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

351–360 of 565 posts

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

#351

Post by ineedasername »

free_rms wrote: post #342
ineedasername wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As I said, these things are not constrained to one side or the other. Though Biden was a moderate, and overall there was more support for moderates in the aggregate than for the more extreme progressive views of Bernie. That could just have come down to a more cynical calculation about "electability" though.

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

#352

Post by martyvis »

"The voter approaches their table, and gives their name and party affiliation. The party affiliation is used as a signal that something fishy might be going on if the ratio of R to D is very different from the votes recorded."

This sounds so weird to an Aussie. For most people when you enter the polling place, you get bombarded by party supporters with their "how to vote" leaflets. Most people take all or none to be polite and not indicate your preference. Inside you give your name and it is ruled through on the roll printout and you are handed your ballot papers. Once you vote in your little cardboard both you slot the paper in the box. You go outside, hand back the how to vote leaflets, and chat with people after you have bought your "democracy sausage" ( a hot dog bought from the local school or fire service fundraiser). No one really cares how you voted (and 95% of people eligible vote)

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

#353

Post by AtlasBarfed »

martyvis wrote: post #352

"The voter approaches their table, and gives their name and party affiliation. The party affiliation is used as a signal that something fishy might be going on if the ratio of R to D is very different from the votes recorded." This sounds so weird to an Aussie. For most people when you enter the polling place, you get bombarded by party supporters with their "how to vote" leaflets. Most people take all or none to be…

Do you guys have voting days off?

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

#354

Post by colinmhayes »

ineedasername wrote: post #346
colinmhayes wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suppor…

But the reason they're not taking the poll is because they don't want to admit support for Trump, right? Of course some are happy to tell everyone, but some aren't. Otherwise why is this concept of republicans responding to polls less just starting now with Trump?

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

#355

Post by meroes »

isabelc wrote: post #292
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.

>Most people I know voted Republican were low-wage working people Because Republicans put more money back in the pockets of low wage workers with kids. Most people don't have the luxury of voting along idealistic lines, they vote based on finances out of necessity. Low-wage workers with children were those most hurt by the Obama's ACA Mandate penalty tax, piled on top of not being able to afford health insurance. Rep…

At least we got something useful out of the ACA rather than just tax cuts for the wealthy and political points.

"All taxpayer income groups with incomes of $75,000 and under — that’s about 65 percent of taxpayers — will face a higher tax rate in 2027 than in 2019."

"People with incomes between $10,000 and $30,000 — nearly one-quarter of Americans — are among those scheduled to pay a higher average tax rate in 2021 than in years before the tax “cut” was passed. The C.B.O. and Joint Committee estimated that those with an income of $20,000 to $30,000 would owe an extra $365 next year "

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/31/opinion/republicans-biden...

It's a NYT Opinion piece by a Nobel recipient.

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

#357

Post by nl »

ineedasername wrote: post #336
nl wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Also there's often a trend I've noticed in some of my own down voted comments that an initial negative turns positive as curious readers want to see what was so bad, realize it was nothing, and upvote.

In this case I'm still not sure if people are downvoting because they don't like the data, don't like me not being convinced about the blood libel parts, think Pizzagate was real or what.

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

#359

Post by edmundsauto »

ineedasername wrote: post #341
hackinthebochs wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

To be clear, rural areas receive more federal support, but it’s farm subsidies, not visible infrastructure.

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

#360

Post by kaitai »

adventured wrote: post #333
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…

> The bulk of Trump voters are from rural areas, and tend to be less (or un-)educated. You're of course ignoring even worse problems on the Democrat side. The lowest education rates and highest drop-out rates in the US are not in rural areas, they're almost exclusively in the inner cities where Democrats tend to completely dominate the vote. Rural students at 87% are more likely to graduate from high school in four y…

I feel like your answer is sort of in bad faith. I live in an urban area, and people are quite concerned about the dropout rate (and more to the point that I think you're trying to imply but are dancing around for your own reasons, the racial achievement gaps). But I guess we put a different spin on it: we are ashamed of it, we should be ashamed of it, and we bring it up a lot in political races and on billboards and in conversations about who to elect to the School Board. Have we been effective in fixing it? Not really. But it's not because of propaganda purposes -- it's because it's a hard problem that's intertwined with questions of financial capital and stability and health care and justice and environment.

Anyhow, in the United States, all citizens have the vote, and an uneducated urban vote and an uneducated rural vote are both votes, though due to our unequal representation the rural vote is 'worth' more.

Post reply on HN