ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
View Poll Results: On the whole, do you believe political polls are trustworthy/reliable?
Yes. 6 27.27%
Deez Nutz. 16 72.73%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 6th November 2020, 08:01 PM   #1
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,099
Are Political Polls Reliable?

If polls are not reliable, why not? The most frequently cited answer for why Trump-related polls are unreliable is social desirability bias. There are also potential issues of sampling bias.

Here's a narrative. I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm mis-remembering.

I recall in 2012 Romney was having these huge rallies. People said "no Republican has had a rally like this in Pennsylvania since forever," etc. The NYT's Nate Silver confidently predicted an Obama win. And win Obama did. Silver predicted every single state correctly. The Republicans who thought Romney would win were pilloried by the elite media and Twitter as anti-science, knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

Silver became a meme, started his own website, and released a popular book about statistics. Since then I want to say I noticed an uptick among conservatives distrusting polls. "Nobody's ever called me for one of these polls." Another frequent comment became, "I'd never tell a stranger things about my politics or my living situation." Some bragged about lying. In other words, I wonder if conservatives have been socialized into misleading pollsters. I'm inclined to believe these are marginal actors (like with "Operation Chaos"), but I do wonder...

Silver famously pegged Trump's chances of winning in 2016 at 30%. His defenders this election cycle are saying he correctly predicted 48 states (which isn't quite right because he said all of Maine's Electoral Votes would go to Biden).
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 08:05 PM   #2
dirtywick
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,518
They were comically bad the last two elections cycles. I had assumed they had addressed the problems they had in 2016, but I think they were even worse this time.

I donít know enough about polling to know where the error is though.
dirtywick is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 08:22 PM   #3
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,170
Again;

With no regression analysis, there's no way to know what actually happened for sure, especially in a bizarre election like this - conspiracy theorists blathering about "fake news", people struggling with mail-in ballots for their first time (along with a USPS broken by a foolish at best postmaster that pointlessly at best had machinery sabotaged - that'll be even harder to check into).

But as far as president and senate races go...not much in the way of massive surprises. The more local, and more gerrymandered, races are always much spottier, especially with local news sources more or less collapsing in much of the country, and thus fewer polling sources.
Mumbles is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 08:27 PM   #4
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,944
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
They were comically bad the last two elections cycles. I had assumed they had addressed the problems they had in 2016, but I think they were even worse this time.

I don’t know enough about polling to know where the error is though.
Actually, they haven't been comically bad in either election. They have been off yes, but not by such a huge amount that either result should have been a huge surprise.

In 2016 most pundits were using the national polls to predict a Hillary victory, and she did win the national vote as predicted. The polls in MI, PA, and WI were showing a tightening race, but between a lack of State Polling there and a belief that they were safe Blue seats, people didn't pay attention. 538 had all 3 as toss-up states with a Blue lean last time, with Trump having between 48 and 45% of taking each of them. That's pretty close to a 50-50 call, and that was what actually happened. They also had Trump with a 35% chance of winning or a little over 1 in 3. That was a pretty good chance.

Now to this year. 538 was specifically saying that if the poll error went in Trump's favour that things would get really close and it'd be a cliff hanger, though still a likely Biden win. They also said that Biden would get a bigger victory in the popular count than Hillary. If things carry on as they are right now, then both of these things will be correct. They did say that Florida was leaning blue, but again, they had it as a toss-up state where a shift to Trump would mean it turning red. In fact, the only two states they really have gotten wrong as to the likely winner are Florida and North Carolina, both of which they predicted would turn red if there was a shift.

3-4 point shifts are not unusual in the polling, this has always been the case.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 6th November 2020 at 08:31 PM.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 08:33 PM   #5
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,571
I think polls used to be reasonably reliable - they would never have achieved their prominence in politics if the were never reliable - but that reliability has certainly waned in the last few years.

We can (and almost certainly will) argue about the causes for this decline, but I think the decline is pretty obvious at this point.

Will this every improve? Who the **** knows. But I'm pretty sure the pollsters will claim they've fixed the problems, no matter the reality.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 08:47 PM   #6
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
They were comically bad the last two elections cycles. I had assumed they had addressed the problems they had in 2016, but I think they were even worse this time.



