Political Polls and Party Strategy 2021: Political Polling Somehow Still a Thing

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Political Polls and Party Strategy 2021: Political Polling Somehow Still a Thing

«‹›82 »

Murgos: Oct 21, 2010

Those polls just really starkly show that it's basically white evangelicals vs everyone else.

# ? May 27, 2021 19:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 14:14

Rea: Apr 5, 2011; Komi-san won.

On another note, a California recall-related note specifically...

https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/1397561463896694786

I honestly think the recall's just going to start to poll worse and worse as the year goes on.

# ? May 27, 2021 19:48

7c Nickel: Apr 27, 2008

I don't think Biden's numbers are locked in, but there's a certain surface tension that means it'll take something really bad/good to move them.

# ? May 28, 2021 00:11

Murgos: Oct 21, 2010

7c Nickel posted:

I don't think Biden's numbers are locked in, but there's a certain surface tension that means it'll take something really bad/good to move them.

Trump hovered around 43 most of the time with a few swings to 47 or 39. Biden is essentially the exact inverse of that with a point or two of people who hate everyone.

I wouldn�t read much into number other than that at this point.

# ? May 28, 2021 03:04

FCKGW: May 21, 2006

Rea posted:

On another note, a California recall-related note specifically...

https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/1397561463896694786

I honestly think the recall's just going to start to poll worse and worse as the year goes on.

Gray Davis was polling at 20% when the last recall kicked off. This will be a cakewalk for Newsom as long as no big name celebrities try and make a run for it.

We have recall petition drives in CA every year (there was a constant one for Jerry Brown that would pop up every summer), they just happened to strike at the right moment to get the Trump faithful to sign up and probably peel of a few dems who didn�t approve of Newsoms handling of the coronavirus response. They barely limped over the 11% petition threshold and all the wind was already out of their sails the moment the recall was certified.

# ? May 29, 2021 15:30

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Hey look, a Number!

https://twitter.com/DanBoydNM/status/1397975199987822593

NM-01 is Deb Haaland's old district, it went 60-37 for Biden last year (a fairly safe Dem seat, which is why Biden felt safe to choose her). There are still three days to vote, and absentees to count, but if you're worried about Democratic enthusiasm flagging now that they won and Trump is out of there and Biden is having trouble fulfilling all of his campaign promises (and the Republicans are getting all fired up like in 2010 and 1994) then this is a good sign.

# ? May 29, 2021 17:40

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Numbers? Numbers.

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1398703274061086721

# ? May 30, 2021 01:33

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

FMguru posted:

Numbers? Numbers.

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1398703274061086721

Sounds like blue texas to me.

# ? May 30, 2021 01:51

the holy poopacy: May 16, 2009; hey! check this out; Fun Shoe

FMguru posted:

Numbers? Numbers.

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1398703274061086721

Is he actually polling better among them than he was before the election, or is this just basically post-election polls continuing to overestimate his support (at least relative to voting results) the same way pre-election polls did?

# ? May 30, 2021 04:19

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

The media is finally starting to report on phase 3 of the Republicans' party plan to take control of the US's electoral machinery, replacing principled election officials with unprincipled Trump partisans:

quote:

Republicans who embraced Trump�s big lie run to become election officials
Countrywide campaigns for secretaries of state underscore new Republican focus to take control of election administration

Republicans who have embraced baseless claims about the 2020 election being stolen are now running to serve as the chief elections officials in several states, a move that could give them significant power over election processes.

The campaigns, first detailed by Politico last week, underscore a new focus to take control of election administration. Secretaries of state, who are elected to office in partisan contests that have long been overlooked, wield enormous power over election rules in their state, are responsible for overseeing election equipment, and are a key player in certifying � making official � election results.

Winning secretary of state offices across the country would give conspiracy theorists enormous power to wreak havoc in the 2024 presidential election, including potentially blocking candidates who win the most votes from taking office.

