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

271–280 of 565 posts

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

#271

Post by slg »

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.

To put some numbers to it here are results from a Morning Consult poll[1]:

>Republicans, in particular, have been drawn to QAnon, with 38 percent of GOP adults who had heard of QAnon saying they believed the claims were at least somewhat accurate, compared to 18 percent of Democrats and 16 percent of independents.

Strangely enough Democrats and Independents were more likely to have an opinion of QAnon than Republicans. However they were much less likely to believe any of it with 63% of Democrats labeled it somewhat or completely inaccurate while only 24% of Republicans did.

This also seems to be another strike against the idea of "shy Trump voters" because I think there is a bigger social stigma against QAnon than Trump. Although I guess maybe the Republicans who are saying they aren't aware of or have no opinion of QAnon could be "shy QAnon believers".

[1] - https://morningconsult.com/2020/10/14/social-media-qanon-pol...

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

#272

Post by ZephyrBlu »

jungletime wrote: post #257

Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD. "Inventor of Email" Analyzed the results in Michigan and came to the conclusion that 69k votes were taken from Trump and given to Biden. His reasoning here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztu5Y5obWPk&feature=youtu.be

Do you have a TL;DW? I would watch it all if it was a bit shorter or there were timestamps, but 1hr10min is a lot.

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

#273

Post by bra-ket »

gridspy wrote: post #260
bra-ket wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's a bit hard to trust mainstream media that have been lying to you and called you 'racist' for 4 years.

The trust in this case is trust of strangers who are calling you to ask you polling questions. When it comes to media, all information you consume must be read with a critical eye. You need to understand what assumptions are driving what is said, what the tone is and where they are drawing their conclusions from.

people have been attacked, harassed, slandered and 'cancelled' by liberal strangers for 4 years simply for holding different political views. The polls were just another piece of propaganda, which thankfully flopped.

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

#274

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#275

Post by AngryData »

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…

Yeah I got 4-5 spam calls every day and just as many spam texts on my personal cell phone and so I don't answer any unknown calls on it. It is all just scam robocalls. If a pollster called me, I doubt I would answer. And even if I did, would I trust they were a real poll? Probably not.

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

#276

Post by bryanlarsen »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #266
bryanlarsen wrote: post #255

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…

> how crazy Cohn, Silver, Wasserman's polls were

Silver didn't do any polling, and is the guy that wrote [I'm here to remind you that Trump can still win](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/im-here-to-remind-you-t...) before the election.

> incompetence or malice.

IIRC, Cohn said his number on Latinos in many districts was off by 50%. Call it incompetence if you want.

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

#277

Post by peteradio »

matthewbauer wrote: post #214
daxfohl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before 2016, polls were much more accurate. And paper ballots were the norm. So there's that.

2018 polls were pretty accurate IIRC. Lots of theories going around about how Trump uniquely screws up polling. Not a ton of evidence, but it is really surprising both 2016 and 2020 were off in the same direction. It could happen due to random chance of course. Too bad we probably will never see Trump on the ballot again to get any more data on this phenomenon.

Buck up, he's got two politically active children! Maybe its genetic?

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

#278

Post by bryanlarsen »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #266
bryanlarsen wrote: post #255

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…

> 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.

A normal polling error is about 5%, so all of them are within that except for Florida and Wisconsin.

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

#279

Post by Falling3 »

gsujsgwuaja wrote: post #259
colinmhayes wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denouncing white supremacists after the entire country says you have to isn't really the same. Anyone with critical thinking skills can see that the number of times he has refused to denounce white supremacists or called them good people makes him a white supremacist.

It's been three years, can we please stop repeating this lie? Trump has disavowed white supremacists clearly and repeatedly, and the claim that he called them "fine people" is not true. Let me say that again: it's wrong . This is not ambiguous: it would have taken you a single Google search to find out that when Trump talked about "fine people" at Charlottesville he explicitly said that he wasn't talking about the wh…

Yea... it's so weird how Trump keeps making these, at best, ambiguous statements where he has to explain later - sometimes days later, sometimes never - what he really meant. And really weird that, during that time, neo-nazis, white supremacists, white nationals, and other groups earnestly quote those statements and publicly support him. But I guess the weirdest part is actually anyone who holds Trump accountable for those statements. /s

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

#280

Post by stanford_labrat »

0xffff2 wrote: post #127
stanford_labrat wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a center right moderate I definitely feel this. Especially at work/with acquaintances where I feel compelled to just silently nod and agree with everything being said or else risk my career and social standing.

As a center right moderate, did you vote for Trump? I might use similar terms to describe my political beliefs if I was into labels, and I feel none of this. I've always been frank about my political leanings when it comes up, and no one I know has had any trouble talking about the issues while leaving the Candidates out of it. That said, given where the Republican party is right now, I can't imagine voting for any R…

I did not vote...I've found similarly that issues-wise discussion is not bad, but more often than not conversation is always about the candidates themselves as a package and support for one particular policy means you support all of them.
Post reply on HN