I donít know enough about polling to know where the error is though.
Actually the polls in 2016 were not that far off. The final polls predicted Clinton would win the popular vote by a few percent, and that is what happened. There were some that claimed it would let her win the election but that was more a problem with analysis than the polls themselves.

The polls from this election seem to have been much further off, but it is too early to tell what the problem was, or even if there was a problem.

Maybe more trump supporters lied about their voting intensions. Or maybe it was a side effect of Covid19... People intended to vote Biden but we're scared to go to the polls or messed up their mail in ballots. If polling problems were due to covid the problems would be a one-off.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 09:22 PM   #7
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,975
538s state polling error average for past elections

https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blo...ults-coverage/

2016 5.2
2012 3.7
2008 3.9
2004 3.5
2000 4.6
1996 4.8
1992 5.2
1988 5.0
1984 4.5
1980 8.6
1976 3.8
1972 4.6

And we obviously don't know 2020 yet.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 09:53 PM   #8
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,462
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Actually, they haven't been comically bad in either election. They have been off yes, but not by such a huge amount that either result should have been a huge surprise.
I disagree. They were pretty bad both times. And both times the error went in the same direction, and notably by more than the margin of error that could be due to simple randomness. A margin of error due to randomness would likely be random of course. Half the time it would be in Trump's favor, but the large majority of errors were in one direction. So whatever it was, it was systematic, not random.

Quote:
In 2016 most pundits were using the national polls to predict a Hillary victory, and she did win the national vote as predicted.
I don't think that's right either. National polls cannot predict what happens in each state. If would be foolish to make a prediction on that basis.


Quote:
3-4 point shifts are not unusual in the polling, this has always been the case.
In Florida it was 5.9%, Michigan 5.4%, Wisconsin 7.7%(!) (one poll there that was included in the final average had Biden up by 17%), 6.9% in Iowa, and 7.5% in Ohio. I could go on.

The fact that the errors are both so large and that they all seem to go in one direction means that it's not just randomness at work here. Maybe Trump voters are less likely to answer the phone. Maybe they lie and say they're going to vote for Biden. I'm not claiming the pollsters did this on purpose of course, but their results were clearly wrong.

In some blue states like California, Biden did win by like 32% (2 to 1), but because of the way the electoral college works, a lot of those votes didn't really matter, unless you care about the popular vote.

The polls were more accurate in a few states that weren't swing states, and weren't heavily polled. Like they seem to have been about right in Colorado and California. In New York though, Biden won easily, but by about 10% less than what the polls predicted (58% to 40% vs 64% to 35% according to the polls).
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 09:58 PM   #9
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,766
It's more a question of usefulness than reliability.

Arguably, the rosy polls for Democrats have led to massive misallocation of funds to races that where unwinnable and could have been better used elsewhere.

Polling isn't the way forward, Big Data analysis a la Cambridge Analytica is.
__________________
Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 10:19 PM   #10
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 9,045
I wonder how much the disappointing results for Democrats this time could result from voters not voting because it wasn't needed.

Maybe somebody should conduct a poll about that.
Delvo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 10:33 PM   #11
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,944
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I disagree.
All you need to do is look at the post directly above yours and you'll see that 2016 was close to 1988, the same as 1992, and less than 1980. Yes, it's at the high end, no one has said otherwise, but it was still within the expected margins of error. We'll see how this year goes, but I suspect that while high it will likely be similar to the others.

It doesn't take a lot to shift a poll. With a 3.5% error in the two tallies, if one is reading high and the other lower, then you could have an effective 7-point shift within the error bars.

I will also just point out that no analyst was thinking that the 17-point Biden poll in WI was accurate, and they treated it exactly as they should have, as a rouge outlier.

This is the thing about polls, they are guesstimates based on small sample sizes and statistical method and should be used to be indicative. They have huge error bars, and anyone that takes the numbers as exact is an idiot plain and simple. A lot of things can cause deviation from the polls, weather, voter turnout, a plague... The fact that they are as accurate as they are is amazing to me, and I have done a few years of Statistics and studied the magic of them.

One of the things that is a little unique this year is that the swings are very inconsistent from State to State. Some have been about right, others have swung one way or the other. But I'd be pretty sure that when it is determined what the average swing was, it won't be far off those of previous years.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 10:46 PM   #12
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,944
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
I wonder how much the disappointing results for Democrats this time could result from voters not voting because it wasn't needed.