�This is an indication of wanting, basically, to have a man inside who can undermine,� said Sylvia Albert, the director of voting and elections at Common Cause, a government watchdog group. �Clearly these are not people who believe in the rule of law. And people who run our government need to follow the rule of law. So it is concerning that they are running.�

In Arizona, Mark Finchem, a Republican in the state house, is seeking the GOP�s nomination to be secretary of state, the top election official in Arizona. Finchem, who was at the US Capitol on 6 January, has repeatedly voiced support for the �Stop the Steal� movement, falsely claimed the election was stolen from Donald Trump, and backed efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. He is also a staunch supporter of an ongoing Republican effort to review 2.1m ballots cast in Arizona�s largest county, an exercise experts say is designed to try to undermine the election results.

Jody Hice, a Republican Georgia congressman who voted to try to block certification of the electoral college, is also running to serve as the top election official in his state and Trump has already endorsed him. He is trying to unseat Brad Raffensperger, an incumbent Republican, who drew Trump�s ire after refusing to �find� votes for him there.

In Nevada, Jim Marchant, a former Republican congressional candidate who alleged fraud and tried to overturn his loss last year is running to serve as secretary of state there. Kristina Karamo, a Republican who made baseless claims about fraud in Michigan, is also running to be the top elected official there.

Finchem, Hice, Marchant and Karamo all did not respond to interview requests.

Jena Griswold, Colorado�s top election official and the chair of the Democratic association of secretaries of state was blunt in her assessment of the four candidates. She said it was concerning many of them were running in swing states where there were attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

�People who spread lies about our elections to try to help their own political parties are not fit to protect elections,� she said in an interview. �They should not be elected to these offices.�

Michigan�s secretary of state, Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said she was �deeply worried� about the prospect of people who spread lies about elections becoming top state election officials.

�We�re seeing now an escalation of the tactics and a proliferation of the tactics that we�ve experienced over the past year to undermine democracy,� she said. �And they�ve now taken on this focus on who has the authority over our elections in 2022 and 2024 really. And using the time now to change the rules of the game and the people who oversee it.�

The role of a secretary of state can vary in each state, but in many places they wield enormous unilateral authority to create voting regulations and interpret election rules. That power was on display in 2020, when secretaries across the country made key decisions on access to drop boxes and sending out mail-in ballot applications, among other measures. After election day, Republican and Democratic secretaries of state in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada stood as bulwarks against Trump�s efforts to overturn the results, both by dispelling accusations of fraud and refusing to stop the certification of elections.

Benson, Michigan�s top election official, noted that secretaries of state were often one of the most trusted sources of information around election processes.

In March, Benson�s office released a detailed report dispelling claims of abnormalities in Antrim county, which had become a major focus of those who believed the election was stolen. She also beat back claims there was wrongdoing in Detroit, where Trump used baseless accusations of fraud to try to stop certification of the result, and released a statement in March noting more than 250 audits had confirmed the results of the election.

The Nevada secretary of state, Barbara Cegavske, a Republican, investigated GOP claims of fraud and publicly said in April there was no evidence for the claim � a move that earned her a censure from her own party. Raffensperger was one of the most prominent voices to defy Trump last year and say there was no fraud in his state and championed audits and hand recounts that backed him up.

�You have inherent in the position of bully pulpit to amplify truth, or in the cases of bad actors, perhaps amplify misinformation,� she said. �That�s another pernicious aspect of individuals who would seek to occupy this office as the state�s chief election officer who are not committed to telling the truth � they are instead committed to spreading the big lie or other misinformation that create chaos.�

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/30/republicans-trump-election-fight-to-vote

This is not a great article on the subject since it does no work to see whether or not these candidates are competitive. But at least it's finally paying attention to this aspect of the plan (plan is too strong a word for it since I don't think the people doing this have actually mapped it out, but right this second I can't think of a better word to describe this sort of inevitable process based on the current foundations of the Republican Party's ideological beliefs) to steal upcoming elections. I forget if it was in this thread or in a PM to someone, but I detailed this a little while ago:

1. Never admit that you lost the 2020 election and convince your voters that it was stolen.
2. Use that to pass voter suppression laws based on the lack of confidence you've fostered in a large chunk of the electorate.
3. Under the new restrictive voting laws, get election officials elected who will steal elections if necessary to win.
4. Steal elections if necessary to win.

