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

191–200 of 565 posts

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

#191

Post by sien »

Tim Harford has an excellent article on why the polls were wrong:

https://timharford.com/2020/11/why-the-polls-got-it-wrong/

The big quote is this:

"The pre-election numbers suggest that in a typical poll with 500 positive responses, 255 went for Mr Biden and 243 for Mr Trump. But typical response rates are 5 in 100 — often lower, says Andrew Gelman, a statistician and prominent election modeller. He says that only around 1 in 100 people respond to opinion polls. So now picture 10,000 people, 255 who called their vote for Mr Biden, 243 for Mr Trump and 9,500 who never responded. How confident are we feeling now? "

Harford is the host of the excellent More or Less podcast that looks at the validity of statistics in the news.

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

#192

Post by flowerlad »

kjeetgill wrote: post #188
flowerlad wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 urban/educated and rural/uneducated people? Which of Trump's policies are only helping rural/uneducated people?

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

#193

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

zepto wrote: post #2

This presumably also affects polls on things that measure support for individual issues related to trust in society - for example Gun control.

You can also look at previous votes on initiatives as semi-accurate polling.

Michael Bloomberg / Everytown for Gun Safety / Moms Demand Action / The Trace / Mayors Against Illegal Guns which are all the same entity repeatedly pushed out the statistic that "90% of guns owners want to end private gun sales" of course this is totally misleading, but...

When it came a vote in Washington state, after outspending the NRA over 10:1 on Initiative-594 they received a 60/40 win.

I would put that 90% a lot farther down, because everyone in WA voted on this, not just gun owners. So, its it 10%, 30%, 60%? IDK, but I know it's not 90%.

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

#194

Post by corpMaverick »

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…

This. I no longer answer calls if don't recognize the number. I was helping on a campaign with a phone bank and no one was answering.

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

#195

Post by Fnoord »

dillondoyle wrote: post #123
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…

Research has confirmed that people don't lie to pollsters in any meaningful way when asked their head to head preference. It's mentioned in the last graph of the article. The crux of this article is rather than 'shy trump voters' there is simply a large amount of these Trump voters who will refuse to take a survey flat out.

I guess I am not human, then.

I'd lie to pollsters because I dislike the practice. It causes irrelevant news, and feeds into strategic voting. One distracts / causes pageviews, other one lowers the integrity of our democracy. My data can skew the accuracy of pollsters, however little that is, thereby hurting their interests.

I am also open to lying to telemarketers as I despise their job. Perfect example of a Bullshit Job.

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

#196

Post by hundchenkatze »

smnrchrds wrote: post #33
rootusrootus wrote: post #18

Maybe it doesn't really matter much. I mean, sure, we need some amount of polling because it informs decisions such as who gets to participate in televised debates, etc. But other than that, what does the general public get out of polling? It's a spectator sport. In the end, all that matters is the votes, and people should really be encouraged to remember this. I'd think 2016 and 2020 would be a healthy reminder of t…

> what does the general public get out of polling? The laypeople, not much. But for politically active people, not to mention political parties, polls are the best tool to determine where to do what. If you are way ahead in one race but neck and neck in another, it makes sense for parties and activists to focus their efforts and donations to the competitive race. There is never enough resources to focus on every race…

> polls are the best tool to determine where to do what

Seems like that may not be the case anymore.

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

#197

Post by gruez »

ballenf wrote: post #166
gruez wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. What? When was the last time a pollster got upset because of your response? Or are you somehow worried that the results will leak out and you'll get canceled?

How do you know it's a pollster calling?

...because they identify themselves as such? I guess it's possible that someone impersonates a pollster, but that'd fall under the second part of my comment, which I haven't see evidence of happening.

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

#198

Post by AnimalMuppet »

PeterisP wrote: post #147
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"?

As far as I understand, the traditional sense of "shy voter" is to describe your poll numbers (i.e. the people who did take the survey) which answered "undecided" when they were shy about their choice. This also goes hand in hand with things like observed differences in answers of in-person surveys when the person doing the survey is/isn't from the same demographic as the person being surveyed. A disproportional amou…

If I didn't have five of them calling me every day, day after day, I might be more likely to answer.

If half of them weren't push polls trying to disguise themselves as unbiased, I might be more likely to answer.

As it is, though? No. Go away. All of you go away. You'll find out my opinion when I vote. Until then, leave me alone.

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

#199

Post by lainga »

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…

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

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

#200

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ihatethissite wrote: post #139
dillondoyle wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Research has confirmed that people don't lie to pollsters in any meaningful way when asked their head to head preference. It's mentioned in the last graph of the article. The crux of this article is rather than 'shy trump voters' there is simply a large amount of these Trump voters who will refuse to take a survey flat out.

This reads to me as being in alignment with the parent comment to which it was posted as a response. "... voters who will refuse to take a survey flat out" is equivalent to "... simply tak[ing] a neutral, non-committal stance on almost every hot-button issue these days."

Taking a neutral stance to the poller. That's not the same thing as taking a neutral stance on the issues.
Post reply on HN