Why aren't Libertarians included in polling?

[Enquiring_Mind]

The "five way" polls I see are Trump, Biden, Kennedy, West and Stein. Yet the Libertarians got four times as many votes as the Greens in 2020. This particular five way seems to only include third party types that hurt Biden, particularly Stein and West. I think the Libertarians hurt Trump more (alternative for Never Trumpers).
Their exclusion skews the poll for Trump.

[Pretty Fly]

1. Probably comes down to name recognition.

Without looking it up, do you know who's the leading candidate on the Libertarian side? I don't. But I have heard of West, Stein and of course, Kennedy.

If the candidate was someone like Gary Johnson, I'm sure they'd be included. I don't even know if there is a favorite candidate yet for the Libertarian nomination, which could be why they were courting Kennedy a few weeks ago. They still might put him on the ticket and then I'd assume he would be included.

It's also possible they are included in the initial polling but get zero responses so they're excluded from the reporting.

[DemocraticPatriot]

24. Kennedy announced in the past few days that he is not interested

in the Libertarian nomination.

[Pretty Fly]

25. He must feel confident he'll get on state ballots then.

[DemocraticPatriot]

36. So far he is 'officially' on ONE-- Utah---- with claims to be

on several others, but they have not been confirmed by the states...

Iowa, Nevada, and a few others

[Think. Again.]

2. It all depends on...

....the results the pollsters decided they wanted before they designed the poll.

[Silent3]

4. While there are some deliberately biased polsters, it's ridiculously conspiratorial to imagine all or most...

...are shooting for a desired result.

[Think. Again.]

5. There's a lot at stake, and big money involved...

...it might be ridiculous to just trust because it's a nice thing to do.

[Silent3]

6. Show me the investigative reporting of the payoffs

For many polling organizations, it's harmful for them to do deliberately bad polling. Some of them are colleges and universities, doing political polling as an exercise in teaching statistics and market research.

You think hundreds of college students over the decades have ALL been paid off or intimidated into silence?

Then there are commercial marketing and consumer research firms, who do political polling as a way to demonstrate their skills to customers who pay for non-political polling. The worse they do at political polling, the lower the price for which they can sell their services.

[Think. Again.]

7. Speaking of teaching statistics,....

...have you ever read "How To Lie With Statistics" by Darrel Huff?

It's been the main statistics teaching text in higher education for decades.

From Wikipedia:

"The book is a brief, breezy illustrated volume outlining the misuse of statistics and errors in the interpretation of statistics, and how errors create incorrect conclusions.

In the 1960s and 1970s, it became a standard textbook introduction to the subject of statistics for many college students. It has become one of the best-selling statistics books in history, with over one and a half million copies sold in the English-language edition. It has also been widely translated.

Themes of the book include "Correlation does not imply causation" and "Using random sampling." It also shows how statistical graphs can be used to distort reality. For example, by truncating the bottom of a line or bar chart so that differences seem larger than they are. Or, by representing one-dimensional quantities on a pictogram by two- or three-dimensional objects to compare their sizes so that the reader forgets that the images do not scale the same way the quantities do."

[Silent3]

9. What does that have to do with justifying a conspiratorial view of the majority of polling?

I haven’t denied that one can lie with statistics, and my argument against your conspiratorial view is not based on denying the possibility of lying with statistics.

[Think. Again.]

10. Well, is it really just a conspiratorial view if...

...practically every college statistics class for the last 50 years has begun with the teachings of how to successfully manipulate statistics?

But seriously, I think it's fair to be cynical when it comes to the possibility of people trying to manipulate the public perception of candidates and the race itself using pre-election polling in any American Presidential election much less this one.

A question for you, do you believe 'deepfakes' and other audio/visual manipulation is being used in this election? Or do you just trust all computer people?

(Hint: we already know it was used to fake at least one Biden robocall during the primaries)

[Silent3]

12. All I am trusting is this couldn't be wide-spread without *something* tangible leaking out...

...and without being contrary to the incentives many pollsters have to do as good and accurate job as possible.

Your question about who and what I trust, either with polling or deepfakes, is a false dichotomy... a very popular false dichotomy among conspiracists.

It's always posed as a ridiculous black-and-white choice between believing there's a conspiracy, and absolute trust that everyone everywhere is pure and innocent, as if no possible middle ground exists.

[Think. Again.]

13. Uh-huh....

...have seen any NYT/Sienna polls lately and read what other election and plling experts have to say about them?

