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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Here Comes The Polls
Biden/Trump tied again. I just laugh my ass off.
Let's look at something that is real. We just had a New York Congressional special election in the 26th district. What did the polls say? The polls said that the Democrat, Kennedy, would win by 10, he won by 37 fucking points.
Fuck the polls!
110 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Is that what's you're saying? 
as expected despite evidence that it IS a "narrative".
that becomes the PROPAGANDA and takes off into a fictional universe of a "Red Tsunami".
The general public is not following "polls" but they will usually hear the NARRATIVES that others (journalists, pundits) assign to those polls, including their "expectations".
If a poll says a race is 51/49, but after the election it turns out to be 49/51, the poll is no more or less inaccurate than a poll that shows a race as 60/40, but the race ends up 58/42.
Which is why they are pretty much useless.
If someone posts a "blow out poll" based on "expectations" and all kinds of black box "extrapolations", and there is no "standardization", then it becomes that oft-quoted adage (described in "Forrest Gump" ) about "the box of chocolates", where "you never know what you're gonna get".
If you look at the Boebert/Frisch "polls" (2022), you have a 7% lead moving to a 2% lead - https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2022/10/adam-frisch-kicks-off-campaign-tour-as-poll-shows-his-race-against-boebert-is-tightening/49399/
But the "actuals" (after a recount) had a difference of 546 votes. This is why she moved out of her current district to run in a different one.
It's because we have so many close elections that win/lose results end up depending on small swings that are beyond the accuracy of polls to predict. That doesn't make polls "meaningless".
But we ALSO have so many "purported close elections" that turned out NOT TO BE. This is what I posted in another reply when it came to Senate Pro-Temp Patty Murray, where "polls" suddenly claimed that the race was "close" (by 2 points), which was a lie that generated a narrative using a handful of GOP-commissioned "polls", forcing reallocation of DNC money to a seat that Democrats DIDN'T need to work so hard to defend. The end result was that she WON in 2022 by 15 points.
Again, FORGET THE POLLS. GOTV.
Polls don't vote, people do.
"Narrative" and "polls are meaningless" aren't the same thing
You seem to be using the word "useless" to say, "Unless polls are always accurate and 100% predicative of the outcome of an election, they're useless!" which is simply the wrong way to look at polling.
You seem to be using the word "useless" to say, "Unless polls are always accurate and 100% predicative of the outcome of an election, they're useless!" which is simply the wrong way to look at polling.
You seem to forget that the "prognosticators" - whether they are analysts or "pundits", take those "polls", and then stick them into a blender to spin a yarn about what they "expect" to be a "result". This then gets reported on the "national" and "local" news for those who don't have the time or aren't invested in doing deep dives into polling data.
And when there is bad data in those "polls", the spin machine goes haywire and they (and the general public) are left with a mess.
It's simply "garbage in, garbage out".
When someone has to keep "correcting" and "extrapolating" for variables like missing demographics who haven't or won't respond to their surveys, then it continues to introduce more and more error.
Real simple.
As for the way-off results of some polls: OF COURSE that happens.
And it is happening more and more, admitted by some of the big aggregators and pollsters.
Ask Gallup why they stopped doing their Presidential "daily tracker" polling -
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17305831
Gallup identifies flaws in 2012 election polls
Martha T. Moore
USA TODAY
Published 2:24 p.m. E.T. June 4, 2013 | Updated 5:02 p.m. ET June 4, 2013
WASHINGTON – Pollsters at Gallup said Tuesday they have identified flawed methods that contributed to their incorrect prediction that Mitt Romney would win the 2012 presidential election, but they are still working to determine how to better identify who is likely to vote.
The survey firm undertook a far-reaching review of its operations after its surveys came up short in the election: Gallup's final pre-election estimate showed Romney with 49% support to Obama's 48%, with a margin of error of +/-2%. Most polls estimated Obama would win the popular vote by 1 percentage point. Obama won the popular vote by 3.85 points.
In pre-election polling, Gallup consistently showed Romney with a 3-percentage point lead over Obama. When Gallup switched to surveying only "likely voters," Romney's edge increased to 4 percentage points.
Gallup, with researchers from the University of Michigan, will experiment with ways to better identify likely voters in surveys during the 2013 governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia. Gallup asks seven questions in its phone surveys to determine whether people are likely to vote – a questionnaire that may rely too much on past voting and on how much "thought" voters have given to the election, Gallup Poll editor in chief Frank Newport said. Though all polling outfits showed an increase of support for Romney among likely voters vs. registered voters, Gallup's bump for Romney was the most extreme. "We really are re-evaluating that from square one," Newport said.
(snip)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/04/gallup-poll-election-obama-romney/2388921/
Martha T. Moore
USA TODAY
Published 2:24 p.m. E.T. June 4, 2013 | Updated 5:02 p.m. ET June 4, 2013
WASHINGTON – Pollsters at Gallup said Tuesday they have identified flawed methods that contributed to their incorrect prediction that Mitt Romney would win the 2012 presidential election, but they are still working to determine how to better identify who is likely to vote.
