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

181–190 of 565 posts

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

#181

Post by doubleunplussed »

dnhbt wrote: post #171
ballenf wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know it's a pollster calling?

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…

Being able to vote anonymously and without regard for being shamed by your neighbours is a feature, not a bug, and one of the last protections against democracy being hijacked by intimidation and mass groupthink.

I have plenty of beliefs I'm not ashamed of on a personal level, that I think are noble, wholesome, and just, that I sure as fuck don't want my employer knowing.

People are bigots. It's not just bad beliefs that are judged harshly.

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

#182

Post by goodcanadian »

ianleeclark wrote: post #23
0x53 wrote: post #3

One of the biggest issues I think is that the polling is still done by just randomly calling people. I think I agree that there is a large skew introduced by the simple fact of only reaching people willing to answer a call from an unknown number.

The thing that not enough people bring up is the rampant robocalling. Before I left the US around a year and a half ago, I was getting 2-3 calls a day. Basically, if I ever got a call from a number not in my contact list, I would never answer. I know I'm not the only one like this, but I don't have any numbers to back it up. Even in Germany where robocalling seemingly doesn't exist, I still have this reflex, so it ma…

When I lived in the U.S., the do-not-call register worked pretty well. It wasn't perfect, but it dropped the unsolicited calls from several per day to a couple of times per month.

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

#183

Post by flowerlad »

fastball wrote: post #122
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…

"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.

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

#184

Post by pmiller2 »

legitster wrote: post #7
0x53 wrote: post #3

One of the biggest issues I think is that the polling is still done by just randomly calling people. I think I agree that there is a large skew introduced by the simple fact of only reaching people willing to answer a call from an unknown number.

This isn't strictly true though, there are any number of polling methods that pollsters use these days including online polling and essentially pre-approved call databases. One of the examples in this article was an in-person poll with 70% response rate. It's probably more accurate to say it's harder to effectively weigh or average responses in a setting where there are 4 or 5 different channels you are collecting re…

That’s interesting, considering I would be far more likely to dodge an in-person poll than any other type. If I see anyone with a clipboard asking people if they’re registered voters, I give a wide berth.

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

#185

Post by fwip »

rootusrootus wrote: post #64
francisofascii wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gives people a better sense of the political preferences of the various parts of the country. In a weird sort of way, it helps validate the election results, even if the numbers are off. If you are a liberal living in SF and see Trump win in 2016, you might have seriously questioned the validity of the election results, if you didn't have numerous polls backing up that Trump did indeed have supporters.

> validate the election results This is one thing that I considered, but I wonder if exit polls would be a better choice. They're usually much more accurate than pre-election polls, so they serve as a hedge against large-scale fraud.

We do exit polls too.

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

#187

Post by Falling3 »

bra-ket wrote: post #86
gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #15

It seems obvious to me that there was massive bias in media towards Biden, and they all happily accepted the narrative that Biden would win in a landslide and dismissed anyone saying otherwise as know-nothings. IMO that's tantamount to election interference, if there's near unanimous media coverage for the entire election season of inaccurate polling that assumes a landslide Biden victory. I didn't vote for Biden or…

absolutely, Biden has a chance only thanks to constant brainwashing by the media, 'orange man bad evil racist' broadcasted 24/7 for 4 years to millions of people. If you repeat lies many times people start to believe in them even on subconscious level. Especially if you manipulate people emotions and subjective opinions. Try asking anyone supporting Biden why do they so firmly believe Trump is 'racist'. Their respons…

Everyone I know who claims Trump is racist can quickly and easily point to specific policies, quotes, and actions - both before and during his presidency.

This meme that people don't have evidence for their issues with Trump is not only false, it's comedically ironic.

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

#188

Post by kjeetgill »

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.

Do you think the bulk of voters for Trump believe one of these things? He won a considerable number of votes.

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

#189

Post by rjsw »

throwaway201103 wrote: post #100
andybak wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seriously, who's picking up those calls? People who don't live in countries where the problem is this bad? I'm in the UK and I get about 1 unsolicited call a month. If I didn't pick up numbers I didn't recognize I would have missed my Doctor (this week), several new client leads and multiple friends and acquaintences that changed their number.

Also people older than ~60 who still have a landline at home, and grew up without caller-id. Answering unknown phone calls was normal, because you never knew who the caller was.

In the UK, doctors don't provide caller-id, not even the number of a hospital switchboard.

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

#190

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #95

Another pollsters opinion: Nate Cohn says the story is about Latino voters who are a notoriously hard demographic to poll. Source "The Daily" podcast.

Did Nate Cohn's predictions this election pan out?

“The final polls more or less comport with how we already viewed the race. Mr. Biden ends the race up by more than eight points nationwide — the largest lead a candidate has held in the final polls since Bill Clinton in 1996. He’s up by at least five points in states worth more than 270 electoral votes, the number needed to win. Beyond that, he’s got at least a nominal lead in states worth 350 electoral votes, and he’s just a 2012 polling error away from a sweeping landslide of more than 400 electoral votes.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/presidential-polls-trump-b...

Cohn's polling leading up to the election:

Tuesday Nevada Biden +6

Wednesday Michigan Biden +8

Thursday N.C. Biden +3

Sunday Arizona Biden +6

Sunday Florida Biden +3

Sunday Pennsylvania Biden +6

Sunday Wisconsin Biden +11

Which of these happened?

Biden underperformed compared to Clinton in most pivot counties and bellweather predictions (which were 90% wrong this year, wow), and most counties in swing states entirely with the except of greaty overperforming in the densest liberal areas, in some of those cases even doing better than Obama as crazy as that seems. Biden underperformed with hispanics and black from exceptions and likewise Trump did better with them than expected overall. And no matter what if you think someone the day of the election saying "Biden Landside" was possible, well...

You do you, but me personally, I'm going to go to someone else for opinions because that was such an exaggeration of reality that it seems like it had to be "for effect".

Post reply on HN