Maybe somebody should conduct a poll about that.
I don't think that Democrats should be disappointed, they got an amazing turnout. Biden has 5 million more votes than Obama got in 2008 and the votes have not all been counted yet.

There have been over 148 million votes counted in this year's election, with an estimated 160-165 million votes in total. That's around 72% of the eligible population. The previous record in 2008 was just 63%. If that gain is a disappointment, well...

The reality of the situation is that Republicans have also turned out in record numbers, and that's something that really the Democrats couldn't control.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 11:12 PM   #13
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,990
I like https://www.electoral-vote.com

They have a "Tipping-point state" link that shows a state-by-state summary of an average of the polls they follow (they publish their methodology). Data below was downloaded from there Monday morning. I've added some B or T annotations to show how they've been called so far. And I added horizontal lines to separate pro-Biden states from pro-Trump states in the middle and then two other lines to separate states where the spread was under 10 points from those where it was greater. Not surprisingly the "red mirage" happened in those pro-Biden states in that category and possibly Georgia.

If things simply solidify where they are now then this average of polls got everything right with the exception that Biden got one state in to Trump territory.

Note that there are 100 to 200ish electoral votes in the states that are close, depending on how you define close. It's not hard to see why it's difficult to call a winner even with reasonably accurate data. Apparently our demographics and primary system are very good at finding two candidates that will lead to a close race. That's probably a form of "efficiency".

Code:
   1 D.C.           3  93% 4%  89% 3   538 B
  2 Massachusetts  11 64% 29% 35% 14  535 B
  3 Hawaii         4  61% 28% 33% 18  524 B
  4 New York       29 61% 29% 32% 47  520 B
  5 California     55 62% 31% 31% 102 491 B
  6 Maryland       10 58% 33% 25% 112 436 B
  7 Vermont        3  56% 32% 24% 115 426 B
  8 New Jersey     14 61% 37% 24% 129 423 B
  9 Washington     12 58% 36% 22% 141 409 B
 10 Delaware       3  54% 33% 21% 144 397 B
 11 Connecticut    7  52% 32% 20% 151 394 B
 12 Oregon         7  56% 39% 17% 158 387 B
 13 Rhode Island   4  55% 40% 15% 162 380 B
 14 New Mexico     5  53% 39% 14% 167 376 B
 15 Colorado       9  54% 40% 14% 176 371 B
 16 Maine          4  52% 39% 13% 180 362 B
 17 Illinois       20 53% 40% 13% 200 358 B
 18 Virginia       13 52% 40% 12% 213 338 B
 19 New Hampshire  4  54% 43% 11% 217 325 B
 20 -------------------------------------
 21 Michigan       16 51% 42% 9%  233 321 B
 22 Wisconsin      10 51% 43% 8%  243 305 B
 23 Nevada         6  50% 42% 8%  249 295
 24 Minnesota      10 50% 43% 7%  259 289 B
 25 Pennsylvania   20 51% 45% 6%  279 279
 26 -------------------------------------
 27 Georgia        16 50% 47% 3%  295 259
 28 North Carolina 15 49% 47% 2%  310 243 
 29 Florida        29 49% 47% 2%  339 228 T
 30 Arizona        11 48% 46% 2%  350 199 B
 31 Iowa           6  47% 46% 1%  356 188 T
 32 Ohio           18 46% 46% 0%  374 182 T
 33 Texas          38 46% 49% 3%  412 164 T
 34 -------------------------------------
 35 Montana        3  46% 51% 5%  415 126 T
 36 Alaska         3  45% 50% 5%  418 123
 37 Indiana        11 42% 49% 7%  429 120 T
 38 South Carolina 9  44% 52% 8%  438 109 T
 39 Tennessee      11 42% 51% 9%  449 100 T
 40 Missouri       10 43% 52% 9%  459 89  T
 41 Kansas         6  42% 51% 9%  465 79  T
 42 South Dakota   3  40% 51% 11% 468 73  T
 43 Utah           6  38% 50% 12% 474 70  T
 44 Kentucky       8  39% 52% 13% 482 64  T
 45 Mississippi    6  41% 55% 14% 488 56  T
 46 North Dakota   3  38% 55% 17% 491 50  T
 47 Alabama        9  39% 58% 19% 500 47  T
 48 West Virginia  5  38% 58% 20% 505 38  T
 49 Oklahoma       7  37% 59% 22% 512 33  T
 50 Louisiana      8  36% 59% 23% 520 26  T
 51 Nebraska       5  33% 61% 28% 525 18  T
 52 Idaho          4  29% 58% 29% 529 13  T
 53 Arkansas       6  33% 62% 29% 535 9   T
 54 Wyoming        3  23% 70% 47% 538 3   T
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 11:31 PM   #14
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 23,846
When the phone rings, and you look at the number, and you don't recognize it, do you answer?