The survey firm undertook a far-reaching review of its operations after its surveys came up short in the election: Gallup's final pre-election estimate showed Romney with 49% support to Obama's 48%, with a margin of error of +/-2%. Most polls estimated Obama would win the popular vote by 1 percentage point. Obama won the popular vote by 3.85 points.
In pre-election polling, Gallup consistently showed Romney with a 3-percentage point lead over Obama. When Gallup switched to surveying only "likely voters," Romney's edge increased to 4 percentage points.
Gallup, with researchers from the University of Michigan, will experiment with ways to better identify likely voters in surveys during the 2013 governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia. Gallup asks seven questions in its phone surveys to determine whether people are likely to vote – a questionnaire that may rely too much on past voting and on how much "thought" voters have given to the election, Gallup Poll editor in chief Frank Newport said. Though all polling outfits showed an increase of support for Romney among likely voters vs. registered voters, Gallup's bump for Romney was the most extreme. "We really are re-evaluating that from square one," Newport said.
(snip)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/04/gallup-poll-election-obama-romney/2388921/
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17327130
November 5, 2012
Romney 49%, Obama 48% in Gallup's Final Election Survey
Early voting so far breaks 49% for Obama and 48% for Romney
Gallup Editors
PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are within one percentage point of each other in Gallup's final pre-election survey of likely voters, with Romney holding 49% of the vote, and Obama 48%. After removing the 3% of undecided voters from the results and allocating their support proportionally to the two major candidates, Gallup's final allocated estimate of the race is 50% for Romney and 49% for Obama.
The survey was conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking Nov. 1-4.
(snip)
https://news.gallup.com/poll/158519/romney-obama-gallup-final-election-survey.aspx
Romney 49%, Obama 48% in Gallup's Final Election Survey
Early voting so far breaks 49% for Obama and 48% for Romney
Gallup Editors
PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are within one percentage point of each other in Gallup's final pre-election survey of likely voters, with Romney holding 49% of the vote, and Obama 48%. After removing the 3% of undecided voters from the results and allocating their support proportionally to the two major candidates, Gallup's final allocated estimate of the race is 50% for Romney and 49% for Obama.
The survey was conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking Nov. 1-4.
(snip)
https://news.gallup.com/poll/158519/romney-obama-gallup-final-election-survey.aspx
First of all, there are badly run polls, either bad methodologically, or vanity polls that are deliberately inaccurate.
Exactly and when you have people like Nate Silver JUSTIFYING inclusion of that crap into his (former) aggregate polling outfit - 538, and bitching at people on twitter when called out on including polling done by some outfit created by a pair of high school students, then there IS A PROBLEM.
But that can be sorted out with some effort, and looking at averages across multiple polls helps. I totally reject the conspiratorial narrative that some people ascribe to that the entire polling world is a scam rigged to create a specific narrative.
One does nor need to promote CT to see that they have admitted the problem of -
1.) Getting a good representative sample of the public
2.) Determining WHO is a "likely voter" (which was Gallup's flaw).
Because of what happened in 2016, they continue to over-sample GOP voters to try to capture what they continue to claim is a "reluctance" of that demographic to respond to polls and insist that Democrats are more willing, without any proof.
I.e., they are blindly relying on people being "honest" in what affiliation they have and even if they work off of voter registrations, there continue to be members of both parties who register for an opposite party in states that have closed primaries, so they can influence the election of primary candidates to one who they think might be more "beatable" by their real preferred candidate.
It's a mess.
I think poll modeling of so-called "likely voters" is something that can skew results across multiple polls, since modeling is based on past elections and something can change in the electorate that hasn't yet been captured in polling models. For instance, it's definitely possible the abortion issue has revved up Democrats in a way that still has been modeled correctly. (I sure hope the Gaza mess doesn't have an opposite effect!)
Exactly (as I noted above). You have some reporters now starting to again broach their "expectation" (opinion) that "abortion" is no longer a "driving force" for Democrats. I.e., they push a false narrative based on something that is completely inconceivable to them.
Even when polling is well done, there will always be outliers you can point to and say, "Hah! Look how way off that polls was!". The expect occurrence of outliers also does not render polling "meaningless", however.
There have been and always be "outlier" polls. But the frequency of them coming back to back to back, and being called out by those who actually do deep dives into the data, only to find that there are "push poll" type questions inserted in them, is a case in point.
E.g., I think there was one done by CNN (there were a couple OPs on that) where some of the questions were actually introducing a "Hunter Biden narrative" into some poll questions with an assumption of his guilt, and weaving that into a question about how that would impact a vote for Joe Biden. I had done a couple screenshots of it (have been digging through my images to find).
While hunting, I did find this snapshot that I saved -
Think of polling like a weather forecast. We all know sometime the weather forecast is ends up way off. Nevertheless, weather forecasts are still good enough that people use them to plan their activities, governments use them to brace for disasters, etc.
