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

#341

Post by ineedasername » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 3:05 AM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #268

flowerlad wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bulk of Trump voters are from rural areas, and tend to be less (or un-)educated. I don't know what percentage of Trump voters believe QAnon conspiracy theories. But I do believe the bulk of Trump voters are voting against their self interests, because they are gullible. Why else would most Trump voters come from rural areas? If they had legit reasons to support Trump why aren't the voters spread equally among urb…

>Why else would most Trump voters come from rural areas? Because the political and cultural interests of rural areas are different than the interests of urban areas? The economies of rural areas have crumbled. But 50% of the population live in cities and so economic policies that benefit the "majority" of the population will completely miss the issues rural areas face. Trump's support is because he at least pretends…

Also rural areas see much less of the impact that government has. They see less infrastructure, they see less of the masses of students that have to be educated, etc. They tend to be pro-small government because they don't have a daily view of the impact government has on daily life.

I don't view that as gullible, I view that as a perspective that is incomplete due to geographical circumstances. And I am sure that's probably a road that goes both ways, with people in urban & suburban areas not seeing the full picture with respect to rural society.

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

#342

Post by free_rms » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 3:10 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #338

free_rms wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we actually care about outcomes, then maybe we should use some of that vaunted intelligence to think about winning more. "You're dumb and racist, so vote for us" is apparently not a winning message. And spending hundreds of millions on the same dumb media consulting firms that lose again and again, zero positive message besides "it's us or trump".. I could go on for days about how "smart" the democratic politician…

Pursuit of winning at the cost of values isn't a great path. We certainly see it in a bipartisan selection of politicians, but there's no reason intelligence should win out any more of less to propaganda or misinformation, regardless of which party it comes from, especially because it tends to be a lot easier to convince even inteligent people of an appealing lie than an ugly truth, again regardless of party affiliat…

That's what the democrats did, though, by picking Biden over Bernie. And they sucked anyways.

What values did Biden communicate during the campaign?

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

#343

Post by ineedasername » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 3:10 AM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #331

darawk wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you're defending the person who is trying to explain why polls got it wrong by using polling data to show that their argument belittling the BLM protests was correct. He's not belittling them. He's supporting them and their cause, and offering course corrective advice so that they are better able to achieve their stated goals. > This is ridiculous on it's own, but also ignores things like how wrong it is to blam…

>Violence was instigated on both sides, but regardless of what the underlying reality was, the perception was that leftists were responsible for much of the violence, and that is problematic electorally. Literally "it doesn't matter who was responsible for the violence, the left get blamed for it so it's their fault." Fuck that. The police are very often responsible for the violence, and you should not stop protestin…

I don't think they were saying the protests should stop. They made on observation about how the protests were perceived by others, and that perception, correct or not, influenced voting decisions.

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

#344

Post by ineedasername » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 3:12 AM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #220

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…

So you're defending the person who is trying to explain why polls got it wrong by using polling data to show that their argument belittling the BLM protests was correct. This is ridiculous on it's own, but also ignores things like how wrong it is to blame the protests for violence often instigated by the police, how dumb it is to trust polling data from the Nixon campaign when we know he was involved in all sorts of…

It is possible that protests motivated both Democrats and Republicans. The extent of this is unknown, the dust has barely settled. I suspect it will be an area of much research.

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

#345

Post by orangecat » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 3:13 AM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #309

orangecat wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

It's one thing if you have a college degree and half of your acquaintances don't. It's another if you rarely have meaningful interactions with anyone who doesn't; in that case you're in a subculture that has very different experiences than the average American.

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

#346

Post by ineedasername » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 3:18 AM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #137

dillondoyle wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Research has confirmed that people don't lie to pollsters in any meaningful way when asked their head to head preference. It's mentioned in the last graph of the article. The crux of this article is rather than 'shy trump voters' there is simply a large amount of these Trump voters who will refuse to take a survey flat out.

Isn't trump voters refusing to take polls what everyone means when they say "shy trump voters"?

Not quite, it's a subtle nuance. The concept of a shy Trump supporter is that they're afraid of a stigma associated with admitting support for Trump.

That is different than someone who just doesn't want to take a poll but may be perfectly happy to tell you their views if you struck up a conversation. My own observation is that over the last 4 years, Trump supporters have become ever more loud and proud of that support, not more shy.

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

#347

Post by ineedasername » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 3:18 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #198

PeterisP wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understand, the traditional sense of "shy voter" is to describe your poll numbers (i.e. the people who did take the survey) which answered "undecided" when they were shy about their choice. This also goes hand in hand with things like observed differences in answers of in-person surveys when the person doing the survey is/isn't from the same demographic as the person being surveyed. A disproportional amou…

If I didn't have five of them calling me every day, day after day, I might be more likely to answer. If half of them weren't push polls trying to disguise themselves as unbiased, I might be more likely to answer. As it is, though? No. Go away. All of you go away. You'll find out my opinion when I vote. Until then, leave me alone.

Those of us who don't live in a swing state don't have to deal with them nearly as much.

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

#348

Post by ineedasername » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 3:19 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #197

ballenf wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know it's a pollster calling?

...because they identify themselves as such? I guess it's possible that someone impersonates a pollster, but that'd fall under the second part of my comment, which I haven't see evidence of happening.

My father gets regular calls from "pollsters" who then ask for a donation for the candidate they really represent.

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

#349

Post by bananadrama » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 3:21 AM UTC

bArray wrote: post #339

mmcgaha wrote: post #334

Everyone knows Republicans are racist homophobic xenophobic bigoted nazis. Why would they want to admit that to some random over the phone? The rhetoric that we are using to describe the other party is not necessarily helping our cause in the long run. First it is pushing folks with legitimate disagreement away from public discourse. Second it is creating a good-guy/bad-guy scenario that is the equivalent of tribalis…

You should really edit your comment's first paragraph to make it clear that it's not your opinion. I agree that there is currently an atmosphere where people don't necessarily feel comfortable talking about their political leanings among strangers.

> You should really edit your comment's first paragraph to make it clear that it's not your opinion.

It's clear from context.

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

#350

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 3:21 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #335

jimbobimbo wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.essence.com/news/politics/55-percent-white-women...

This is based on exit polls. Exit polls only interview people who vote in person, which may be generally be useful, but in this election are an enormously systematically biased slice of the electorate. You really can't base any generalizations beyond the in-person voting segment based on them.

> This is based on exit polls.

Are there some other measurements based on something else, or is it something we now can never know as a result of mail in ballots having no polling and an expected different statistical distribution?