[Silent3]

14. Show me the collection of articles that say that their is *widespread*, deliberate manipulation...

...by pollsters to produce specific desired results rather than as-accurate-as-possible measures of current voter opinions.

If your talking about polling experts pointing out likely flaws in methodology and polling models, that's not the same thing.

I am also noting that you aren't actual responding to any challenges I've made to your arguments. You just ignore those challenges and move on to something else you think supports your point of view.

You have not addressed the lack of positive evidence for your claim of widespread manipulation of poll results.

You have not addressed the disincentives against doing deliberately inaccurate polling.

You have not come up with a plausible mechanism by which numerous participants in polling operations could be convinced to keep vast, widespread manipulation a secret.

You have not dealt with the false dichotomy you presented for the issue of trust.

[Think. Again.]

15. I have not jumped through your hoops, correct.

[Silent3]

16. That's an intellectually dishonest rhetorical technique

Treat any challenge to what you want to believe to be true to be inherently unworthy of comment. My "hoops", however, are big flashing lights highlighting why what you're saying doesn't make sense, whether you deliberately avoid them or not.

[Silent3]

17. Please note too that I have done you the courtesy...

...of clearly and directly addressing every "hoop" you have attempted to create. I have no need to duck and swerve and act as if your arguments and counterarguments are traps.

[Think. Again.]

18. mmmm....

My position still stands, I don't trust the polls.

[Silent3]

19. But you're tacitly admitting that you don't know how to defend that position.

Merely "It's my opinion, I have a right to it, so I'm sticking with it!" The kind of inflexible facts-don't-matter position I'd hope only Republicans would take.

[Think. Again.]

23. You're just gaslighting me now.

[Silent3]

32. I think you don't understand what "gaslighting" means

But I suspect you can't be bothered to explain how the word applies here, as you can't be bothered to defend your conspiratorial point of view.

You, of course, have no obligation to defend your opinion. But then I have no obligation to respect your opinion.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

29. Just keep walking

They’ll go back under their bridge eventually.

[NanaCat]

21. Do post the pages where this eminent textbook

(which I have studied) alleges that polling companies are conspiring toward a certain result as a rule, not an exception.

Warning: What you want the text to say and what it does say doesn't necessarily line up, you know.

[Think. Again.]

22. You've completely missed my point.

But thanks for your input.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

28. I've taken statistics at two different schools

and that book was not my text in any of my classes.

[Think. Again.]

34. You're in the minority.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

37. Why do I doubt that?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

39. Because they're lying with statistics? NT

[Think. Again.]

40. Maybe you should do a poll of people who've studied statistics...

...because polls always show truth?

"In the 1960s and 1970s, it became a standard textbook introduction to the subject of statistics for many college students. It has become one of the best-selling statistics books in history, with over one and a half million copies sold in the English-language edition.It has also been widely translated." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

[womanofthehills]

3. They need to name a candidate

I think their convention is sometime in 2 nd week of May.
They are not crazy about Kennedy because they are pretty much anti war -according to Dave Smith.

[H2O Man]

11. +1

[brooklynite]

8. They don't have a candidate yet. Their nominating convention isn't until May.

[Polybius]

20. They don't have a nominee yet

They've went down in polls since the Gary Johnson days.

[bucolic_frolic]

26. Because they only care about their own interests

[ismnotwasm]

27. Have you MET Libertarians?

Just kidding, although tend to be smarmy, self satisfied and wrong about everything.

[Orrex]

31. They have the luxury of never having to back up their zany claims

If something works, they co-opt it and claim that it’s a Libertarian principle. If something fails, the. They claim that it wasn’t Libertarian enough.

[ismnotwasm]

33. Yup

Talking about water rights sets them off though.

[Orrex]

30. Because "Libertarian" is a less polite term for "asshole"

Before any so-called “Left libertarians “ get their dander up, let’s stipulate that no one is talking about them. Like literally no one.

[Wonder Why]

35. Not true. They are always nice when I check out and return books.

[Orrex]

41. You're a bad person for posting that.

[LudwigPastorius]

38. The Libertarian party still has nine viable candidates in the running for the party's presidential nomination.

...and another 29 who have filed with the FEC and are technically in the running.

[GenThePerservering]

42. They're falling apart, being raided by the right wing

and in any case remind me of Charles De Gaulle's joke "How can you govern a country which has two hundred and forty-six varieties of cheese?" None of them, at least the ones on my bike racing team who used to pester me about it (for some reason the sport attracts liberatarians and some really conservative people so I got to hear all about it) seemed to agree on anything, because everything would impinge on SOME kind of liberty for someone.