I've been a weather hobbiest for 54 years and that is why I am so adamant about this. I scream and holler about "the weather models" (GFS vs EC vs CAN vs UKie) on my weather forum, and especially the GFS's propensity to spin up some kind of nor'easter in every long range forecast (10 days out).
Now, perhaps what you mean is polls are useless to you personally. Fine then. Useless for you doesn't mean useless for everyone.
Forget the polls if you wish. I'll pay attention to the polls, and still GOTV. Which is exactly what nearly all campaign operations do. They pay attention to the polls AND do everything they can to get out the vote. In fact, paying attention to the polls is how they allocate not-unlimited resources to most effectively GOTV. Attention to polls and GOTV are not mutually exclusive.
Which is like saying "Weather forecasts don't rain. Clouds do!". True, but also lacking in any useful point.
Again, FORGET THE POLLS. GOTV.
Forget the polls if you wish. I'll pay attention to the polls, and still GOTV. Which is exactly what nearly all campaign operations do. They pay attention to the polls AND do everything they can to get out the vote. In fact, paying attention to the polls is how they allocate not-unlimited resources to most effectively GOTV. Attention to polls and GOTV are not mutually exclusive.
Polls don't vote, people do.
Which is like saying "Weather forecasts don't rain. Clouds do!". True, but also lacking in any useful point.
Polls and poorly done "statistics" should NOT be pushed as a substitute for "common sense". The NWS mets call people who overly-focus on "models" for a forecast - "model-huggers" or more derisively, "model humpers". This is why there ARE mets, and in general, they are taught to only use them as a guide, along with using their knowledge of an area's climatology, topography, and hydro situation, to help inform a forecast.
Polls are not the same as the narratives that SOME people spin around them, and are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to GOTV
There is a process where polls flow to the "pundits" and "analysts", and eventually make it into the mainstream media as someone's "interpretation" and "conclusion". As more polls get ingested into that "system", what was the embryonic stage of a "narrative", matures into a full blown "prediction", that often gets stronger and stronger over time, despite tossing out the "but there is still some uncertainty" disclaimer.
You CANNOT separate out the "narrative" from the polls that were used to create it.
I don't understand why you think the mantra "polls are meaningless!" is a necessary thing to push as an antidote to bad or misleading narratives sometimes built around polls.
Because the "narratives" bring out the concern trolls en masse and they start a chain reaction of "telling 2 friends" and "their friends tell 2 friends and so on and so on and so on" (to paraphrase the old Farrah Fawcett commercial).
You also mention slanted push polls, which no one is defending, and which are often not even the subject when the knee-jerk "polls are meaningless!" line is chanted.
Au contraire - as noted above, it results in endless column inches of -
"Democrats are worried that.... "
"Democrats are 'sounding the alarm' due to..."
"Democrats 'fear'...."
and other namby-pamby nonsense that invokes a stereotype of the "weak and hapless bleeding heart liberals".
As I noted in other posts, this leads to a misallocation of funding for candidates who are "predicted" to be in a "close race" and in reality, the were NOT. But the "narrative" produced from garbage polls that made it into the mainstream media, repeated hour after hour, forces those candidates to take action because they are hounded to do so - especially when your big media outlets keep up the pounding narrative like the "Red Tsunami" idiocy.
Do you even know what the word "meaningless" means?
It means it is irrelevant. It has no meaningful value for the general public. It might be a geek statistics freak exercise (note that many of the same pollsters test out their algorithm adjustments on sports predictions), but as time passes, the "poll humpers" put too much weight on them and never learn to use intuition, common sense, and observation of the electorate.
I.e., they refuse to see the forest for the trees so they end up with the same tired "Democrats over-performed again" crap.
I post many of the economics release news stories (CPI, PPI, UE, etc) and you can go back over the past couple years where you see my commenting about their damn "swings and misses", month after month after month - especially when it came to the monthly UE numbers. In some cases. they were so far off that it was truly laughable.
It's the same issue - statistical models that are faulty and the model-humpers who won't change.
Even if you believe (and I strongly disagree) that polling is somehow dissuading voters and distracting from GOTV activities, or that it's some terrible emotional strain people need to avoid, none of those things are the same as the polls themselves being "meaningless".
The worry-warts and concern trolls are looking for anything they can find to justify their worrying and they eventually worry themselves into staying home because things are "hopeless" based on the narratives.
Further, none of your mentions of "John Kings, Schmuck Toads, and helicopter arms Steve Kornaki" have anything to do with these people saying, "Listen to our polls and polling analysis and forget common sense!"
I guess you haven't watched them lately. You know, the "big boards" and other stuff. They have to make something as boring and droll as MATH and STATISTICS "interesting" so they have been given all kinds of audio-visual props to keep someone interested.
My mantra once more is GOTV.
Your mantra in no way, shape, or form requires ignoring polls or denouncing them as "meaningless".
For the "hand-wringers" and (and there are many), it only magnifies their tendency towards defeatism and giving up. So yes, they can safely "ignore the polls" and make sure to get to their polling location, or get their ballots in the mail, or a drop box depending on their state laws, and choice of HOW they wish to vote.