Because this is all happening at local and state levels where the Republicans have significant political advantages, I worry that local Democrats won't be able to comprehensively defeat this process. And even if there are a few Democratic wins in the face of these measures, based on massive turnout or grassroots efforts, this process is taking place right now in virtually every state Republicans control legislatively, which includes very narrow swing states like Arizona and Georgia. I can very easily imagine the combination of voter suppression and partisan election officials stealing narrow elections in those states in 2024, even if the voter dynamics of the state don't change and under free and fair elections they would elect Democrats again.

Frankly, the only way I see right now for Democrats to defeat this is federal voting reform like HR1, and I don't know if that's actually going to pass because doing so requires convincing both Manchin and Sinema to kill the filibuster, and it means doing it as soon as possible so that they can have the new rules in place well before the 2022 midterm cycle begins. There have been some indications that people like Chuck Schumer understand the danger the Democrats are in based on this Republican effort to lay the foundation for stealing future elections, but it would be far from the first time the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot by failing to adequately understand just how dedicated the Republicans are to destroying them.

# ? May 30, 2021 14:28

Bird in a Blender: Nov 17, 2005; It's amazing what they can do with computers these days.

Legit asking, what are the ways Secretaries of State can steal the election after the vote is in? I know of ways to purge voter rolls, close precincts, and generally make it as hard as possible to vote. Are there ways they can change the vote that won�t immediately get challenged in court? Like if a trumper was in charge in Georgia, what could they have done to move it to Trump?

Do people have a way to essentially undo a stolen election?

# ? May 30, 2021 15:22

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Bird in a Blender posted:

Legit asking, what are the ways Secretaries of State can steal the election after the vote is in? I know of ways to purge voter rolls, close precincts, and generally make it as hard as possible to vote. Are there ways they can change the vote that won�t immediately get challenged in court? Like if a trumper was in charge in Georgia, what could they have done to move it to Trump?

Do people have a way to essentially undo a stolen election?

Texas is aiming to set the stage for answering that question as we speak!
https://mobile.twitter.com/marceelias/status/1398997456856227840

Example: Instead of showing that Biden won by 1,000, there were 1,021 fraudulent ballots, and Biden won at least 1,011 of them, the change makes it so that if the # of fraudulent ballots > margin of victory, the election can be voided.

It also changes the threshold for a fradulent ballot to be the preponderance of the evidence--"more likely than not".

# ? May 30, 2021 15:37

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Bird in a Blender posted:

Legit asking, what are the ways Secretaries of State can steal the election after the vote is in? I know of ways to purge voter rolls, close precincts, and generally make it as hard as possible to vote. Are there ways they can change the vote that won�t immediately get challenged in court? Like if a trumper was in charge in Georgia, what could they have done to move it to Trump?

Do people have a way to essentially undo a stolen election?

The SoS's job varies from state to state, but can sometimes be quite important, especially because in many states they have the responsibility to certify the final results of elections. The basis for Bush v. Gore, for instance, was that Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris stopped the recount at a time when Bush was ahead in the official count (without including votes from ongoing manual recounts), certified the Bush electors, and therefore declared that Bush had won, and ultimately her decision to do so was upheld by the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure anyone knows what would happen if a Secretary of State declares "I've decided that these 100,000 votes from a Democratic city were invalid and so I haven't included them in the final count, I'm certifying the GOP electors, the GOP won by 20,000 votes" but I think we might find out in a few years.

# ? May 30, 2021 15:38

Grouchio: Aug 31, 2014

vyelkin posted:

Because this is all happening at local and state levels where the Republicans have significant political advantages, I worry that local Democrats won't be able to comprehensively defeat this process. And even if there are a few Democratic wins in the face of these measures, based on massive turnout or grassroots efforts, this process is taking place right now in virtually every state Republicans control legislatively, which includes very narrow swing states like Arizona and Georgia. I can very easily imagine the combination of voter suppression and partisan election officials stealing narrow elections in those states in 2024, even if the voter dynamics of the state don't change and under free and fair elections they would elect Democrats again.

