaaaand you've actually answered your own question. Why would people not give an actual opinion to a stranger when there's this default opinion of them as (a) having wrongthink they should be ashamed of, or (b) too stupid to realize their wrongthing is in fact wrong?

Guess we'll never know why those dummies would possibly hide their true preferences.