Remembering 1980: Are the Polls Missing Something?

[doctordog]

For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was “too close to call.” A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote–a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the electoral college, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-1 avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia.

After being so right for so long about presidential elections–the pollsters’ findings had closely agreed with the voting results for most of the past 30 years–how could the surveys have been so wrong? The question is far more than technical. The spreading use of polls by the press and television has an important, if unmeasurable, effect on how voters perceive the candidates and the campaign, creating a kind of synergistic effect: the more a candidate rises in the polls, the more voters seem to take him seriously.

With such responsibilities thrust on them, the pollsters have a lot to answer for, and they know it. Their problems with the Carter-Reagan race have touched off the most skeptical examination of public opinion polling since 1948, when the surveyers made Thomas Dewey a sure winner over Harry Truman. In response, the experts have been explaining, qualifying, clarifying–and rationalizing. Simultaneously, they are privately embroiled in as much backbiting, mudslinging and mutual criticism as the tight-knit little profession has ever known. The public and private pollsters are criticizing their competition’s judgment, methodology, reliability and even honesty.

At the heart of the controversy is the fact that no published survey detected the Reagan landslide before it actually happened. Three weeks before the election, for example, TIME’S polling firm, Yankelovich, Skelly and White, produced a survey of 1,632 registered voters showing the race almost dead even, as did a private survey by Caddell. Two weeks later, a survey by CBS News and the New York Times showed about the same situation.

Remembering 1980: Are the Polls Missing Something? | TIME.com

 

[oreo]

For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was “too close to call.” A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote–a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the electoral college, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-1 avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia.

After being so right for so long about presidential elections–the pollsters’ findings had closely agreed with the voting results for most of the past 30 years–how could the surveys have been so wrong? The question is far more than technical. The spreading use of polls by the press and television has an important, if unmeasurable, effect on how voters perceive the candidates and the campaign, creating a kind of synergistic effect: the more a candidate rises in the polls, the more voters seem to take him seriously.

With such responsibilities thrust on them, the pollsters have a lot to answer for, and they know it. Their problems with the Carter-Reagan race have touched off the most skeptical examination of public opinion polling since 1948, when the surveyers made Thomas Dewey a sure winner over Harry Truman. In response, the experts have been explaining, qualifying, clarifying–and rationalizing. Simultaneously, they are privately embroiled in as much backbiting, mudslinging and mutual criticism as the tight-knit little profession has ever known. The public and private pollsters are criticizing their competition’s judgment, methodology, reliability and even honesty.

At the heart of the controversy is the fact that no published survey detected the Reagan landslide before it actually happened. Three weeks before the election, for example, TIME’S polling firm, Yankelovich, Skelly and White, produced a survey of 1,632 registered voters showing the race almost dead even, as did a private survey by Caddell. Two weeks later, a survey by CBS News and the New York Times showed about the same situation.

Remembering 1980: Are the Polls Missing Something? | TIME.com

This is very interesting, I remember that one very well. 2 days before the election the polls were showing Carter & Reagan neck and neck. You know at times I think the media does this deliberately. Let's say a candidate as a 20 point lead over another. Will the media actually report that? The downside of doing that is that it will deter voters from bothering to vote. If someone believes their candidate can't lose will they vote, and if someone believes their candidate doesn't have a snowballs chance will they vote. Plus the rating of the media themselves, will people watch if they don't think it's a close race. But that was 1980 before caller I.D. and cell phones. Everyone answered their phones back then.

Today, National polling data has turned into a world wide train wreck. The overwhelming majority will not pick up on unknown callers, and most of us have cell phones that pollsters don't have access too. So they are forced to use very low samples for their data. I saw one National poll with 736 participants, and they used that to reflect the opinion of over 170 million voters in this country. Online polls are a joke, as in many one person can vote several times, and many are tied to donation sites, so people won't bother with them. Text polls are the worst, because one person can vote a 100 times. If you want a good laugh read the internals on the next poll you see, it's actually laughable.

A couple of weeks ago we had right wingers hysterical on this board showing Donald Trump in this huge surge catching up to Hillary Clinton. It was even reported on National News I believe it was a Washington ABC poll. After reading the internals of the poll, and what they media didn't tell it's audience is that it was an all men poll, and it excluded women who have a 73% unfavorable opinion of Donald Trump. So the media likes the tail to wag the dog also.

At any rate here is a great article on the polls today.
Flaws in Polling Data Exposed as U.S. Campaign Season Heats Up

.

 

[WelfareQueen]

For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was “too close to call.” A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote–a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the electoral college, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-1 avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia.

After being so right for so long about presidential elections–the pollsters’ findings had closely agreed with the voting results for most of the past 30 years–how could the surveys have been so wrong? The question is far more than technical. The spreading use of polls by the press and television has an important, if unmeasurable, effect on how voters perceive the candidates and the campaign, creating a kind of synergistic effect: the more a candidate rises in the polls, the more voters seem to take him seriously.

