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

541–550 of 565 posts

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

#541

Post by mastazi »

vkou wrote: post #459
mastazi wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But we no longer live in a sane world One way to deal with this type of dysphoria would be to spend some quality time with people who hold views different from the ones you have, and it would be much better if you didn't do that online, but in person - for reasons that I'm sure you understand well, since you are an HN reader. Or, you decide that everyone on the other side of the fence is completely bollocks. But wi…

I have two friends whose parents have gone down first the anti-vaxx, then the flat earth, and more recently the QAnon rabbit hole. They describe it like losing a family member to a drug addiction, or a cult. Quality time with their own family is no longer a thing that can happen, because how dare the children suggest that basic pandemic precautions be taken, or even think of supporting the vast pedophilic democratic…

> Pray tell, how should they bridge that chasm? This is a serious question.

It's not a serious question, it's a self righteous rhetorical question.

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

#542

Post by ineedasername »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #540
ineedasername wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A responsible person considers the consequences of their actions and what trade offs are being made. Supporting the protests but also considering the consequences are not mutually exclusive and is in fact an obvious step to take for a mature and rational person.

OK? If you've thought through your actions, your still not going to belabor the point that the protests aren't helping in the elections. You'll talk about what is important enough to be worth those consequences.

Well, it seems like we parsed this conversation to the point where we found that we actually fundamentally agree on that issue. Thank you for a thoughtful conversation. Heck, even if we had ultimately disagreed, we went about the discussion productively, clarifying our points at each step etc. without insults or flame wars. This is why I find HN to be a unique community.

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

#543

Post by ficklepickle »

flowerlad wrote: post #183
fastball wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How did Trump get so many votes?" The same people that attacked Schor have undoubtedly also asked themselves this question, without an ounce of self-awareness. Except instead of recognizing their own culpability, the conclusion most such people are coming to seems to be "well, I guess nearly half of all Americans are bad people".

Not bad people, but gullible people. Anyone that believes QAnon conspiracy theories such as Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, and Oprah Winfrey are raping and drinking the blood of kidnapped children in pursuit of the “fountain of youth” is gullible.

To be fair, there is a small grain of truth to that. Not resolving the Epstein debacle gave a lot of room for Q to grow.

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

#544

Post by dodobirdlord »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #461
dodobirdlord wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Handouts" are viewed very differently then taxes by the general public. One is the government giving out free stuff the other is them taking YOUR money.

Low wage workers are pretty much guaranteed to be net-negative tax contributors. Their tax refund each year is going to be larger than what they cumulatively paid due to refundable tax credits. “Lowering taxes” for people in that position is the same as handing out money.

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

#545

Post by icedistilled »

dan_quixote wrote: post #322
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…

Funny, I realized that I've never thought about how I react to polls until reading your comment. I flat out refuse to answer polls regardless of who is asking. I refuse to leave any public artifacts of my political feelings (signs, bumper stickers, facebook comments, etc). The reason is exactly as you describe - I have nothing to gain and potentially something to lose. I am a problem for pollsters and there's no reas…

The sole time I answer a political poll, I remember being unable to answer a single question. Each one was so obviously a loaded question and completely missing context that I couldn't respond. All I could say is I need more context which they could not give.

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

#546

Post by icedistilled »

esoterica wrote: post #441
tomjen3 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would seem likely. But then the polls should under count a population that is more likely to vote for the Dems and so the polls should have shown more support for the republicans than what happened in the elections. Maybe we should just have taken the lesson of Dewey defeating Truman and not trusted polls is the first place.

The polls were not great this cycle, but the 538 forecast, which is mostly polls-based, still correctly predicted 48/50 of the states in this election. If you went an entire cycle without looking at a single poll, or reading a single piece of media informed by a poll, do you think you could do better than 48/50?

Correctly predicting is not a badge of honor if the numbers are way off. As an extreme hypothetical, if he'd predicted California to be Biden+40 and it was actually Biden+10 that would be correctly predicting who won but it would also be a massive polling failure. If the numbers land outside the predicted margins, it's bad polling regardless of whether the binary decision was right.

