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

301–310 of 565 posts

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

#301

Post by [deleted] »

darawk wrote: post #285
snowwrestler wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> there is no correlation between when a Dem condemned violent protest and whether they won their election You got a source on that? It's clear that democrats lost ground, despite the Republican party's abject failure to control the coronavirus. This should have been the easiest win in world history, and somehow, the Democrats barely escaped with the presidency. There is pretty clearly something to explain here.

[deleted]

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

#302

Post by nl »

_jal wrote: post #297
nl wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downvotes on this are very aggressive and I'd love to know why. Do people think my summary of the data is wrong or that I'm underestimating the depth of it?

Troll swarm. Enjoy the ride.

Thanks. The good thing about having been on HN for a while is that I don't really need to care about troll voting.

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

#303

Post by wcarron »

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.

Oh yeah, all those "coastal/urban elites" from New Mexico, Arizona, and Minnesota.

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

#304

Post by saeranv »

rayiner wrote: post #167
johnnyg wrote: post #80

The book Thinking in Bets points out that predictions are given with a % of certainty. If I say X party will win at Y% and Z party wins, it doesn't mean the model is broken.

But elections aren’t single events, they are 50 different events. 5% of the time the results in Michigan will be outside the error bars. But if the results are outside the error bars in Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc., and the polls all got it wrong in the same direction for each (overestimated Biden’s support) that’s actually statistically quite unlikely.

Both 538 and the Economist forecasting models model errors as correlated - each state's vote share is not considered an independent event.

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

#305

Post by nxmnxm99 »

darawk wrote: post #285
snowwrestler wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> there is no correlation between when a Dem condemned violent protest and whether they won their election You got a source on that? It's clear that democrats lost ground, despite the Republican party's abject failure to control the coronavirus. This should have been the easiest win in world history, and somehow, the Democrats barely escaped with the presidency. There is pretty clearly something to explain here.

Every single demographic went further red than 2016 besides white men.

There’s a reason for that.

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

#306

Post by nxmnxm99 »

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…

What? Trafalgar was one of the only polls calling a close race. In Trumps favour but close nonetheless. IIRC they were the only ones calling Florida going red. You’re being intentionally disingenuous saying they were equally as bad as the rest of the field predicting a blue wave.

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

#307

Post by throwaway32848 »

nl wrote: post #252
throwaway32849 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people I know voted Republican were low-wage working people, where my highly paid educated friends voted Democrat Biden actively courted high-earning, educated voters with his free college and student loan forgiveness policies, which amount to a wealth transfer to people who already have higher lifetime average earnings and are at a competitive advantage in the employment marketplace. Not very progressive: htt…

While it's true that the average salary of people who complete a college degree is higher than those who don't there are large numbers who don't complete the degree (which ends up with little salary benefit), or who do degrees that don't provide great salary outcomes[1] [1] https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2020/data-on-display/educa... - note the associate degree and "some college" levels. > He also pledged to fund…

> That's not how it works. The stockmarket is a comparative market where higher profitability compared to other companies is what affects stock price. This means tax increases to all companies don't drop stock prices.

The value of any stock (or bond or other financial asset) is its expected future cash flows discounted back to the present at a rate that reflects the risks associated with those cash flows. This is corporate finance 101. Higher taxes for US companies means lower cash flows, and lower values for those assets, unless the discount rate is lowered enough (e.g., lowering interest rates further, even going negative) to compensate. Companies with more US exposure will become less valuable, and money will flow to other assets, including bonds, foreign stocks, etc., to reflect the shift in value.

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

#308

Post by nxmnxm99 »

nl wrote: post #290
nl wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a large proportion of Trump voters believe parts of QAnon-pushed conspiracy theories - especially that he is "taking on a Deep State conspiracy", and data indicates some support for that[1][2]. Surely they don't believe the "blood drinking paedophile" part though? It seems outrageous, and yet I know a bunch of people on HN believed PizzaGate back in 2016, so maybe I'm underestimating it. [1] https://www.usato…

The downvotes on this are very aggressive and I'd love to know why. Do people think my summary of the data is wrong or that I'm underestimating the depth of it?

You’re being downvoted because the “democrats are le smart and well read” trope is getting old

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

#309

Post by tshaddox »

orangecat wrote: post #239
tshaddox wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Oops, not sure where I found that Missouri figure, but it looks like you're right. Still, one quarter to one third of the population doesn't fit what I would remotely consider to be "elite." And why is "almost everyone in your social circle" relevant? I don't think people generally use the word "elite" to refer to the ability to make friends from among a specific third of the national population.

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

#310

Post by throwaway32848 »

throwaway32849 wrote: post #202
throwaway32849 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people I know voted Republican were low-wage working people, where my highly paid educated friends voted Democrat Biden actively courted high-earning, educated voters with his free college and student loan forgiveness policies, which amount to a wealth transfer to people who already have higher lifetime average earnings and are at a competitive advantage in the employment marketplace. Not very progressive: htt…

I'm not sure why this was downvoted. The degree divide is growing as an electorate bifurcator, with the GOP fast becoming the party of the college-less: > https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2020/1027/As-college-... And as I pointed out, it's not solely for the reasons college-educated progressives are eager to suggest ("ignorant, uneducated people vote republican"). Student loan forgiveness is a flatly a regressi…

Nothing I said was false, inflammatory, or off-topic, and yet these comments got massacred with disagreement downvotes (I assume by people with student loan debt who want a handout). The downvoting and flagging on this site is out of control.
Post reply on HN