The polls aren’t “rigged”. Jesus. This is such a dumb narrative.
You know that when something is a 90% probability, that means that 10% of the time it’s not going to happen, right? The last, best poll gave Trump a 29% chance of winning, and he did win, because he outperformed in key swing states, even though he lost the popular vote by a wide margin. Then he lost both the popular vote in 2020–by a wide margin–and the key swing states.
The way in which most polls are conducted is often biased towards older voters as they’re often phone calls. How many young people are answering phonecalls from unknown numbers? Also the sources pollsters get their numbers from are also often biased as well.
The way in which most polls are conducted is often biased towards older voters as they’re often phone calls.
People that follow this have discussed this at length. There are a number of polls that are done on-line (YouGov being one of the ones I know of off the top of my head), and those tend to be biased as well. The people conducting the polls understand the biases inherent in their polling, and reputable polling companies will do their best to correct for biases. Metapolling will aggregate and weight polls so that they can get a better understanding of how people both feel, and how they’re likely to act.
Again: this isn’t a “rigged” system. “Rigging” a system would be setting it up intentionally to function–or fail–in a specific way. Inherent biases that you’re trying to remove to the best of your ability isn’t “rigging” a poll.
And here’s a report from journalists that doesn’t profit from polling
Nate Cohn was, I believe, a pollster before he became a journalist. He’s a frequent contributor to fivethirtyeight (I think I was listening to him just a few minutes ago talking about Trump’s speech at the RNC). Him saying that they don’t know how issues polling connects to actual behavior–versus ““horse race” polling”–doesn’t say that the polls themselves are the problem. Rather, the problem is connecting those polls on issues with how people will actually vote. (I’ll have to find the rest of that newsletter, since it cuts off just as he’s getting really interesting.)
Fundamentally, you’re asking about issues polling, rather than which candidate a given person is likely
My apologies, I wasn’t paying attention to user names, and I assumed you were the person that made the top level comment about polls being rigged. That’s entirely my fault.
I like the sentiment if not the wording here. The only poll that matters is the one conducted on 5 November. All others are just tools the campaigns use to motivate voters and direct campaigners. If you want your guy or gal to win, you need to act as if you’re 2 points down in the polls and vote accordingly.
It’s also worth remembering that literally any poll conducted is only displaying data based on people who voluntarily respond to polls.
Even when Biden was still running, the results were always going to be flawed based on the simple fact that far more Trump voters are the sort of rabid, loud people with nothing better to do than to let someone know what they think about politics, vs Biden voters who were motivated in large part by nothing more significant than “I just don’t want trump”.
The first person is going to be happy to spend 15 minutes on the phone with anyone willing to listen to their political thoughts. The second person is hanging up.
Can we agree on these bullet-points? If so I’ll adjust and use going forward.
Individual polls from reputable pollsters can be a barometer for a snapshot in time, but they may also be outliers.
An aggregation of many reputable polls during the same period of time is a more accurate snapshot in time.
Long-term trends can be very useful and give more extrapolative trajectories (e.g., the long-term downward decline of Biden’s aggregate national approval ratings and his steady decline in swing-states leading to a change in strategy and his stepping down).
Still, such polls may not accurately represent fringe groups (though many pollsters compensate in a variety of ways).
We shouldn’t just blindly follow the polls (blind-leading-the-blind mentality)—e.g., if the case is never made for something, then it never gets popular. Bernie Sanders heavily advocated for Universal Healthcare and we of course have seen an adjustment in polling instead of simply reacting to its initial unpopularity—but we also shouldn’t ignore trends.
Polls don’t dictate what people do in the moment, or say or do later; instead, they’re a reflection of where they are at in the moment.
Every advocate should have the mindset of trying to change polls to their advantage; this by active campaigning (canvassing, phone-banking, fundraising, etc.), change of messaging, etc.
Context should always be considered when discussing polling. (e.g., in isolation, Biden’s debate could be considered, “just one bad night, and we can swing polls back,” without considering the long-term concern that was already present over his immutable vice — age/cognitive-decline.)
No matter what the polls say, winning, tying, or losing… Always and I mean always Register and VOTE. Not just this, but drag 3-5 other people to register and vote with you.
They’re registering Democrat and polling Democrat, so there are nice, cushy feelings when it comes time to vote. We don’t need to vote; she’s got this in the bag. They’re getting on the lists to be called, I wouldn’t be shocked if the polling organizations here infiltrated.