Why do you think there is no correlation between your answer to the question above, and your choice for President? You think Trump voters and Biden voters are equally likely to answer an unrecognized number?


In answer to the OP question, the answer is rather obviously, "No". I think the reason that's true is that pollsters do a bad job dealing with the answers to the questions in this post, and the related question of whether, once you find out that the person is pollster, do you go ahead and answer his questions, and do you do so truthfully?
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 12:26 AM   #15
dirtywick
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,518
52 to 44 for Biden. Florida +3, Michigan +4, Minnesota +4, NH +11, Virginia +11, WI +7. TX, IA, OH even. 10-15 seat gain in the House. Gains in the senate. 23 point gain in women, 20 among seniors.

This all broke in Trumps favor, frequently by much more than the margin of error. Just like in 2016. I donít think itís random chance errors when theyíre consistent and all in the same direction. Thatís a methodology problem to me.

I was surprised they didnít address that or improve this time around. It was the exact same problem playing out in the exact same way. And I certainly hope the pollsters donít think everything is fine.
dirtywick is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 12:27 AM   #16
Busta Capp
Thinker
 
Busta Capp's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 137
you guys/gals need to remember that jurors are usually 12 people that haven't figured out how to get out of jury duty or really gung ho on jury duty.

Either way ... extremely frightening.
__________________
Memorize This Signature
Busta Capp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 12:29 AM   #17
dirtywick
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,518
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I don't think that Democrats should be disappointed, they got an amazing turnout. Biden has 5 million more votes than Obama got in 2008 and the votes have not all been counted yet.

There have been over 148 million votes counted in this year's election, with an estimated 160-165 million votes in total. That's around 72% of the eligible population. The previous record in 2008 was just 63%. If that gain is a disappointment, well...

The reality of the situation is that Republicans have also turned out in record numbers, and that's something that really the Democrats couldn't control.
I agree. People donít want to give Trump credit for anything, but he knows how to run a campaign.
dirtywick is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 12:44 AM   #18
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,099
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
When the phone rings, and you look at the number, and you don't recognize it, do you answer?


Why do you think there is no correlation between your answer to the question above, and your choice for President? You think Trump voters and Biden voters are equally likely to answer an unrecognized number?


In answer to the OP question, the answer is rather obviously, "No". I think the reason that's true is that pollsters do a bad job dealing with the answers to the questions in this post, and the related question of whether, once you find out that the person is pollster, do you go ahead and answer his questions, and do you do so truthfully?
Pollsters are aware of non-response bias, which is (or used to be) especially common in NYC.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 02:12 AM   #19
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 47,482
Tim Harford, from BBC’s excellent More or Less, among other things, commented on this during the Q&A session in an online Skeptics in the Pub talk this week.

Basically, he said the polls have been fairly consistent over the last few decades. One problem is that the margin of error is often larger than the actual margin in key states, so whether they predict the correct result becomes a matter of chance. A confounding factor is that it is often difficult to get people to respond to the poll questions at all, and the supporters of one side may be more reluctant than those of the other to respond, which skews the answers you do get.

ETA: Having rewatched, a couple of details. Polls used to get around 80% response, years ago, now it’s around 5%, so to get 500 responses, they need to ask 10000 people, so you’re basing your prediction on what 500 people said, and what 9500 people didn’t say.
The margin of error in national polls has been around 2% since 1942, higher at the state level, maybe 4%. In Florida, the actual margin is maybe 1%.
(Question starts at 1:13:50 )
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20

Last edited by zooterkin; 7th November 2020 at 02:23 AM.
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 02:29 AM   #20
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 47,482
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post

I will also just point out that no analyst was thinking that the 17-point Biden poll in WI was accurate, and they treated it exactly as they should have, as a rouge outlier.
I thought Biden was blue?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 02:34 AM   #21
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,766
Polls might not be wrong, but they are just not accurate enough to be useful.

