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

61–70 of 565 posts

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

#61

Post by buzzy_hacker »

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…

Accurate polling is important because it lets politicians and journalists know what is politically possible. But, over-reliance on polls can prevent politicians from doing things that are right but unpopular. A great discussion on the role of polls can be found in this podcast episode https://pca.st/episode/c7683cc8-1031-45ac-ac0c-533aff34557b Especially near the 27-minute mark

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

#63

Post by bryanlarsen »

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #43
bryanlarsen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 need…

I didn't see any of the elite media saying "Biden will naturally win in a landslide per polling". They were saying that in 2016. In 2020 much more common was "the polls are showing a landslide, but I don't trust the polls completely any more".

If you are saying that the polls were deliberately biased, I disagree strongly. It's a really freaking hard job if only 1-3% of the people you try to poll don't hang up the phone on you. That the polling error was under 10% was incredible in that scenario.

The media is biased. The polls had an error. Two very different things.

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

#64

Post by rootusrootus »

francisofascii wrote: post #38
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…

It gives people a better sense of the political preferences of the various parts of the country. In a weird sort of way, it helps validate the election results, even if the numbers are off. If you are a liberal living in SF and see Trump win in 2016, you might have seriously questioned the validity of the election results, if you didn't have numerous polls backing up that Trump did indeed have supporters.

> validate the election results

This is one thing that I considered, but I wonder if exit polls would be a better choice. They're usually much more accurate than pre-election polls, so they serve as a hedge against large-scale fraud.

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

#65

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> People 2020 said that in 2016, yet the average income of Trump voters was higher than Clinton voters.

One person with $100 million income has a higher average income than 999 people with a $100K annual income.

Averages aren't particularly useful here.

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

#66

Post by rootusrootus »

buzzy_hacker wrote: post #61
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…

Accurate polling is important because it lets politicians and journalists know what is politically possible. But, over-reliance on polls can prevent politicians from doing things that are right but unpopular. A great discussion on the role of polls can be found in this podcast episode https://pca.st/episode/c7683cc8-1031-45ac-ac0c-533aff34557b Especially near the 27-minute mark

> lets politicians and journalists know what is politically possible

Perhaps issue polling is much more useful than candidate polling.

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

#67

Post by _AzMoo »

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…

Exit polls were historically used as a method of detecting election fraud, because they've always been very accurate. It's only the last few elections where we've seen such a large disparity in polling and actual results.

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

#68

Post by dragonwriter »

dgr582systems wrote: post #12
jxramos wrote: post #5

I'm curious where polls actually work, are there any retrospectives polling agencies conduct and post online for scrutiny and constructive feedback? It'll probably help to enumerate all the premises that polling begins with and question whether those premises are in fact the case.

Exactly this. Where is the verification? Predictions don’t count for much unless you check that the expectations line up with reality.

IIRC, 538 has available both the polling data and predictions for all of their political forecast series (not just Presidential.)

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

#70

Post by whateveracct »

watwut wrote: post #47
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.

Conservative politics in America is simultaneously all-powerful and ever the victim.
Post reply on HN