ST Alpha - "Apropos of polls—they’re doing even worse than in 2016 so far this year as per 538 -- (link)" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 155

Apropos of polls—they’re doing even worse than in 2016 so far this year as per 538 -- (link)

Posted by JackDawson (aka dawson) May 19 '20, 06:55

(No message)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/weve-updated-our-pollster-ratings-ahead-of-the-2020-general-election/ (fivethirtyeight.com)

Responses:

I cut them slack with how weird the primaries were this year. And primary elections are different animals than "pick 1 out of 2" generals. -- nm - Reagen May 19, 06:57 19
- Oh well if you cut them some slack then no problem! -- nm - JackDawson May 19, 06:58 18
  - Don't be weird. -- nm - Reagen May 19, 06:59 17
    - It’s no answer to say you cut them slack because primaries were weird this year — that’s my point isn’t it? Polling has had worse and worse track - JackDawson May 19, 07:02 16
      - I'm saying that polls that have 3 to 6 viable options *by nature* have higher variability than ones that have 2 - Reagen May 19, 07:08
      - Is it your belief that we should never use polling as a data point? -- nm - David May 19, 07:04 14
        
        “Use ir as a data” point for what though? Settle political debates? Decide policy matters? Make ourselves feel better or worse about a potential elect - JackDawson May 19, 07:09 12
        
        Polls I'd like to see: Some of the more reliable "red" states like Nebraska and Arkansas - Reagen May 19, 07:48 5
        
        I’d love a high tide lifts all boats effect but I continue to believe at this moment in time that demographics will rule the day - JackDawson May 19, 08:02 4
        
        The biggest "remains to be seen" is just how much of 2016 was people being done with the Clintons. -- nm - Reagen May 19, 08:09 3
        
        Look at Michigan’s primaries. Polling in 2016 had Hillary up almost 20%. She lost. -- (link) - Tim May 19, 08:19 2
        
        And then in March, 300,000 more people voted in what was a 2 person race by then. Bernie got fewer votes. -- (link) - Tim May 19, 08:21 1
        
        This short circuited the brains of a lot of BernieBros, claiming the DNC rigged it. No, people just really fucking hated Hillary. - Tim May 19, 08:22
        
        I would say that the value of these polls is to point to areas/states of interest/attack (IOW, Dems should absolutely be putting $ into TX and GA) - Reagen May 19, 07:14 5
        
        To use stats in a wholesome way I’d argue for a demographic approach based on population trends and a combination of polls opinion surveys and long te - JackDawson May 19, 07:19 2
        
        I think a big error people made in interpretation last time was looking only at margins and not actual support numbers - Reagen May 19, 07:30
        
        we largely agree! -- nm - Reagen May 19, 07:25
        
        Again, without fully understanding how their accuracy is increasingly waning — 2016 you saw the same exact arguments about Texas that led to incorrect - JackDawson May 19, 07:17 1
        
        But if you look at the charts, the errors in the primary polls are wildly out of scope for the errors in the general - Reagen May 19, 07:24
        
        Certainly not -- nm - JackDawson May 19, 07:06

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.