Live data from Hacker News

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

vox.com

411–420 of 565 posts

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

#411

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…

Do you not think that the mainstream Republican party has moved radically rightward over the past 12 years?

It's not spending its energy discussing Laffer curves and energy policy, and whether or not someone can be fired from their job for being gay, or if we should invade another Middle Eastern country anymore. It's spending its energy seriously talking about QAnon, and how the COVID pandemic is over, and and how there's a vast liberal conspiracy that destroyed the integrity of this country's elections, and how their president will think about whether or not he will step down if he were to lose the election.

These aren't weird views held by a bunch of powerless cranks on the party's fringe. This is the sort of stuff that the party bet the farm on this year, and has largely paid off with the voters.

In any sane world, an impartial observer would look at that, and conclude that it is all absolutely crazy. But we no longer live in a sane world, so there's now no shortage of people apologizing for, cheerleading, or just ignoring that kind of behaviour in their elected officials.

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

#412

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, despite what they may advertise.

This discounts tens of millions of Democrats living inland who are obscured by maps depending on the electoral college. It seems to me the pattern is that where population density increases the people tend to be more politically leftward-leaning.

There was an interesting chart from the economist today about that, which showed a strong correlation. The denser the area the more democratic.

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/132625098113116979...

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

#413
post #199
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't admit you voted for someone, maybe you shouldn't be voting for them. If you are afraid of your neigbors finding out your political leanings, maybe the problem isn't your neighbors but the candidate you are supporting. If you want to support a specific candidate and everything they believe in, that's just fine, but you should feel comfortable saying as much and, if you feel up for it, laying out the reaso…

Can you think of any situations in which non-secret ballots might cause undesirable effects?

The Soviet Union had a long tradition of non-secret ballots--and naturally virtually everyone voted for the Communist Party candidate [there weren't other candidates, but theoretically you could vote yes or no on the ones on the ballot].

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

#414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because if they knew that now, they would have known that last week. Last week he didn't have access to the results or exit polling data like he does now. > if the guy was claiming the possibility of a 400 vote Biden landslide? A polling error of this magnitude in the other direction would have been a massive landslide.

Which one of Cohn's swing state predictions are within "polling error"? If you can't even consider the possibility that the polls were pushed to demoralize, that's not on me. Here... Let me give you a source of pollster who explains just how crazy Cohn, Silver, Wasserman's polls were and how drastically they overshot. This guy is right leaning, but no fan of Republicans, but the view here is that he's pissed about ho…

First, I think you misunderstand poll margins of error. For example, the NYT poll is +-4 for each candidate. Meaning it could swing a total of 8 points.

That isn't anything new.

"In a new paper with Andrew Gelman and Houshmand Shirani-Mehr, we examined 4,221 late-campaign polls — every public poll we could find — for 608 state-level presidential, Senate and governor’s races between 1998 and 2014. Comparing those polls’ results with actual electoral results, we find the historical margin of error is plus or minus six to seven percentage points. (Yes, that’s an error range of 12 to 14 points, not the typically reported 6 or 7.)"

(written before 2016 election) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/upshot/when-you-hear-the-...

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

#415

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…

Piggybacking onto this, since it looks like something the hivemind may disagree with and isn't sourced in your link, breaking down by family income, between $30,000-$150,000 is majority lean rep, outside those bounds is majority lean dem. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/09/13/2016-party-i...

I've been over these stats 4 times and reread the parent comment and its post but still have no clue how one is supposed to tie to the other.

I think the point I'm having difficulty with is the thin majorities in the study. Does the study say much? Or did pew do a study and publish its research just because...well...that's what it does?

If that puts me in some hivemind, so be it.

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

#416
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is inaccurate based on latest elections. There isn't full data for 2020 but in 2016 college educated voted Dem +9. "In the 2016 election, a wide gap in presidential preferences emerged between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%. This is by far the widest gap in support among college gra…

On the other hand from that source white college graduates backed Trump by a 4 point margin.

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

#417

> 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…

I think you missed the point: if people feel like their opinions will be held against them, they will not share their true opinions, and polling will fail.

The comment seems on-topic to me regardless of whether the culture war represents reality or not

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

#420
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…

Isn't it a core Republican talking point that the Democrats secure support from low-wage people with generous handouts? This seems like another example of the OPs point about the world being upside down.
Post reply on HN