Why I’m skeptical of some puzzling polls

  • protist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Polls out this far from the election are essentially meaningless, so there’s also that

    • mozz@mbin.grits.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      And also, this was news to me, but apparently they’re for the most part still doing polls by calling people on the phone from a random number. I cannot possibly imagine that that’s true but that’s what the article says.

      They’re like micro optimizing for individual per cents, and then doing something which will eliminate 80% of Gen Z from their polling, and when you ask them about it they apparently say “¯_(ツ)_/¯ IDK we do phone”

      • kescusay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yep. For the last half a dozen elections, the polls have overestimated Republican strength, and underestimated Democratic strength. I think it’s in large part because the pollsters still haven’t managed to figure out how to poll people who simply will not answer unknown numbers.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Polls were really bad in 2016, but the seem to have largely corrected that. 2018 polling just before the election was accurate. 2020 was projected as close and it was, there were a few problem states, but nothing like 2016. 2022 was again very accurate.

          Polling around the presidential election or maybe just Trump is less accurate, but it’s been getting better since 2016.

          • kescusay@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Not quite. Polls underestimated Democratic support in 2018, 2019’s special elections, 2021’s special elections, the 2022 midterms, and last year’s elections. It’s been remarkably consistent how far off they’ve been.

            Do I prefer that to the other way around, as happened in 2016? Sure. But they’ve clearly over-corrected, and are having significant trouble getting back on track due to the difficulty of polling young people.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Which is why you keep following them to spot trends.

      When I started following these states, it was roughly 50/50. Now it’s almost all Trump and the gains are increasing, not decreasing.

      Right now, Biden has a chance of winning Michigan and Wisconsin, best to know that NOW rather than Sept/Oct/Nov.

      • protist
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Are you a campaign manager or a pundit getting paid to talk about politics? There’s honestly no reason at all for the average person to care about polls this far out

        • Fondots@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          There are some circumstances you may want to make certain preparations based on the possibility that one candidate or the other may win, and polling trends can help you determine what sort of plans and preparation you should be making.

          One example that comes to my mind is that prior to Trump getting elected, my wife was concerned that a trump presidency could lead to Republicans killing Roe V Wade and/or making it more difficult to access birth control, and so she opted to get a longer-lasting IUD prior to the election.

          • protist
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Ok, but didn’t the polls have Clinton winning leading up to the 2016 election?

            • snooggums@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              4 months ago

              The popularity polls, yes. She also won the popular vote by a significant margin.

              Trump won some battleground states by slim margins, mostly because Clinton did a terrible job of deciding where to campaign. Also a lot of sketchy voter suppression tactics made those battleground state wins questionable.

            • Fondots@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              They did, but she was doing her own analysis of the polls and had some concerns that made her think the race was going to be much closer than the polls suggested.

              You shouldn’t just blindly take the polls at face value, you also need to be thinking critically about them, theres a lot of ways to misrepresent data, a lot of issues that can crop up due to how the polls are conducted, etc. and when she took all of that into account, the polls suggested to her that it was going to be a much closer race than most of the media coverage was saying.

              She was still a little surprised that Trump actually won, but it wasn’t totally out of left field.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          There’s plenty of reason to care. It’s a sign Biden’s campaign is not yet effective, and Trump is. While most incumbents don’t really step up the campaigning until closer to the election, it gives an idea of the ground they need to make up.

          It’s also worth considering the Trump has been and continues to be great at campaigning. You can not like the guy, but his ability to get large crowds excited at multiple events per day can’t be ignored.

          There’s likely going to be something that really swings the election still, but hoping a random event helps your party is poor strategy. In Trump’s case it’s unlikely a poor comment is going to hurt him, like the deplorables or binders full of women comments. Hoping for a conviction to change things is an OK backup plan, not plan A.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          There absolutely is. You follow them continually to establish a trendline.

          Since I’ve been following these key states, I’ve watched them go 50/50 to virtually all Trump, to all Trump by a wider margin.

          Following polls over time lets you see the momentum.

          By the time the election comes around, there should be no surprises.

          • protist
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            4 months ago

            If your goal here is to not be surprised, I hate to tell you polls have margins of error that mean surprises are inevitable. Also, many polls are not infrequently found to be outside their SE when the actual results come in.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Again, you can reduce the margin of error by plotting the trend line.

              It’s the same science for watching climate change:

              If one candidate is trending up towards election day and another is trending down you can tell which way it’s going to swing.