"You cannot disconnect the two because they are inextricably linked"? Yes, I can, using this tool called a "brain".
It's an amazing, this brain. It allows me, if I choose, to look at just the data and stop there. It allows me to sift good polling from bad polling.
But are you an employee of RCP or 538 or any other aggregator site that feeds the newspapers and broadcast media their "takes"?
I don't know, maybe you are?
The worry-warts and concern trolls are looking for anything they can find to justify their worrying and they eventually worry themselves into staying home because things are "hopeless" based on the narratives.
Are you forgetting your audience?
This is Democratic Underground. It's a very safe bet than nearly everyone here plans to vote for Biden and all Democrats they can vote for up and down the ticket no matter what. I've never seen a single poster here (not even a probable troll) post, "Everything is so hopeless! I'm just staying home!"
I suppose you trash the "concern" threads, many that get invaded by trolls?
And maybe you haven't "seen any" because you're not on MIRT getting rid of the 1- or 2-post wonders.
Back in March after that last Super Tuesday, EarlG declared it the "unofficial official" end of "Primary Season" on DU, so *theoretically* people are supposed to support the presumptive nominee - Joe Biden. But as long as you have idjits still running as Democrats like Marianne Williamson, not EVERYONE posting on DU might vote for Biden.
If you're worried about the effects of polls on the general public, I don't even know if there's good data to suggest than polls have much to do with motivation to vote. You want to talk about "concern trolls"? These are the people who get scared when polls are up that people will think the election is "in the bag" and there's no need to go out and vote, but also scared that when polls are down that people will be too discouraged to vote.
That's the problem when a "narrative" gets generated and then takes on a life of its own.
"Red Tsunami" is the perfect example.
Hell, if that's what you really believe, fake polls creating a fake neck-and-neck horse race would be doing us a favor, creating the optimal "my vote will really count!" response.
What has ultimately happened is that many organizations HAVE taken that ball and run with it, canvassing in their areas to get people to vote so that the "narratives" don't come true. That was the point behind memes like -
I get dozens of emails and texts every day from the DNC and all kinds of affiliated organizations, including many from candidate campaigns outside of my state. These attempt to "message" around the broadcast and print media.
For the "hand-wringers" and (and there are many), it only magnifies their tendency towards defeatism and giving up.
How often have you see someone on DU say they were giving up and not going to vote? Not going to donate to anyone's campaign? Bail on GOTV activities that they otherwise would have engaged in?
That "giving up" part is almost entirely a creation in the minds of people who bizarrely can't seem to understand that many of their fellow humans gripe and worry and express fear all of the time without giving up.
Trust me, I have seen it, the vanity OPs. I think some do it to get attention. DU forums have 80 threads per page times 30 pages. It's easy to miss.
And, once again, "polls are meaningless" has nothing to do with possible real or imagined behavioral consequences of reading polls and reading narratives spun around polls. I don't care if you consider such things "inseparable" or not. Whatever problem you have with polling, "polls are meaningless" are the wrong words to express that problem accurately, no matter how wedded you might feel to that being your favorite plaintive cry of disdain for polling.
Anyone who posts on a "political forum" is light years ahead of the average "voter" (or "non-voter" ), who is NOT following politics like those on DU. THAT is the reality. DU is a tiny tiny microcosm of society.
So yes, they can safely "ignore the polls" and make sure to get to their polling location...
And they can safely pay attention to polls as well. Campaign organizations, on the other hand, most certainly cannot safely ignore polling. If polling is useful TO ANYONE, then it is inherently NOT "meaningless".
You described organizations NOT individuals and it is their JOB to gather data and act on it. But the "average person"? Not so much. Around election time, they get bombarded by hundreds of political ads on TV, radio, or their streaming services and often struggle to make a decision. So in comes those "pundits" to give them their "opinions", no matter how convoluted.
It's up to the "well informed" here on DU that we hope can give our families, coworkers, friends, and neighbors, some supplemental guidance, including making sure the innuendos and rumors get quashed, and that turnout is ratcheted up.
You apparently have your own agenda you want to rant about, not the phrase "polls are meaningless"
My "agenda" is to counter misinformation and much of it comes from the selective use of "polls" to demoralize and push a negative narrative against Democrats and their candidates. It's real simple.
My primary message is GOTV. Forget the "polls". They are MEANINGLESS when voter turnout is off the charts.
Why this is ignored is simply bizarre.
For instance, you keep posting long quotes from things like that article "What I Got Wrong In 2022" which are totally off topic. The conclusion of that article is NOT "polls are meaningless".
Am guessing you didn't read it then. A simple summary - It's an example by an actual "pollster analyst" as to how "narratives" are created by a well-known aggregator and why those polls are MEANINGLESS because they, along with the assumptions and preconceived expectations of the story authors, are used to construct "predictions" that have been found to be completely wrong.
The "polls" offered no value ( "meaningless" ) when one has a preset story to promote.