I think Trump found the 21st century alternative.
Time the Democrats do, too.
__________________
Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 03:17 AM   #22
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,876
As long as the US continues to have this bat-crap crazy system of Electoral College votes, where margins measured in miniscule fractions of a percentage point, or even a majority of a single vote in millions in a state, results in ALL the EC votes going to the winning candidate, it is unlikely that you can ever have polls that will accurately predict your election outcomes.
__________________
"Silence is Donald Trump's concession speech" - Lawrence O'Donnell.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 7th November 2020 at 03:32 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 03:25 AM   #23
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,944
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Polls might not be wrong, but they are just not accurate enough to be useful.
I guess it depends on what you mean by useful.

If you mean that they show a general trend in how the public perceives and likes a particular candidate, or party, and allows us to make reasonably guesstimations about election results, well then I'd say that polls are plenty useful.

If you mean that they should give a 100% accurate picture of how the election will turn out, well if they did that, what would be the point of having an election in the first place, just use the poll and a mathematical model about how we'll all vote and millions of dollars saved.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 04:13 AM   #24
Tero
Master Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 2,058
Kari has a plan:
http://karireport.blogspot.com/2020/...uited-for.html
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 04:23 AM   #25
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,812
My theory is that the usual polling techniques cannot predict results achieved by modern campaigning techniques, which are tightly targeted on particular groups with different messages, for example the micro targeting of communities made up of Cuban refugees and their families with "Democrats are socialist" type messages.

The results of these will be clusters of people motivated to go out and vote which will not be picked up by polls which try to get representative samples of the population as a whole.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 08:48 AM   #26
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,346
Here is one thing that pollsters might need to account for in the future: belief in conspiracy theories.

Researchers are looking into the possibility that higher than expected support for stubby Mcbonespurs might be correlated to support for Qanon.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/11/...olling-errors/

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 12:56 PM   #27
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,876
Could it be that some Trump supporters have been sabotaging the polls, either deliberately, or because of social pressure or embarrassment?

Some might have been saying they prefer Biden when they fully intended to vote for Trump. Others might be embarrassed to admit they are Trump supporters, or the might claim to be undecided.

It would only take a very small proportion of poll responders to do that, to skew the results
__________________
"Silence is Donald Trump's concession speech" - Lawrence O'Donnell.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 01:52 PM   #28
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,990
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Could it be that some Trump supporters have been sabotaging the polls, either deliberately, or because of social pressure or embarrassment?
Not to pick on you since this seems to be a theme, but has it been established the polls aren't accurate? The people posting data to back up there opinion are showing the polls to be accurate.

Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
52 to 44 for Biden. Florida +3, Michigan +4, Minnesota +4, NH +11, Virginia +11, WI +7. TX, IA, OH even. 10-15 seat gain in the House. Gains in the senate. 23 point gain in women, 20 among seniors.

This all broke in Trumps favor, frequently by much more than the margin of error. Just like in 2016. I donít think itís random chance errors when theyíre consistent and all in the same direction. Thatís a methodology problem to me.
What in the world are your numbers? They seem to highly cherry picked but since you don't say what they are that might not be right.

BTW Trump told his voters to vote in person, Biden told his to vote by mail. Mail in votes are still being counted, in some place in large numbers.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 02:02 PM   #29
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
I agree. People donít want to give Trump credit for anything, but he knows how to run a campaign.
That's... questionable.

Trump did come uncomfortably close to winning this time (and certainly did better than what polls predicted), but is better-than-expected showing probably had more to do with things like people voting Republican reflexively, voter suppression, russian interference, etc. than with anything Trump himself had done.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 02:05 PM   #30
dirtywick
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,518
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
What in the world are your numbers? They seem to highly cherry picked but since you don't say what they are that might not be right.