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

#547

Post by awerawerawrjhui »

tptacek wrote: post #531
joijoiwejrr wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I posted this elsewhere in the thread but even without exit polls we can make some reasonably solid conclusions from geographical voting data: https://sweep.thedispatch.com/p/the-sweep-dont-trust-the-exi... At this point it seems pretty clear that Trump made big gains among Latinos compared to 2016; with other demographics the jury is still out (I think.)

You don't need exits to know that; there were sharp swings towards Trump in majority-Latino south Texas counties.

Um... that's exactly what the post you're replying to says?

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

#548

Post by thu2111 »

tshaddox wrote: post #79
shinjitsu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially if those polled fear for their jobs if they answer the 'wrong way' in the poll and others find out about it: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1324807776510595078 -> https://www.trumpaccountability.net/

How could that tweet possibly have anything to do with polls? Any remotely scientific poll would surely be anonymous. That has nothing to do with people willingly tweeting their political views and then attempt to cover them up or expect them to be forgotten in the future.

They're based on calling phone numbers, which are tied to identities, and the President has access to the NSA databases that correlate everyone's identities with their phones, IP addresses, etc.

If people in Congress or the President wanted to, they could absolutely find out who answered in polls that they'd vote for a candidate.

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

#549

Post by thu2111 »

Falling3 wrote: post #519
thu2111 wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't be downvoted. Trump "taking on the deep state" isn't even a conspiracy theory, he literally made that a major part of his 2016 campaign. If deep state/swamp/etc is interpreted as a vague reference to the Washington/New York professional classes who populate government in huge numbers and tend to share very similar worldviews and beliefs, then calling this a QAnon pushed conspiracy theory would be a pret…

> Trump "taking on the deep state" isn't even a conspiracy theory, he literally made that a major part of his 2016 campaign You're misframing this. The conspiracy theory is not that Trump is taking on the deep state; it's the existence of the deep state to begin with. >If deep state/swamp/etc is interpreted as a vague reference to the Washington/New York professional classes who populate government in huge numbers an…

Eh, wasn't one of the main reasons Clinton ran aground the belief that her nomination was due to a stitch-up inside the DNC (selection of Presidents ... nearly, at least)? Isn't it true that many US laws are created by regulatory agencies of various kinds, and then implemented/enforced by unelected judges?

The notion that most rules are invented and implemented by the unelected isn't extreme, is it, it's more like an observation of how the system really works, especially in the US where - unusually - regulatory agencies can create new laws without involving Congress.

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

#550

Post by thu2111 »

christophilus wrote: post #463
mastazi wrote: post #244

This is my personal experience: over the course of my life, I have held both conservative positions and more progressive ones (depending on the topic, and in different periods of my life). I have always been much more willing to discuss openly those positions that I would describe as progressive. This is despite the fact that over the years I have been living in more than a handful of different countries, each one wi…

I’m similar. It’s a good question. I think it’s because there’s a pervasive underlying presupposition that conservatives are less intelligent or at least less educated than liberals, so maybe you subconsciously want to be associated with the smart, scientific group and disassociated from the uneducated, anti science group? I suspect that’s part of it in my case. Also, in my personal experience, if you want to avoid n…

Thomas Sowell's "Conflict of Visions" theory might provide better explanations. In effect, people with more left/liberal views tend to emphasise the importance of speech, ideas, things that seem expert or scientific. People with more conservative views in contrast emphasise practical experience over ideas, common sense / simple explanations over complex / expert explanations, and tend to consider speech not particularly powerful at changing minds or spreading ideas.

The above explanation is not judgemental. There are times when complex, expert arguments are correct. There are also times when people obfuscate hidden agendas behind clever sounding language. How powerful speech is at spreading ideas is a purely intuitive judgement, it's not easy to measure.

If you believe that expressing your opinion isn't particularly impactful on the world, that people who use complicated statistical methods aren't automatically trustworthy and might be obfuscating things with maths, that academic/intellectual types who talk a lot aren't really valuable to society, then automatically you'd find participating in a poll unappealing.

In contrast, if you believe speech/expressing opinions is an extremely powerful way to change the world, that experts who use maths are inherently worth supporting, that academics/intellectuals are amongst the best of us, then talking to a pollster might seem like a pretty important and virtuous way to spend your time.

The above explanation is invariant to cancel culture, sneering attitudes towards conservatives etc.

Post reply on HN