Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

applegrove

(118,022 posts)
Tue Feb 6, 2018, 07:10 PM Feb 2018

Study Finds Election Forecasts Lower Voter Turnout

https://politicalwire.com/2018/02/06/election-forecasts-lower-voter-turnout/

"SNIP.........


Pew Research: “These probabilistic forecasts can give potential voters the impression that one candidate will win more decisively and may even lower the likelihood that they vote… The use of such probabilistic forecasts was a constant in coverage of the 2016 presidential race, with an average of 16 mentions per day in cable news broadcasts, according to the study. And at least in 2016, outlets with more liberal audiences featured more coverage. Forecasters uniformly favored Hillary Clinton to capture the White House, with odds ranging from 70% to 99%.”

“The new study finds that numbers like these can leave people with the impression that the race is far less competitive than when they see polling data presented as the percentage of the vote they are expected to get – something familiar to the public.”

............SNIP"
13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

applegrove

(118,022 posts)
1. The favorable exit polls early election day for Kerry kept democrats home from the 2004 election.
Tue Feb 6, 2018, 07:11 PM
Feb 2018

I've been screaming this since then.

applegrove

(118,022 posts)
3. And republicans know it. There is the shy elephant theory that republicans
Tue Feb 6, 2018, 07:17 PM
Feb 2018

are less likely to answer to an exit pollster on election day. I just think they have been schooled to not respond, skewing exit polls in favour of democrats, thus keeping democrats, who have to come home from work and find a babysitter for the kids when they often are on a tight budget, away from voting at the end of the day.

John Fante

(3,479 posts)
4. While I agree with the article, I can't imagine that being an issue in 2018.
Tue Feb 6, 2018, 07:18 PM
Feb 2018

Dem voters who stayed home thinking HRC had the election in bag learned a HARSH lesson. This dark memory is still fresh in everyone's mind.

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
5. Where is the data on this study
Tue Feb 6, 2018, 07:21 PM
Feb 2018

I don't by for one second people stay home because they think they got it in the bag. More likely more people turnout when they know their going to win.

applegrove

(118,022 posts)
6. Why then did exit polls stop being published early in the day on election day
Tue Feb 6, 2018, 07:24 PM
Feb 2018

after the 2004 election? Exit polls had Kerry winning by mid afternoon. Democrats stayed home. Kerry lost.

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
9. Or when repukes got the news of exit polls
Tue Feb 6, 2018, 07:32 PM
Feb 2018

they hacked the election. People want to win and want to contribute to victory it is completely illogical to think that people wont participate if the know their going to win.

Jspur

(578 posts)
8. As a millenniall
Tue Feb 6, 2018, 07:28 PM
Feb 2018

in my 30's I have to say I knew a lot of people who were my age or younger that stayed at home mainly because they thought Hillary had it in the bags. All of them hated Trump but didn't like Hillary either. They felt Hillary was the lesser of the two evils and thus didn't feel good about having to vote for her. I remember a lot of them believing Trump was going to lose so they didn't feel the need to go out and vote for Hillary.

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
10. Those were probably the type that rarely vote anyway if ever
Tue Feb 6, 2018, 07:37 PM
Feb 2018

Young voters have been historically unreliable. Fact is Hilary got the second most votes of any candidate in history. Turnout was well above 50% the claim that 2016 was a low turnout election is a myth.

Jspur

(578 posts)
12. Well if
Tue Feb 6, 2018, 10:46 PM
Feb 2018

that's the case then 2020 is going to be hard to win. I don't think we can win in 2020 without turnout from young people. It's a big reason to why Obama won twice.

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
13. Obama only got a couple hundred thousand votes more than
Wed Feb 7, 2018, 02:37 AM
Feb 2018

than Hilary did in his 2012 election. Voter suppression in key swing states tipped the electoral college for Trump not low voter turnout.

 

Awsi Dooger

(14,565 posts)
11. MSNBC was forever touting the stupid percentages
Tue Feb 6, 2018, 08:23 PM
Feb 2018

The ones with no basis in reality. I love Lawrence O'Donnell but he was probably the biggest offender, especially when he brought on the guy whose firm was responsible for some idiotic poll with Hillary leading by close to double digits in Florida based on early voting numbers and projections from them.

Rachel was giggling while waving poll numbers in the air with Hillary supposedly competitive in South Carolina. She said if Hillary is close in South Carolina then you can just imagine what is going on elsewhere.

Likewise with state polls in Utah and Alaska. MSNBC couldn't wait to show those numbers, with Hillary supposedly close even thought it made no sense and was never accurate.

Hillary was absolutely the favorite but the 70% range was the true state of the race. Nate Silver emphasized that repeatedly. He was always just below or just above 70% in the late going. I remember posting several times that 70% is the equivalent of a 4 to 4.5 favorite in an NFL game.

That is nothing at all. We saw an example a few days ago. New England was favored by 4 to 4.5 points in the closing line against the Eagles. Nobody takes that outcome as evidence that oddsmakers are morons or that some type of fix was in place. Underdogs of that size win all the time. If presidential races were every few weeks or few months then similarly we'd have 70% favorites going down all the time.

But once every four years is such a minuscule sample size, and therefore lends itself to very poor evaluation by the media and pundits and virtually everyone. Nate Silver was getting drunk and using profanity in tweets directed toward anyone who actually believed it was 99% likelihood. That in itself should have pointed to how stupidly the race was being portrayed.

I don't doubt that some people stay home if they think it is a cinch. I don't believe it changes the outcome. The touted 2% worth of GOTV is preposterous on the high end, and likewise virtually every popular adjustment.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Study Finds Election Fore...