CDZ A discussion about polling companies.

[Mac1958]

Started in the CDZ with the faint hope that we can just have a normal discussion. So, two "thoughts" on this:

First, as I understand it, these polling companies made significant changes in their methodology in an effort to improve their accuracy over 2016. From what I saw, they weren't really that far off in 2016 but clearly made some mistakes. Unless I'm reading something wrong, they did even WORSE in 2020.

Second, I don't think this is about honesty or partisan politics. These pollsters make a LIVING doing this. This is about their JOBS, their BUSINESSES, so watching their reputations go up in flames like this can't have been their goal.

So what gives? What role do these companies play going forward, and how do they repair their shattered reputations?

 

[JoeMoma]

Lots of people, aren't going to answer unknown phone numbers.

 

[JoeB131]

Started in the CDZ with the faint hope that we can just have a normal discussion. So, two "thoughts" on this:

First, as I understand it, these polling companies made significant changes in their methodology in an effort to improve their accuracy over 2016. From what I saw, they weren't really that far off in 2016 but clearly made some mistakes. Unless I'm reading something wrong, they did even WORSE in 2020.

Second, I don't think this is about honesty or partisan politics. These pollsters make a LIVING doing this. This is about their JOBS, their BUSINESSES, so watching their reputations go up in flames like this can't have been their goal.

So what gives? What role do these companies play going forward, and how do they repair their shattered reputations?

Okay. Limiting ourselves to JUST the Presidential contest.

So to start with. The polling companies got it mostly right. They got it right in 46 states they correctly called, and in the popular vote.

They got Florida clearly wrong. Or maybe they didn't because some companies called Florida for Trump.

They called NC and GA close for Biden, and PA clearly for Biden. Biden might still pull out wins in these states. But if he doesn't... then they got four states wrong... Just like they got four states wrong in 2016.

They got two states wrong in 2008 - IN and NC, which surprisingly went for Obama in what wasn't a close election.

Now, the whole issue is MARGIN OF ERROR. Of course, no matter how good your model is, you are not going to accurately predict the actions of millions of people by merely sampling a couple of hundred. Most polls have error margins of 3-5%. Most of the polls that were "wrong" fell into that.

Looking at the 538 polls for GA, 4 Polls had Trump winning, 4 polls had Biden winning. All within the Margin of Error. And it looks like GA might be decided by less than a percent.

2020 Election Forecast

Latest forecast of the 2020 presidential election between President Donald Trump and Joe Biden by Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

NC was a bigger miss, as almost all the polls had Biden winning... Same with PA, although Biden might still pull out a win in PA.

The problem isn't in the stars but within ourselves. Trump was kept alive by people being unwilling to admit they made a mistake. Voting for the other guy is admitting you made a mistake. Covid, recession or riots, those Trump Supporters weren't going to admit they got it wrong.

if you look at the only two presidents to clearly lose re-election - Bush-41 and Carter, they only lost because large numbers of voters they had previously defected to third parties, not that they voted for the other guy. And that was after they had been challenged within their own parties for re-nomination.

 

[esalla]

Started in the CDZ with the faint hope that we can just have a normal discussion. So, two "thoughts" on this:

First, as I understand it, these polling companies made significant changes in their methodology in an effort to improve their accuracy over 2016. From what I saw, they weren't really that far off in 2016 but clearly made some mistakes. Unless I'm reading something wrong, they did even WORSE in 2020.

Second, I don't think this is about honesty or partisan politics. These pollsters make a LIVING doing this. This is about their JOBS, their BUSINESSES, so watching their reputations go up in flames like this can't have been their goal.

So what gives? What role do these companies play going forward, and how do they repair their shattered reputations?

The deep state controls who can poll. If you skew the poll to show Biden winning you win the lottery or your life gets easier. If you show the truth or Trump winning you are hit by a tractor trailer on the way to work and your poll vanishes.

You understand now? Seriously people like you adamantly refuse to accept the deep state, once you accept it's reality everything makes sense.

 

[sparky]

made significant changes in their methodology

they did?

Now, the whole issue is MARGIN OF ERROR.

well then, what new methodology would remedy that?

Seriously people like you adamantly refuse to accept the deep state, once you accept it's reality everything makes sense.

Depends how one defines 'deep state', jmho

~S~

 

[Mac1958]

made significant changes in their methodology

they did?

Supposedly. I guess I could have included that word.

 

[konradv]

Started in the CDZ with the faint hope that we can just have a normal discussion. So, two "thoughts" on this:

First, as I understand it, these polling companies made significant changes in their methodology in an effort to improve their accuracy over 2016. From what I saw, they weren't really that far off in 2016 but clearly made some mistakes. Unless I'm reading something wrong, they did even WORSE in 2020.

Second, I don't think this is about honesty or partisan politics. These pollsters make a LIVING doing this. This is about their JOBS, their BUSINESSES, so watching their reputations go up in flames like this can't have been their goal.

So what gives? What role do these companies play going forward, and how do they repair their shattered reputations?

The deep state controls who can poll. If you skew the poll to show Biden winning you win the lottery or your life gets easier. If you show the truth or Trump winning you are hit by a tractor trailer on the way to work and your poll vanishes.

You understand now? Seriously people like you adamantly refuse to accept the deep state, once you accept it's reality everything makes sense.

Once you accept the reality of the Olympian Gods, the rest of world history makes sense. Is that the way it works, believe it and it will be?

