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

231–240 of 565 posts

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

#231

Post by _lqaf »

kjeetgill wrote: post #188
flowerlad wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not bad people, but gullible people. Anyone that believes QAnon conspiracy theories such as Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, and Oprah Winfrey are raping and drinking the blood of kidnapped children in pursuit of the “fountain of youth” is gullible.

Do you think the bulk of voters for Trump believe one of these things? He won a considerable number of votes.

I don't know what you consider 'bulk'.

I would say that candidates pushing a three year old conspiracy theory doing better in elections than, say, the Libertarian or Green candidates demonstrates some mass.

I would say the US president supporting it gives it some mass.

Pretending it is not a significant force in Republican politics is either spin or an ostrich impersonation, not sure which.

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

#232

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #225
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Nate Cohn's predictions this election pan out? “The final polls more or less comport with how we already viewed the race. Mr. Biden ends the race up by more than eight points nationwide — the largest lead a candidate has held in the final polls since Bill Clinton in 1996. He’s up by at least five points in states worth more than 270 electoral votes, the number needed to win. Beyond that, he’s got at least a nomin…

Somebody who got it wrong and actually admitted he got it wrong is often a credible source on why he got it wrong.

I disagree. It's FAR too early for him to be writing about "why we got it wrong" because if they knew that now, they would have known that last week.

Look, if it was 2 points in a couple states here or there, I get it! But... if the guy was claiming the possibility of a 400 vote Biden landslide? Nah man, that is either massive incompetence or it's intentionally misleading. Neither scenario do I trust this person.

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

#233

Post by AnimalMuppet »

PeterisP wrote: post #162
throwaway38153 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current arrangement is high and low vs the middle, or HLvM for short. The left is composed of two factions, not one. The left is the high within society aligned with the low in society to destroy the middle in society. [1] When the power of the upper class is not secure, or somehow threatened by a middle class, the upper class forms an alliance with the lower classes. Today, you see the highly capitalized media p…

It's quite interesting that I see the same things but opposite conclusions - to me, the "high and low vs the middle" aspect makes sense, but it obviously refers to the Republican party, lead by the interests of the wealthy elite on the backs of votes from lower class rural people and blue collar workers (predominantly the white workers, but as these elections showed, also black working men) against the middle class s…

Interesting. What if you're both right? What if both parties are trying to use HLvM, and nobody represents the middle?

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

#234

Post by fariktoon »

Falling3 wrote: post #187
bra-ket wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

absolutely, Biden has a chance only thanks to constant brainwashing by the media, 'orange man bad evil racist' broadcasted 24/7 for 4 years to millions of people. If you repeat lies many times people start to believe in them even on subconscious level. Especially if you manipulate people emotions and subjective opinions. Try asking anyone supporting Biden why do they so firmly believe Trump is 'racist'. Their respons…

Everyone I know who claims Trump is racist can quickly and easily point to specific policies, quotes, and actions - both before and during his presidency. This meme that people don't have evidence for their issues with Trump is not only false, it's comedically ironic.

The problem is that people in the US have a weird definition of racism, see the "shithole countries" mentioned in this discussion before.

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

#235

Post by SubiculumCode »

snowwrestler wrote: post #229
rayiner wrote: post #116

> 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 examp…

Sadly typical of HN today that a topic that is interesting technically and politically neutral (the challenge of accurate polling) is derailed up top with an inaccurate culture war comment (there is no correlation between when a Dem condemned violent protest and whether they won their election). FWIW, Shor’s theory about poll respondents is shared by Robert Cahaly at Trafalgar, but Trafalgar polls missed badly too in…

Agreed. HN is going the way of Slashdot.

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

#236

Post by jojobas »

smabie wrote: post #31
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.

Very rich people can pretty much be ignored as there are under 1% of them anywhere you look.

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

#238

Post by danhor »

dgr582systems wrote: post #12
jxramos wrote: post #5

I'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.

538 has some infos about this here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-work/

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

#239

Post by orangecat »

tshaddox wrote: post #119
orangecat wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... I see 31% for the US and 28% for Missouri. Regardless, the key point is "almost everyone in your social circle".

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

#240

Post by bentcorner »

andybak wrote: post #138
mason55 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t all those people leave voicemails?

I guess so but I loathe voicemail more than I loathe the occasional marketing call. It's easier to just answer given the overall chance of it being a waste of time.

This is getting really off topic but I also don't answer calls unless I know them. My mobile voicemail is redirected to my Google Voice # and the automatic transcription is good enough that I usually don't need to listen to the actual voicemail. You might want to give that a try.
Post reply on HN