With such responsibilities thrust on them, the pollsters have a lot to answer for, and they know it. Their problems with the Carter-Reagan race have touched off the most skeptical examination of public opinion polling since 1948, when the surveyers made Thomas Dewey a sure winner over Harry Truman. In response, the experts have been explaining, qualifying, clarifying–and rationalizing. Simultaneously, they are privately embroiled in as much backbiting, mudslinging and mutual criticism as the tight-knit little profession has ever known. The public and private pollsters are criticizing their competition’s judgment, methodology, reliability and even honesty.

At the heart of the controversy is the fact that no published survey detected the Reagan landslide before it actually happened. Three weeks before the election, for example, TIME’S polling firm, Yankelovich, Skelly and White, produced a survey of 1,632 registered voters showing the race almost dead even, as did a private survey by Caddell. Two weeks later, a survey by CBS News and the New York Times showed about the same situation.

Remembering 1980: Are the Polls Missing Something? | TIME.com

The last election cycle in 2014 said many Senate races were neck and neck. Remember the races in Georgia, Kansas, North Carolina, Kentucky and Colorado?


None of the them were close and Republicans won big.

The reason....pollsters way underestimated GOP turnout. Republican voters turned out about 4.5% higher than Democrat voters. Pollsters had the turnout advantage at only 1.5%.


The 2016 election cycle current estimates have the GOP with anywhere from a plus 4% to a plus 11% turnout advantage. If that is the case, Trump wins big. To put this in perspective, Obama had around a 7-8% turnout advantage in 2008 and 2012.

 

[doctordog]

For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was “too close to call.” A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote–a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the electoral college, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-1 avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia.

After being so right for so long about presidential elections–the pollsters’ findings had closely agreed with the voting results for most of the past 30 years–how could the surveys have been so wrong? The question is far more than technical. The spreading use of polls by the press and television has an important, if unmeasurable, effect on how voters perceive the candidates and the campaign, creating a kind of synergistic effect: the more a candidate rises in the polls, the more voters seem to take him seriously.

With such responsibilities thrust on them, the pollsters have a lot to answer for, and they know it. Their problems with the Carter-Reagan race have touched off the most skeptical examination of public opinion polling since 1948, when the surveyers made Thomas Dewey a sure winner over Harry Truman. In response, the experts have been explaining, qualifying, clarifying–and rationalizing. Simultaneously, they are privately embroiled in as much backbiting, mudslinging and mutual criticism as the tight-knit little profession has ever known. The public and private pollsters are criticizing their competition’s judgment, methodology, reliability and even honesty.

At the heart of the controversy is the fact that no published survey detected the Reagan landslide before it actually happened. Three weeks before the election, for example, TIME’S polling firm, Yankelovich, Skelly and White, produced a survey of 1,632 registered voters showing the race almost dead even, as did a private survey by Caddell. Two weeks later, a survey by CBS News and the New York Times showed about the same situation.

Remembering 1980: Are the Polls Missing Something? | TIME.com

The last election cycle in 2014 said many Senate races were neck and neck. Remember the races in Georgia, Kansas, North Carolina, Kentucky and Colorado?


None of the them were close and Republicans won big.

The reason....pollsters way underestimated GOP turnout. Republican voters turned out about 4.5% higher than Democrat voters. Pollsters had the turnout advantage at only 1.5%.


The 2016 election cycle current estimates have the GOP with anywhere from a plus 4% to a plus 11% turnout advantage. If that is the case, Trump wins big. To put this in perspective, Obama had around a 7-8% turnout advantage in 2008 and 2012.

Yes, I literally know hundreds of people that have not voted in 20 years that are tired of the shit we have had to watch these last 7 years.

 

[waltky]

Granny says...

... is dat when dey was sayin' It's the economy, stupid?...

... well, it's still the stupid economy.

An' dem poles is always missin' sumpin'...

... dey'd be missin' dey's butts...

... if dey wharn't glued to dey's backsides.

 

[william the wie]

Well one thing is that the superPAC situation on the R side is hydra headed.

A film promoting the story of "Benghazi" and accusing her of at least negligent homicide.

Two separate FBI investigations.

The thickest opposition research file in US history. Even George III when it was not yet recognized that he was showing early symptoms of hereditary insanity in the run up to the War of Independence did not have this much baggage.

Her bimbo eruptions and evidence of a wide open marriage.

The mudslinging will be epic.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well one thing is that the superPAC situation on the R side is hydra headed.

A film promoting the story of "Benghazi" and accusing her of at least negligent homicide.

Two separate FBI investigations.

The thickest opposition research file in US history. Even George III when it was not yet recognized that he was showing early symptoms of hereditary insanity in the run up to the War of Independence did not have this much baggage.

Her bimbo eruptions and evidence of a wide open marriage.

The mudslinging will be epic.

Not if it's the same old mud they have been slinging for three decades. Those silly accusations haven't stopped her so far. What makes you think they will work this time?

 

[william the wie]

Because the house and senate not to mention the RNC are going to be handling the attacks. Since the LP is no threat to the GOP at the congressional level and is polling at 10% on the presidential level no punches need to be pulled and won't be.