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

51–60 of 565 posts

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

#51

Post by mjevans »

EEMac wrote: post #34
twelfthnight wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> People tell the truth, when you ask them who they’re voting for. They really do, on average. That might have been true in the past. From 2016-2020, Trump supporters have been loudly and repeatedly called racistNaziMisogynistHomophobe, or the polite version, "deplorable". That is not an environment that encourages honesty.

Trump supporters do seem to differ from my view of a 'traditional republican'; if not the actions of the namesake (which I do view as the negative things you describe) what do they see in the candidate or platform being supported?

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

#52

Post by vlovich123 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #36
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.

People 2020 said that in 2016, yet the average income of Trump voters was higher than Clinton voters. It'll be interesting to see if that changes in 2020. Although there is something to what you say; the income gap between Republican and Democratic voters did narrow substantially in 2016.

If the 1% class leans strongly right wing, the average income doesn’t really tell you much about the highly paid middle class (or even “lower paid” upper class) as incomes are not normally distributed & you’ve got significant skew (1 billion will make more difference on the mean than $0).

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

#53

Post by throwaway894345 »

losteric wrote: post #45
ianleeclark wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This wasn't SOP for me when I was growing up. We never got spam calls. Only the occasional wrong number.

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

#54

Post by tomjen3 »

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.

That would seem likely.

But then the polls should undercount a population that is more likely to vote for the Dems and so the polls should have shown more support for the republicans than what happened in the elections.

Maybe we should just have taken the lesson of Dewey defeating Truman and not trusted polls is the first place.

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

#55

Post by auganov »

As bad as election polls are, at least you get to find out the truth eventually. A lot of polling has to do with domains where there's no easy way of establishing ground truth. But ironically it would appear to me people tend to trust these polls more. While most seem to be skeptical about election polling, they might share exit polls on, say, demographics, without questioning their accuracy.

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

#56

Post by andybak »

losteric wrote: post #45
ianleeclark wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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.

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

#57

Post by sneak »

losteric wrote: post #45
ianleeclark wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I get 3-5 robocalls a month.

The phone number on my website rings a phone on my desk. When it rings, I pick it up.

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

#58

Post by tptacek »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #30
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.

Trafalgar group did a pretty good job this election. They were also lambasted by Democratic media and called wackos and nutjobs. Meanwhile WaPo put its name on a poll that had Biden +17 in WI.

No, they didn't. They were off by 4 in AZ (and called it for Trump), by 5 in Georgia (again for Trump), 6 in Michigan (again), 8 in Wisconsin (and again), and 3 in PA (which they, again, called for Trump). They were also off by 7 in Minneapolis (which they correctly called for Biden) and 6 in Ohio (which they correctly called for Trump).

There was a narrative on e-day that Trafalgar had done a good job, because Democratic votes were disproportionately counted later in the week. But if you'd relied on Trafalgar predictions to allocate resources in an election, you'd have gotten depantsed.

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

#59

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> One of the biggest issues I think is that the polling is still done by just randomly calling people

It's done by a number of means, including online. IIRC, live caller polls still tend to produce the best results, though.

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

#60

Post by sgc »

losteric wrote: post #45
ianleeclark wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Anyone with a job that requires them to talk to people with unknown numbers calling. There is one bias right there. Probably people who don't get that many cold calls outside elections, which must fit some sort of demographic as well.

But the better pollsters don't just call. They use various online methods as well. 538 lists the following methods, and rates a pollster higher if they use more of them:

    Live — Live telephone interviews, including cellphones.

    Landline — Live telephone interviews, not including cellphones.

    Live* — Live telephone interviews, but FiveThirtyEight cannot confirm whether cellphones are included.

    IVR — Interactive voice response, otherwise known as automated polls or “robopolls.”

    Online — Poll conducted by internet; generally, this means by web browser, but it’s inclusive of text message or application-based polling of mobile phones.

    Mail — By U.S. mail or other “snail mail” service.
Post reply on HN