MEANINGLESS
and
"POLLS ARE MEANINGLESS"
This word and that phrase were the sole reason for my entry into this discussion. Period.
and
"POLLS ARE MEANINGLESS"
This word and that phrase were the sole reason for my entry into this discussion. Period.
And I explained why. I don't "poll hump". I have said over and over, they are part of the problem that creates "narratives" that are often false.
Not "can polls be misleading".
Not "can pollsters screw up big time sometimes".
Not "would ordinary voters be better off not looking at polls".
Not "why we should ignore polls and just GOTV!"
Not "Oh, God, what might the general population browsing DU do if these polls discourage or mislead them!"
If, in the right hands and with the right understanding, someone, anyone, can extract useful information from polling data, even if the only use is satisfying someone's curiosity about the state of the electorate, then polling is NOT meaningless. The word "meaningless" does not mean what you seem to want it to mean.
Not "can pollsters screw up big time sometimes".
Not "would ordinary voters be better off not looking at polls".
Not "why we should ignore polls and just GOTV!"
Not "Oh, God, what might the general population browsing DU do if these polls discourage or mislead them!"
If, in the right hands and with the right understanding, someone, anyone, can extract useful information from polling data, even if the only use is satisfying someone's curiosity about the state of the electorate, then polling is NOT meaningless. The word "meaningless" does not mean what you seem to want it to mean.
Your error is assuming that the general public are "the right hands" and are willing to go do deep dives into the data tabs and somehow tease out what is going on. If you believe that is going to happen, then there is that bridge up where DUer brooklynite lives that I can sell to you.
Some DUers did some "diving" (and included posts from others who did so as well) into the tabs from one of CNN's polls last year and made note of the large over-sample of Republicans in it (the "X" is from a Democratic strategist that works within the DNC and Biden administration) -
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218254030
Link to tweet
Chris D. Jackson
·
Sep 7, 2023
@ChrisDJackson
·
Follow
CNN desperately wanted an anti Biden narrative so what did they do? 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝟓𝟗.𝟕% 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬 (!) to generate a predictably bad outcome for Biden and have now blabbed about it nonstop all day.
You…
Image
Readers added context
This poll followed standard polling techniques.
Oversampling is a statistical technique for obtaining more precise information about particular subgroups (in this case, Republican primary voters). The final sample is reweighted so that poll results are not biased.
pewresearch.org/short-reads/20…
CNN Poll:
documentcloud.org/documents/2394…
Context is written by people who use X, and appears when rated helpful by others. Find out more.
Chris D. Jackson
@ChrisDJackson
·
Follow
Oh and look. How responsible.
If you watch CNN, please turn it off.
Image
1:14 PM · Sep 7, 2023
·
Sep 7, 2023
@ChrisDJackson
·
Follow
CNN desperately wanted an anti Biden narrative so what did they do? 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝟓𝟗.𝟕% 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬 (!) to generate a predictably bad outcome for Biden and have now blabbed about it nonstop all day.
You…
Image
Readers added context
This poll followed standard polling techniques.
Oversampling is a statistical technique for obtaining more precise information about particular subgroups (in this case, Republican primary voters). The final sample is reweighted so that poll results are not biased.
pewresearch.org/short-reads/20…
CNN Poll:
documentcloud.org/documents/2394…
Context is written by people who use X, and appears when rated helpful by others. Find out more.
Chris D. Jackson
@ChrisDJackson
·
Follow
Oh and look. How responsible.
If you watch CNN, please turn it off.
Image
1:14 PM · Sep 7, 2023
CNN commissioned a poll purportedly for one thing (GOP primary), got a set of results, then manipulated and extrapolated that data to apply to another thing (general election), which then allowed them to create a false "narrative" that became a "headline".
If you still can't understand how "polls" help to generate "narratives", with multiple examples of that now provided, then there's nothing more that one can do to help you "see it". The "public" is not reading the appendixes in polls, they are watching TV or reading the news in print or online, and are subject to someone else's conclusion about what the "polls" purportedly "mean".
Who here is defending misinformation or selective use of polls?
It's May. Be patient.
I'm not.
The fact that you even thought that I ever said that you did is perhaps telling?
So why do you imagine the best way to attack misinformation and selective use of polls is the inaccurate mantra "polls are meaningless"?
As soon as you need to add that much qualification to what you mean by "meaningless", you've pretty much thrown away the real meaning of the word.
The "polls" offered no value ( "meaningless" ) when one has a preset story to promote.
As soon as you need to add that much qualification to what you mean by "meaningless", you've pretty much thrown away the real meaning of the word.
On the contrary. What I wrote was clear.
Oh, and a tangential topic: Yes, we all know about the failed "red wave" of the 2022 elections. We also should know that was mostly (perhaps not completely) an artifact of spin, not raw polling data itself. (I put spin and narrative in a separate box from raw polling data. I don't care how much you wish to toss out that distinction as an annoying distraction to your crusade against polling.)