BTW Trump told his voters to vote in person, Biden told his to vote by mail. Mail in votes are still being counted, in some place in large numbers.
Those were the polling predictions at the end of october. It's the topic of the thread.
dirtywick is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 02:10 PM   #31
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
52 to 44 for Biden. Florida +3, Michigan +4, Minnesota +4, NH +11, Virginia +11, WI +7. TX, IA, OH even. 10-15 seat gain in the House. Gains in the senate. 23 point gain in women, 20 among seniors.

This all broke in Trumps favor, frequently by much more than the margin of error. Just like in 2016. I donít think itís random chance errors when theyíre consistent and all in the same direction. Thatís a methodology problem to me.

I was surprised they didnít address that or improve this time around. It was the exact same problem playing out in the exact same way. And I certainly hope the pollsters donít think everything is fine.
I think its likely that the pollsters did improve their methods, but new (and unexpected) factors came into play.

In 2016, one of the problems is that pollsters didn't account for educational levels. That was addressed this year. But, this election had several new factors that weren't an issue back then... Covid-19 changed the way people vote, and Qanon may be a factor.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 02:13 PM   #32
dirtywick
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,518
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I think its likely that the pollsters did improve their methods, but new (and unexpected) factors came into play.

In 2016, one of the problems is that pollsters didn't account for educational levels. That was addressed this year. But, this election had several new factors that weren't an issue back then... Covid-19 changed the way people vote, and Qanon may be a factor.
It's possible. It's just odd virtually the same shift in the same direction at the same margin occurred. Could be coincidence.

The vegas oddsmakers got it right. I think I'd rather watch that than polls in the future at this point.
dirtywick is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 02:20 PM   #33
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
It's possible. It's just odd virtually the same shift in the same direction at the same margin occurred. Could be coincidence.
Well, if you toss a coin twice, the chance that it comes up the same on both flips is 50%.

So the recent polls were wrong in the same direction that the 2016 polls were wrong... it doesn't necessarily have to be suspicious at all.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 02:25 PM   #34
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
BTW Trump told his voters to vote in person, Biden told his to vote by mail. Mail in votes are still being counted, in some place in large numbers.
It should also be noted that mail-in ballots may have a higher rejection rate than ballots submitted in-person. (e.g. not signed properly, or 'naked' ballots not put into envelopes properly.)

Granted, it appears that the rejection rate was unexpectedly small this year, but it might have had a small impact on the numbers.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 02:42 PM   #35
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,975
I'm a huge champion of 538 and love their modeling.

But we are not asking about models, we are asking about polls. 538 makes a useful model from polls, but polls are near useless. Heck, the model even suffers because polling companies are reluctant to release extra useless outlier polls.

There isn't a single polling firm making enough polls for a whole model. So each polling firm is selling a product and just wasting everyone's time.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 02:43 PM   #36
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,990
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
Those were the polling predictions at the end of october. It's the topic of the thread.
Thanks for nothing. There is no such thing as "the" polling predictions.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 03:19 PM   #37
dirtywick
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,518
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Thanks for nothing. There is no such thing as "the" polling predictions.
Thereís a bunch on google. Iím not sure what to tell you and Iím sorry if I offended you in some way.
dirtywick is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 05:31 PM   #38
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 28,392
Fivethirtyeight actually ended up pretty accurate.

The snake could arguably be said to have made three inaccurate forecasts (Florida, North Carolina and Maine 2) but all within margin of error, and Florida, for one is supposedy notoriously difficult to poll.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 06:51 PM   #39
Modified
Philosopher
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,727
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
It should also be noted that mail-in ballots may have a higher rejection rate than ballots submitted in-person. (e.g. not signed properly, or 'naked' ballots not put into envelopes properly.)

Granted, it appears that the rejection rate was unexpectedly small this year, but it might have had a small impact on the numbers.

I would not vote by mail in a state where you can't verify online that your vote has been accepted, or do so when it may be too late to get verification. I sent my mail-in vote 3 1/2 weeks ago, and verified that it was accepted a few days later.
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 07:38 PM   #40
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,975
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Fivethirtyeight actually ended up pretty accurate.

The snake could arguably be said to have made three inaccurate forecasts (Florida, North Carolina and Maine 2) but all within margin of error, and Florida, for one is supposedy notoriously difficult to poll.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/
But again, not a poll itself.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:34 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.