this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
982 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19135 readers
3133 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Do you remember 2016? Polls were saying Clinton would beat Trump by a significant margin.

If you're approaching this logically, you'd notice the trend on data being unreliable when Trump is on the ballot.

It's mostly attributed to inaccuracies in putting appropriate weight on likely voters vs. unlikely voters. People considered unlikely to vote by pollsters went out and voted, and they voted for Trump.

Measuring racism is also something that polling is bad at. People simply don't like to admit to being racist. Is this related to the reason why polling on Trump is inaccurate? We don't know because there's no data on this. Some things polling just fails at. Can't do much when people won't provide you with data that may be relevant.

We do know that Trump's primary numbers were lower than polling indicated it would be. Does that mean his numbers in the general will be lower than the polls we're seeing right now? We don't know.

What effect did January 6 have on people's decisions? Some people may not want to talk about it. But the week before election they'll probably be seeing political ads showing video about Jan. 6 and ask people straight up "do you want this to happen again?" which might people who might say Jan. 6 wasn't a big deal to privately think otherwise just stay home on Election Day. Polling is based on past trends, so isn't going to be good a predicting anything after unprecedented events.

After this election pollsters have a baseline for how likely people will vote for a candidate lost the previous election, tried to overthrow the government, was convicted of felonies, had an assassination attempt vs. a candidate that suddenly became prominent after the sitting President and presumptive nominee dropped out the race 3.5 months before the election. But right now there's not a lot of data there on this particular scenario.

The data is simply too unreliable to make any prediction on anything. So... vote!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
  1. Not all polls predicted that

  2. The polls pretty accurately predicted the popular vote, but Trump won in 6 highly contested swing states which at the time included Florida

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Even if that were the case, we would need some data to indicate which poll is accurate so then we'll know some number that won't actually determine who will end up as president.

Might be better to just ignore the simplistic number that doesn't indicate anything useful and instead focus on numbers indicating what issues people care about and try to convince as many people as possible to vote for Harris.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

That is completely off topic. The conversation here is about whether no polling is more trustworthy than some polling.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

A fair assessment as to why polling may be unreliable. However keep in mind this thread started as a rebuttal of blind anecdotal enthusiasm in a social media post. The story is 'someone posted on social media that Florida looks like Harris country', and they posted that polls suggest that post is too optimistic. Polls may be imperfect, but the methodology is far closer to informative than "I saw some Harris campaign signs around".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Good write up, but you're doing the thing you said not to do (approaching this logically).

My half baked opinion on this is that people are lying to pollsters. I think it's people of all political walks and for varied reasons, but it's the only thing that keeps making sense.

Even exit polls are getting it wrong. Like, that can only happen if people are lying.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Exit polls getting it wrong didn't mean people are lying. People may be refusing to answer in a way that skews one way or another.