The "spin" in the narrative includes the term "polls" attached to it to justify their prognostications and write their headlines or run chyrons at the bottom of the screen. I gave you an image of the perfect example with CNN.
Do you actually know that this false narrative did any harm to anything but the reputations of pundits? Since the red wave didn't materialize, despite so much punditry and prognostication to the contrary, then there's no evidence that the false narrative suppressed Democratic votes. Perhaps it even increased turn out.
The only one who seemed to take a "hit' was Nate Silver, who was "laid off" (supposedly as a cost cutting measure) from his own org, which had moved from the NYT to ESPN-ABC after the 2012 election. He had gotten into twitter pissing matches when called on some things after awhile.
His arrogance during the 2022 election, was well known -
Link to tweet
Nate Silver
@NateSilver538
·
Follow
I'd rather gouge my eyes out than debate the merits of individual election polls or pollsters. Take the average and trust the process.
2:21 PM · Sep 10, 2022
@NateSilver538
·
Follow
I'd rather gouge my eyes out than debate the merits of individual election polls or pollsters. Take the average and trust the process.
2:21 PM · Sep 10, 2022
"Trusting the process" meant accepting that he insisted on loading up GOP-leaning pollsters into his aggregates and even giving voice to 2 sets of high school student polling firms (one of them local to here in the Philly area) -
Link to tweet
David Brauer
·
Dec 31, 2022
@dbrauer
·
Follow
“The skewed red-wave surveys polluted polling averages, which are relied upon by campaigns, donors, voters & the news media. It fed the home-team boosterism of right-wing media outlets … And it spilled over into coverage by mainstream news organizations, including The Times …”
jimrutenberg
@jimrutenberg
About That Red Wave
W/@kenbensinger @SteveEder https://nytimes.com/2022/12/31/us/politics/polling-election-2022-red-wave.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
David Brauer
@dbrauer
·
Follow
“Other pollsters lacked experience, like two high-school juniors in Pennsylvania who started Patriot Polling and quickly found their surveys included on the statistical analysis website 538 — as did another high school concern based at Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass.”
9:34 AM · Dec 31, 2022
·
Dec 31, 2022
@dbrauer
·
Follow
“The skewed red-wave surveys polluted polling averages, which are relied upon by campaigns, donors, voters & the news media. It fed the home-team boosterism of right-wing media outlets … And it spilled over into coverage by mainstream news organizations, including The Times …”
jimrutenberg
@jimrutenberg
About That Red Wave
W/@kenbensinger @SteveEder https://nytimes.com/2022/12/31/us/politics/polling-election-2022-red-wave.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
David Brauer
@dbrauer
·
Follow
“Other pollsters lacked experience, like two high-school juniors in Pennsylvania who started Patriot Polling and quickly found their surveys included on the statistical analysis website 538 — as did another high school concern based at Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass.”
9:34 AM · Dec 31, 2022
Meanwhile the talking heads are still talking and spinning.
You are, of course, free to imagine that there would have been even more Democratic turnout without the red wave myth, but I doubt you can support that counterfactual.
Again the mantra of "Polls don't vote, people do" is exactly what is needed for people to realize it's all spin, and it gives that extra push for people to IGNORE the negative and VOTE. But that "extra push" takes a lot of time and resources and at some point, you will have some people "break" because they are sick of it because they are constantly battling against a stiff headwind of garbage.
and I agree with much of what you wrote.
What I disagree with is clinging to flawed "polling" as a means to an end. It has now been to the point where anecdotal things like the number and proliferation of "lawn signs" can often be a better indicator of "enthusiasm" and even "intent". That's how bad it has gotten.
I actually saw that in 2015 where I live, where literally right across the dark blue Philly city's border into an adjacent county, there were dozens and dozens of 45 signs all over that purple, soon-to-turn-blue county. And we saw what happened in PA where a flip happened in 2016, with a majority of the state voting for the (R) candidate for President for the first time since 1988. By 2020, all of that 45 lawn sign nonsense was gone and the opposite ensued.
The "polling" wasn't needed to observe what was leading up to those outcomes.
As you know, there have been many OPs and discussions from DUers about their experiences at stores, diners, bars or even at work with those who are MAGats. And then on occasion, they get pleasantly surprised to actually find those who were on their side when an affiliation was unknown. That is where you get more useful (local) information on where things stand.
that were used by the pundits, kept a pile of states on their "graphics" (visual tools for the masses) as "gray" or "yellow" for "undecided". They weren't "all" leaning GA even "light blue" as a possible pickup although Democrats in the state were rallying their voters to make it so.
The reason? Past history and the fact that the state had a GOP governor, GOP state legislature, AND the last time a Democrat won GA was 1992.
AZ had a somewhat better chance because one of the Senators was a (D) (although is now an (I)).
The same situation is playing out right now with Democrats trying to flip FL, NC, and TX. Despite FL & NC amazingly going blue in 2008, NC flipped back in 2012, FL flipped back in 2016, and the last time TX went blue was 1976.
The "narrative" has basically dismissed any of these "going blue". The hope by (D)s is to at least try. THAT was the issue with GA & AZ in 2020.