Clinton’s polls looked fine until Trump won by a significant margin. That was no happenstance. Maybe she’s polling well, maybe it’s Maybelline, doesn’t matter one bit. Expect there’s foul play and make sure as hell you vote.
Clinton’s polls looked fine until Comrade Comey gave us all his buttery November surprise, and then the polls tightened significantly over the span of a week.
I vividly remember Clinton leading in polls too. The polls are rigged, Don’t worry about them just a vote.
The polls aren’t “rigged”. Jesus. This is such a dumb narrative.
You know that when something is a 90% probability, that means that 10% of the time it’s not going to happen, right? The last, best poll gave Trump a 29% chance of winning, and he did win, because he outperformed in key swing states, even though he lost the popular vote by a wide margin. Then he lost both the popular vote in 2020–by a wide margin–and the key swing states.
The way in which most polls are conducted is often biased towards older voters as they’re often phone calls. How many young people are answering phonecalls from unknown numbers? Also the sources pollsters get their numbers from are also often biased as well.
Here’s a report from Pew Research who make their money from polls, so this is the rosiest of takes on it https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/21/does-public-opinion-polling-about-issues-still-work/
Here’s a take from the Times and what they’re trying to do about it. I’ve pasted the archive.is link https://archive.is/sQ5Vi
And here’s a report from journalists that doesn’t profit from polling https://theweek.com/politics/2024-election-polls-accuracy
People that follow this have discussed this at length. There are a number of polls that are done on-line (YouGov being one of the ones I know of off the top of my head), and those tend to be biased as well. The people conducting the polls understand the biases inherent in their polling, and reputable polling companies will do their best to correct for biases. Metapolling will aggregate and weight polls so that they can get a better understanding of how people both feel, and how they’re likely to act.
Again: this isn’t a “rigged” system. “Rigging” a system would be setting it up intentionally to function–or fail–in a specific way. Inherent biases that you’re trying to remove to the best of your ability isn’t “rigging” a poll.
Nate Cohn was, I believe, a pollster before he became a journalist. He’s a frequent contributor to fivethirtyeight (I think I was listening to him just a few minutes ago talking about Trump’s speech at the RNC). Him saying that they don’t know how issues polling connects to actual behavior–versus ““horse race” polling”–doesn’t say that the polls themselves are the problem. Rather, the problem is connecting those polls on issues with how people will actually vote. (I’ll have to find the rest of that newsletter, since it cuts off just as he’s getting really interesting.)
Fundamentally, you’re asking about issues polling, rather than which candidate a given person is likely
I said nothing about a rigged system. Just that polls have an inherent bias.
My apologies, I wasn’t paying attention to user names, and I assumed you were the person that made the top level comment about polls being rigged. That’s entirely my fault.
Rigged or not, I think “Don’t worry about them just vote.” is excellent advice.
I like the sentiment if not the wording here. The only poll that matters is the one conducted on 5 November. All others are just tools the campaigns use to motivate voters and direct campaigners. If you want your guy or gal to win, you need to act as if you’re 2 points down in the polls and vote accordingly.
Well said.
It’s also worth remembering that literally any poll conducted is only displaying data based on people who voluntarily respond to polls.
Even when Biden was still running, the results were always going to be flawed based on the simple fact that far more Trump voters are the sort of rabid, loud people with nothing better to do than to let someone know what they think about politics, vs Biden voters who were motivated in large part by nothing more significant than “I just don’t want trump”.
The first person is going to be happy to spend 15 minutes on the phone with anyone willing to listen to their political thoughts. The second person is hanging up.
Can we agree on these bullet-points? If so I’ll adjust and use going forward.
Well she was first in the polls and in the popular vote wasn’t she?
They’re registering Democrat and polling Democrat, so there are nice, cushy feelings when it comes time to vote. We don’t need to vote; she’s got this in the bag. They’re getting on the lists to be called, I wouldn’t be shocked if the polling organizations here infiltrated.
Clinton’s polls looked fine until Trump won by a significant margin. That was no happenstance. Maybe she’s polling well, maybe it’s Maybelline, doesn’t matter one bit. Expect there’s foul play and make sure as hell you vote.
Clinton’s polls looked fine until Comrade Comey gave us all his buttery November surprise, and then the polls tightened significantly over the span of a week.