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

41–50 of 565 posts

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

#41

Post by ericb »

bpodgursky wrote: post #32
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.

? A huge percent of ballots this year were mail-in, and all paper. And the polling error was worse in 2020 that 2016.

If I were going to try an influence an election via voting machine software, I would affect only some percentage of votes so it wouldn't be too obvious--if there was also mail in ballots, it wouldn't matter.

I might also target only key locations--those on the margins where it wouldn't be suspicious.

If I were to do this in favor of the Republican candidate, you'd probably find that mail-in votes even in non-pandemic years skewed more Democratic. You'd also find that polls seemed to indicate that Republican voters were "shy" and it keeps messing up the polls.

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

#42

Post by watwut »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #27
x87678r wrote: post #24

I 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.

It’s pretty obvious from election maps and donor data that the democrats are now the party of coastal/urban elites, despite what they may advertise.

Majority of Americans lives on the coast and in cities. They can't be all elite.

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

#43

Post by gnusty_gnurc »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #25
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…

If the media should be giving equal status and weight to all the parties, what about the Libertarians and the Greens?

> If the media should be giving equal status and weight to all the parties

I'm not saying they need to give them equal status, necessarily - I'm saying that the employees of these institutions exist in a bubble mostly cause of class&geographic reasons.

The point is that all of these positions "Biden will naturally win in a landslide per polling" are tacitly accepted and challenges are dismissed as hearsay.

There needs to be some challenge/discourse against the elite orthodoxy.

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

#44

Post by mindlar »

jonplackett wrote: post #19

When and where was the last poll that predicted an election accurately? Polling is starting to feel more like a weather forecast - presented with absolute certainty, only right about half the time.

Some of the local ones have done well. The Des Moines, Iowa poll has been pretty close.

The national polling firms are only getting airplay if they give the "right" result, the few groups that have been pretty accurate in 2016, 2018, and 2020 got very little media coverage due to not being close to the high profile ones and not having the results that CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. wanted to broadcast.

That coupled with comments from some prominent Democratic politicians that they want to make lists of Trump supporters presumably to punish them for their actions, has a significant chilling effect on people being willing to vocalize their support for Trump to non-friendly or unknown people.

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

#45

Post by losteric »

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…

> 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.

huh... I have literally never met a single person that answers cold calls on personal lines, this was already SOP when I was a kid.

Seriously, who's picking up those calls?

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

#46

Post by triceratops »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #27
x87678r wrote: post #24

I 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.

It’s pretty obvious from election maps and donor data that the democrats are now the party of coastal/urban elites, despite what they may advertise.

You're saying the majority of voters this year were elite? That's a whole lotta elites...kinda waters down the definition no?

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

#47

Post by watwut »

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…

You are aware that significant of not over half of American media is fox and various right wing media? Over half of media landscape is that.

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

#48

Post by mjevans »

twelfthnight wrote: post #13
kanox wrote: post #11

TL;DR: People lie to pollsters.

> People tell the truth, when you ask them who they’re voting for. They really do, on average. The reason why the polls are wrong is because the people who were answering these surveys were the wrong people. The takeaway from the article is not that people lie, but just that people who are more trusting (according to the GSS survey) are more likely to take surveys and are also more likely to vote Democratic.

My own perception of how others act is clearly clouded by the inaccuracy of survey sources.

I wonder how many in any set think similarly about these surveys. I assume distrust is the most logical base state, hate unknown callers / blind interactions as sources of fraud, misinformation, and marketing (which I view as often leaning against the borderline of the former).

I would also hope and assume, given the religious bias correlated with Republicans in the US, that many of them are more trusting of others.

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

#49

Post by Dirlewanger »

x87678r wrote: post #24

I 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.

It's a multi-faceted reason as to why this is, but the most recent phenomenon I think has most to do with it: voting one way simply to piss off the other side.

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

#50

Post by dragonwriter »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #27
x87678r wrote: post #24

I 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.

It’s pretty obvious from election maps and donor data that the democrats are now the party of coastal/urban elites, despite what they may advertise.

> It’s pretty obvious from election maps and donor data that the democrats are now the party of coastal/urban elites

Urban populations, sure. Not particularly coastal aside from the fact that there's more urban population on the coasts, as county-level maps show pretty clearly.

“Elites” are more dubious. Sure, Democrats and Republicans (counting leaners) are closer to parity for voters with less than a college degree, with college grads and even moreso postgraduate degree holders strongly favoring Democrats.

OTOH, Blacks, who are overwhelming not elites, overwhelming are (and even more overwhelming lean) Democratic, and the same is true predominantly (though less overwhelmingly) of Hispanics.

So, yes, to the urban part, not particularly independently true of the “elite” or “coastal” part.

Post reply on HN