The poster child of idiocy, Schmuck Toad, had this that shows how cherry-picking can drive a narrative - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/did-biden-win-little-or-lot-answer-yes-n1251845
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/are-close-presidential-elections-new-normal-n1250147
I.e., he has these graphics -
But then he goes on to dismiss it in order to offer an opinion of what they want the public to believe is the definition of "close", and only focuses on results that fit the narrative.
I.e., the term "close" is like an old bus fare token. It has "no value" until some entity assigns one.
E.g. for 2020, instead of including and comparing ALL of the state results that flipped one way in 2016 and then flipped back in 2020, there are states that are "discarded" from any discussion, like MI (that had a 154,000 difference in 2020 vs an 11,000 difference in 2016) and PA (that had an 80,000 difference in 2020 vs a 44,000 difference in 2016), in order to zoom in on 3 states with that "close look" that fits the "close narrative", in order to say "See!!!!!" And it gets repeated over and over but never includes "the full picture".
It's a known fact that someone can take "statistics" and manipulate them any way they want to justify the opinion, which is why this needs to be repeated over and over - "Polls don't vote, people do".
GOTV.
Understand that "narratives" are born when analysts and statisticians and pundits ingest those "polls" and include their own biases, meaning they discard what they don't feel fits what they want to project (ignoring any "positive" polls for Democrats or over-emphasizing "positive" polls for either party), making the whole thing meaningless.
I know it can be a difficult concept to accept for those (as I posted elsewhere in this thread) who are "model humpers", but those who do this for a living are often unaware because they love numbers.
This sort of thing exists with election prognostications, with weather forecasters, with economic analysts who have swung and missed the UE numbers every month... month after month after month, for the past couple years, and it even applied to that Kentucky Derby that just concluded less than 90 minutes ago.
Think of it as this kind of "narrative" nonsense and spin generated by "polls" (the below an example from last September with a CNN nonsense "poll" ) -
Don't "poll hump". GOTV.
For example, a popular one - https://millercenter.org/election-2020-and-its-aftermath
Pay no attention to the 'polls". GOTV.
Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #98)
Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #104)
Sorry but *whoosh*.
Make sure you encourage people to GOTV and ignore the polls. Polls don't vote, PEOPLE DO.
as noted here - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3230491
The ‘Red Wave’ Washout: How Skewed Polls Fed a False Election Narrative
By Jim Rutenberg, Ken Bensinger and Steve Eder
Dec. 31, 2022
Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat, had consistently won re-election by healthy margins in her three decades representing Washington State. This year seemed no different: By midsummer, polls showed her cruising to victory over a Republican newcomer, Tiffany Smiley, by as much as 20 percentage points.
So when a survey in late September by the Republican-leaning Trafalgar Group showed Ms. Murray clinging to a lead of just two points, it seemed like an aberration. But in October, two more Republican-leaning polls put Ms. Murray barely ahead, and a third said the race was a dead heat.
(snip)
Ms. Murray’s own polling showed her with a comfortable lead, and a nonprofit regional news site, using an established local pollster, had her up by 13. Unwilling to take chances, however, she went on the defensive, scuttling her practice of lavishing some of her war chest — she amassed $20 million — on more vulnerable Democratic candidates elsewhere. Instead, she reaped financial help from the party’s national Senate committee and supportive super PACs — resources that would, as a result, be unavailable to other Democrats.
A similar sequence of events played out in battlegrounds nationwide. Surveys showing strength for Republicans, often from the same partisan pollsters, set Democratic klaxons blaring in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Colorado. Coupled with the political factors already favoring Republicans — including inflation and President Biden’s unpopularity — the skewed polls helped feed what quickly became an inescapable political narrative: A Republican wave election was about to hit the country with hurricane force. Democrats in each of those states went on to win their Senate races. Ms. Murray clobbered Ms. Smiley by nearly 15 points.
(snip)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/31/us/politics/polling-election-2022-red-wave.html
By Jim Rutenberg, Ken Bensinger and Steve Eder
Dec. 31, 2022
Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat, had consistently won re-election by healthy margins in her three decades representing Washington State. This year seemed no different: By midsummer, polls showed her cruising to victory over a Republican newcomer, Tiffany Smiley, by as much as 20 percentage points.
So when a survey in late September by the Republican-leaning Trafalgar Group showed Ms. Murray clinging to a lead of just two points, it seemed like an aberration. But in October, two more Republican-leaning polls put Ms. Murray barely ahead, and a third said the race was a dead heat.
(snip)
Ms. Murray’s own polling showed her with a comfortable lead, and a nonprofit regional news site, using an established local pollster, had her up by 13. Unwilling to take chances, however, she went on the defensive, scuttling her practice of lavishing some of her war chest — she amassed $20 million — on more vulnerable Democratic candidates elsewhere. Instead, she reaped financial help from the party’s national Senate committee and supportive super PACs — resources that would, as a result, be unavailable to other Democrats.
