Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rejoinder to this line of thinking is generally: "if liberals are so smart, how come they always lose?" Worth a thought.
Because intelligence doesn't translate to popularity?
[deleted]
One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
311–320 of 565 posts
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rejoinder to this line of thinking is generally: "if liberals are so smart, how come they always lose?" Worth a thought.
Because intelligence doesn't translate to popularity?
If we actually care about outcomes, then maybe we should use some of that vaunted intelligence to think about winning more.
"You're dumb and racist, so vote for us" is apparently not a winning message. And spending hundreds of millions on the same dumb media consulting firms that lose again and again, zero positive message besides "it's us or trump".. I could go on for days about how "smart" the democratic politicians are.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Every single demographic went further red than 2016 besides white men. There’s a reason for that.
You’ve got data to back that up?
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it's true that the average salary of people who complete a college degree is higher than those who don't there are large numbers who don't complete the degree (which ends up with little salary benefit), or who do degrees that don't provide great salary outcomes[1] [1] https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2020/data-on-display/educa... - note the associate degree and "some college" levels. > He also pledged to fund…
> That's not how it works. The stockmarket is a comparative market where higher profitability compared to other companies is what affects stock price. This means tax increases to all companies don't drop stock prices. The value of any stock (or bond or other financial asset) is its expected future cash flows discounted back to the present at a rate that reflects the risks associated with those cash flows. This is cor…
Companies with more US exposure will become less valuable, and money will flow to other assets, including bonds, foreign stocks, etc., to reflect the shift in value.
Indeed, this is a good point too. 401K managers are aware of this and can just shift allocations.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#316My theory is that it's the High School Effect.
Democrats have highly effective social messaging, led by Hollywood and professional athletes. They constantly put out messaging, making dissenters appear 'uncool'. Sad to say, adults are actually swayed by such childish forces.
How else to explain the constant error to the left in polls?
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#317Earlier 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…
> I am completely fine admitting voting for Biden, why he isn't my favorite and who I would prefer. I feel zero shame, you shouldn't either.
There are a lot of communities where you wouldn't be completely fine admitting you vote for Biden. Being allowed to vote for Biden anyway is a good thing, being forced to vote on what your peers voted in is bad.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
You’re being downvoted because the “democrats are le smart and well read” trope is getting old
What does that mean?
I think Democratic voters are vulnerable to a different kind of conspiracy theory.
For example, huge numbers of left-leaning voters seem to believe that money is the determining factor in elections, whereas the evidence points towards you needing a certain amount, but beyond that it appears to be of marginal value.
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#319I think no one really knows what the different parties represent any more. Most people I know voted Republican were low-wage working people, where my highly paid educated friends voted Democrat. Isn't it supposed to be other way around? No wonder everyone is confused.
anecdotally, knowing some very rich people, they mostly voted for trump in 2016. Pretty much every single one voted for Biden or declined to vote this year. I voted for myself and have been getting a lot of shit for it for some reason.
Perhaps you made the same mistake as pollsters and your friends voted for Trump and just don't want to admit it?
Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
#320Maybe 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…
> I mean, sure, we need some amount of polling because it informs decisions such as who gets to participate in televised debates
I would strongly disagree with this use of polling data. This is exactly how they justify locking out third party/independent candidates from the debates and preventing them from getting any traction, it's the two party duopoly at its finest (also how we end up with ironic tweets like [1]).
I think a much better system would be that anyone who will be on the ballot in enough states to take the presidency (ie 270 electoral votes) should be included. Requiring being on the ballot in enough states ensures that there is a reasonable base level of support for the candidate (since it's not particularly easy to get on that many ballots) and is also an objective measure vs taking into account polls that might not even have many candidates as options.
Even if that allows some candidates you might consider "unviable" to participate, I still say that's a good thing. At least it allows them to show their ideas for how to address various issues (which may influence the platforms of the larger parties if there appears to be broad support for it) and also allows them to potentially gain more support in the future.
[1] https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson/status/131467950818472755...