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

421–430 of 565 posts

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

#421

Post by throwaway201103 »

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?

I didn't downvote you but I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. I voted for Trump because I like his style. I like that he pushes back when attacked. I like that he hasn't started any wars. I like my tax return. I like that he renegotiated NAFTA and trade with China. I like that he's getting Arab states to make peace with Israel.

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

#422

Post by axaxs »

disown wrote: post #384

I wonder what Facebook or Google's "poll" numbers would have been if they decided to run one? Given their access to search, texts, social media posts, emails, tracking, etc along with their profile of a large segment of the population, I'm guessing their polling data would be the most accurate.

Facebook already determines your political leaning, somehow. At least a few years ago you could see it for yourself, not sure if that still exists. I'm sure without a shadow of a doubt Google makes the same determination. So they probably don't need to 'run' anything special here.

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

#423

Post by nl »

throwaway201103 wrote: post #410
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…

I voted for Trump and I hadn't heard of QAnon until maybe a month ago when I started to see it in the news.

I don't think many have heard of QAnon (I think I saw less than 30% reported?).

But many believe at least some of the theories pushed by QAnon, which include (but are not limited to):

* Trump is taking on a "Deep State" which is trying to take him down

* Trump is combating an international paedophile ring

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

#424

Post by nine_k »

evo_9 wrote: post #104

Who replies honestly to political question to random strangers? I know I don't. What's the benefit of letting anyone know where you stand politically at this point? None. It's much more likely - no matter which side you're for - that the person asking could have an adverse reaction. Things are just way too polarized now, not sure how that can change, but that's how it is. I mean outside friends/family I simply take a…

An effective poll should be highly anonymized, like voting, for the same reasons.

You pick a random piece of paper from a stack, check some boxes, put the paper into an opaque box with all other papers. This makes tracking the paper back to you impractical, if not impossible.

This is, of course, not achievable by phone calls, and also hardly achievable over the internet (only maybe using Tor). This also may make it harder to control for age, gender, race, etc.

Otherwise, expressing any opinion (even the most orthodox at the time of the poll) may potentially be turned against you, and there is no obvious personal benefit for most people in expressing their opinion to strangers.

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

#425

Post by swader999 »

evo_9 wrote: post #104

Who replies honestly to political question to random strangers? I know I don't. What's the benefit of letting anyone know where you stand politically at this point? None. It's much more likely - no matter which side you're for - that the person asking could have an adverse reaction. Things are just way too polarized now, not sure how that can change, but that's how it is. I mean outside friends/family I simply take a…

And who answers the phones these days? The ones that do are so rare and unique that they can hardly be a representative sample.

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

#426

Post by chmod600 »

evo_9 wrote: post #104

Who replies honestly to political question to random strangers? I know I don't. What's the benefit of letting anyone know where you stand politically at this point? None. It's much more likely - no matter which side you're for - that the person asking could have an adverse reaction. Things are just way too polarized now, not sure how that can change, but that's how it is. I mean outside friends/family I simply take a…

I've come to the conclusion that it makes sense (morally, though perhaps not persoanlly) to broadcast your viewpoint when it is generally suppressed, but not when it is already a mainstream viewpoint.

A blue message in redville makes it more acceptable to discuss and is an opportunity for communication and progress; likewise for a red message in blueville.

But if you are broadcasting a blue message in blueville, you are just jumping on the identity bandwagon, further alienating the red tribe; and likewise for broadcasting a red message in redville, which just alienates the blue tribe.

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

#427

Post by nikitaga »

bananadrama wrote: post #349
bArray wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My eyes roll faster than context arrives.

Deliberately appearing as a troll until the crucial context arrives to reverse the entire meaning is a shit narrative device when discussing serious issues. Save this stuff for stupid memes.

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

#428

Post by illiilliiililil »

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…

There has never been such a thing as a politically neutral HN. It's just that there wasn't until recently a userbase to counteract the liberal tech groupthink.

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

#429

Post by newswasboring »

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…

> there is no correlation between when a Dem condemned violent protest and whether they won their election

The tweet shor got fired for was literally giving data for this. Did you see the article about his firing?

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

#430

Post by root_axis »

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.

306 electoral votes is not "barley getting by", that's the exact same margin as Trump in 2016 minus two faithless electors. That's pretty much the definition of a rebuke.
Post reply on HN