A similar sequence of events played out in battlegrounds nationwide. Surveys showing strength for Republicans, often from the same partisan pollsters, set Democratic klaxons blaring in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Colorado. Coupled with the political factors already favoring Republicans — including inflation and President Biden’s unpopularity — the skewed polls helped feed what quickly became an inescapable political narrative: A Republican wave election was about to hit the country with hurricane force. Democrats in each of those states went on to win their Senate races. Ms. Murray clobbered Ms. Smiley by nearly 15 points.
(snip)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/31/us/politics/polling-election-2022-red-wave.html
When you have "aggregators" like 538 and RCP actually including PARTISAN polls (in some cases, with results that are outliers) into their aggregates and then those aggregate sites argue for allowing them, resulting in polling "averages" that are now "off", and then the pundits run with that, this literally DOES skew their narratives about "the state of the race". And that results in misallocation of funds towards certain races because of that where in reality such shouldn't have needed to happen.
Democrats have had pollsters like PPP, but nowhere near the number that the GOP has created and pushed into the "mainstream" aggregator world.
I still post the bullshit that they did with Fetterman and having Oz basically ahead and "winning" in 2022 by the "horse race" 0.5% -
The ACTUALS were Fetterman WINNING by 4% -
Polls don't vote, PEOPLE vote.
I don't know what the polls predicted for a bunch of state house races.
It's not often pollsters actually poll specific state house seats.
It's not often pollsters actually poll specific state house seats.
But there are local news, college/university, and private outlets that DO poll states for a variety of races in order to assess, in their own limited way, the state of affairs regarding which party might CONTROL a part of the governance of the state - whether the legislature, governor, or even the state judiciary (if those positions are elected). WI is one where the state Supreme Court flipped from (R)-majority to (D)-majority, which was "hoped for", but still considered "a surprise".
What I know is that the Democrats' retaking the Pennsylvania House came down to a district they won by just 53 votes.
That response doesn't address the unlikely OUTCOME of a legislative flip here in PA based on all the narratives generated from "the polls". And it happened in other states as well.
Here in PA, this was the type of "analysis" that was done ahead of the 2022 election - https://www.wesa.fm/politics-government/2022-10-31/how-redistricting-could-alter-control-of-the-pa-legislature-and-other-changes-to-watch-nov-8
What makes the difference? TURNOUT and VOTES. NOT "POLLS".
Again: you're proving my point. These are largely competitive, close contests.
Everything we've seen since 2020 indicates a close race. Even if you believe polling isn't correct: most every election you cite has been close.
2020 was close.
2022 was close.
2024 is very likely to be close as well.
Everything we've seen since 2020 indicates a close race. Even if you believe polling isn't correct: most every election you cite has been close.
2020 was close.
2022 was close.
2024 is very likely to be close as well.
Define "close".
Is it "53 votes"? Is it "0.5%"? Is it "1%"? Is it "3%"? Is it "4%"? Is it "7%"? Is it anything outside of an aggregate poll "margin of error"?
You can't because it is a variable that can be used, abused and misused by those who spread propaganda.
ETA and as another example of a "narrative" - per this from last year (2023) - https://abcnews.go.com/538/democrats-winning-big-special-elections/story?id=103315703
I.e., when you see terms like "outperforming" or "overperforming" used in an "analysis", and it happens over and over and over based on the ACTUAL election results, whether for "special elections" or even the abortion "ballot initiatives", it is indicative of the FAILURE of "polls" to "predict an outcome".
a "9 - 10 point race" 3 weeks before the Nov. 2022 election became a 14 - 15 point ACTUAL - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-josh-shapiro-leads-doug-mastriano-pennsylvania-governors-race/
I already outlined multiple times, including a vote difference that you refuse to reply to. So, let me help you out again:
I don't see any evidence that 2024 will be any different. So, yes, I expect Biden to win the electoral college by a similar overall vote margin in key battle ground states that he saw in 2020.
You're a smart person. If you aren't clear on how those elections turned out, you can Google the results.
I already outlined multiple times, including a vote difference that you refuse to reply to. So, let me help you out again:
I don't see any evidence that 2024 will be any different. So, yes, I expect Biden to win the electoral college by a similar overall vote margin in key battle ground states that he saw in 2020.
I already outlined multiple times, including a vote difference that you refuse to reply to. So, let me help you out again:
I don't see any evidence that 2024 will be any different. So, yes, I expect Biden to win the electoral college by a similar overall vote margin in key battle ground states that he saw in 2020.
But why did you leave out the vote tallies of PA and MI, where together, they represented 234,000 votes.
The "narrative" that keeps getting perpetuated that you also perpetuate above, cherry-picks 3 states and ignores 2 of the biggest ones that flipped to red in 2016 but then flipped back to blue in a huge way in 2020, where a loss of those 2 and the 1 vote that was picked up from ME in 2020, could have ALSO sunk it. I.e., another path to "3 states" impacting the Electoral College.
2020
2016
You can't argue "they are the same" when you ignore the completely different dynamics.