 

[rightwinger]

2020 showed that I am better off getting political predictions from the drunk sitting next to me at a bar than listening to the polls.

 

[G.T.]

Mac,

You should have provided data to discuss. A generalized "the polls were wrong" provides zero context in order to have an ACTUAL analytical discussion, but instead - you'll just have opinions base on feelings.

Data, or else this discussion is meaningless cannon fodder.

I initially thought the polls were outer-space levels of wrong this election, but as the overnight happened and the mail-ins started tabulating, the polls got closer as well.

Where's the post mortem? What are the numbers? How far off were they?

 

[rightwinger]

Mac,

You should have provided data to discuss. A generalized "the polls were wrong" provides zero context in order to have an ACTUAL analytical discussion, but instead - you'll just have opinions base on feelings.

Data, or else this discussion is meaningless cannon fodder.

I initially thought the polls were outer-space levels of wrong this election, but as the overnight happened and the mail-ins started tabulating, the polls got closer as well.

Where's the post mortem? What are the numbers? How far off were they?

The polls completely botched the Senate races

Susan Collins in Maine was given either no chance or she was tightening the race.....she won in a landslide

Lindsey Graham was supposed to be in the fight of his life, he won by a landslide.

The polls got most of the contended senate races wrong

 

[G.T.]

Mac,

You should have provided data to discuss. A generalized "the polls were wrong" provides zero context in order to have an ACTUAL analytical discussion, but instead - you'll just have opinions base on feelings.

Data, or else this discussion is meaningless cannon fodder.

I initially thought the polls were outer-space levels of wrong this election, but as the overnight happened and the mail-ins started tabulating, the polls got closer as well.

Where's the post mortem? What are the numbers? How far off were they?

The polls completely botched the Senate races

Susan Collins in Maine was given either no chance or she was tightening the race.....she won in a landslide

Lindsey Graham was supposed to be in the fight of his life, he won by a landslide.

The polls got most of the contended senate races wrong

That's not numbers -

If a poll is wrong to within the margin of error, it's not wrong. That's why the numbers provide the only context necessary to have this discussion like actual scholars, as opposed to the usual low-quality message-board banter.

 

[MarcATL]

Personally, I'm done with the pollsters.

 

[rightwinger]

Mac,

You should have provided data to discuss. A generalized "the polls were wrong" provides zero context in order to have an ACTUAL analytical discussion, but instead - you'll just have opinions base on feelings.

Data, or else this discussion is meaningless cannon fodder.

I initially thought the polls were outer-space levels of wrong this election, but as the overnight happened and the mail-ins started tabulating, the polls got closer as well.

Where's the post mortem? What are the numbers? How far off were they?

The polls completely botched the Senate races

Susan Collins in Maine was given either no chance or she was tightening the race.....she won in a landslide

Lindsey Graham was supposed to be in the fight of his life, he won by a landslide.

The polls got most of the contended senate races wrong

That's not numbers -

If a poll is wrong to within the margin of error, it's not wrong. That's why the numbers provide the only context necessary to have this discussion like actual scholars, as opposed to the usual low-quality message-board banter.

Those contests were not remotely close to the margin for error.
Neither was Biden’s popular vote.

A drunk in a bar could make better predictions

 

[Polishprince]

Started in the CDZ with the faint hope that we can just have a normal discussion. So, two "thoughts" on this:

First, as I understand it, these polling companies made significant changes in their methodology in an effort to improve their accuracy over 2016. From what I saw, they weren't really that far off in 2016 but clearly made some mistakes. Unless I'm reading something wrong, they did even WORSE in 2020.

Second, I don't think this is about honesty or partisan politics. These pollsters make a LIVING doing this. This is about their JOBS, their BUSINESSES, so watching their reputations go up in flames like this can't have been their goal.

So what gives? What role do these companies play going forward, and how do they repair their shattered reputations?

The purpose of the polls is to provide interest and fuel for conversation to get people to watch media sources and buy newspapers.

You are looking at the wrong metric with them as far as their success. The question is how the polls generated *ratings* , not how accurate they are.

 

[there4eyeM]

Polls cannot be anything more than an indicator. The problem is that they are taken too seriously as some kind of "truth". They have a use, but it is limited.

 

[Moonglow]

Too many variables and radicals for polls to be accurate.

 

[sartre play]

Polls lead to nail biting. mostly used as propaganda, none are paid for by regular working Americans.

 

[rightwinger]

I think the problem with polls is there are too many “FUK YOU” voters on the right. People who refuse to participate in polls.

This gives you a population of people who are willing to answer lengthy questions. By nature, it is short on conservatives.
That is why they consistently underestimate the Republican vote.

 

[Polishprince]

I think the problem with polls is there are too many “FUK YOU” voters on the right. People who refuse to participate in polls.

This gives you a population of people who are willing to answer lengthy questions. By nature, it is short on conservatives.
That is why they consistently underestimate the Republican vote.

So you don't think there is a problem with pollsters' sampling methods? How they choose who to interview?

 

[Wyatt earp]

I think the problem with polls is there are too many “FUK YOU” voters on the right. People who refuse to participate in polls.

This gives you a population of people who are willing to answer lengthy questions. By nature, it is short on conservatives.
That is why they consistently underestimate the Republican vote.

I change phones and numbers on a constant basis , I never answer the phone from a strange number.