Frankly, the only way I see right now for Democrats to defeat this is federal voting reform like HR1, and I don't know if that's actually going to pass because doing so requires convincing both Manchin and Sinema to kill the filibuster, and it means doing it as soon as possible so that they can have the new rules in place well before the 2022 midterm cycle begins. There have been some indications that people like Chuck Schumer understand the danger the Democrats are in based on this Republican effort to lay the foundation for stealing future elections, but it would be far from the first time the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot by failing to adequately understand just how dedicated the Republicans are to destroying them.

You make it sound like they'll win every last competition and that dems are powerless (outside HR1) to stop it.

# ? May 30, 2021 15:49

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Grouchio posted:

You make it sound like they'll win every last competition.

I don't think they'll win every last competition, but I worry that they'll win enough for it to make a difference, especially when you consider elections other than president. For example, if voter suppression and partisan election officials flipped Georgia red but didn't have an effect anywhere else it wouldn't be enough to make Biden lose but it would be enough to give the GOP control of the Senate, which would make an enormous difference to national politics.

# ? May 30, 2021 15:52

Murgos: Oct 21, 2010

Paracaidas posted:

Texas is aiming to set the stage for answering that question as we speak!
https://mobile.twitter.com/marceelias/status/1398997456856227840

Example: Instead of showing that Biden won by 1,000, there were 1,021 fraudulent ballots, and Biden won at least 1,011 of them, the change makes it so that if the # of fraudulent ballots > margin of victory, the election can be voided.

It also changes the threshold for a fradulent ballot to be the preponderance of the evidence--"more likely than not".

Honestly this reads to me like the Texas Rs are scared. If they were sure the state was R+10 they wouldn't be changing evidentiary rules, just tightening up the usual limited polling places and voter ID shenanigans and etc...

# ? May 30, 2021 19:48

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

vyelkin posted:

I'm not sure anyone knows what would happen if a Secretary of State declares "I've decided that these 100,000 votes from a Democratic city were invalid and so I haven't included them in the final count, I'm certifying the GOP electors, the GOP won by 20,000 votes" but I think we might find out in a few years.

Count on it

# ? May 31, 2021 01:24

Vorik: Mar 27, 2014

Grand opening:

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1399903371880980480?s=20

Grand closing:

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1399905029524492293?s=20

It will be interesting to see the margins on this and everything.

# ? Jun 2, 2021 02:49

Rea: Apr 5, 2011; Komi-san won.

Incredibly funny to see a complete blowout in NM-01, possibly exceeding Biden's +23 result there in November, in light of tweets like this from before the election happened.

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1390439001685889025

# ? Jun 2, 2021 03:35

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

Rea posted:

Incredibly funny to see a complete blowout in NM-01, possibly exceeding Biden's +23 result there in November, in light of tweets like this from before the election happened.

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1390439001685889025

Here's hoping he's still right that it's a bellwether/barometer/deadlight/cheese danish/predictomatic, given the actual results.

# ? Jun 2, 2021 05:51

paternity suitor: Aug 2, 2016

So did Wasserman lose it after the last election?

# ? Jun 2, 2021 12:23

Oracle: Oct 9, 2004

paternity suitor posted:

So did Wasserman lose it after the last election?

Name one person who didn't lose it after the last election.

# ? Jun 2, 2021 15:03

Rea: Apr 5, 2011; Komi-san won.

paternity suitor posted:

So did Wasserman lose it after the last election?

It's not just Wasserman, seemingly every mainline pundit got broken by 2020 and has spent the period after the election just spewing out very strange takes.

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

Here's hoping he's still right that it's a bellwether/barometer/deadlight/cheese danish/predictomatic, given the actual results.

I don't think this is a sure sign that the Dems are in good shape for 2022, but it is a good sign that they managed to keep their turnout higher than the GOP's in a special election.

# ? Jun 2, 2021 15:11

Shammypants: May 25, 2004; Let me tell you about true luxury.

paternity suitor posted:

So did Wasserman lose it after the last election?

Wassernan is losing it now

�Nevada is a litmus test, +15 would be a good sign for dems�

*dems crush the election*

�Things are looking grim for the Democrats in 2022�

# ? Jun 2, 2021 15:36

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Rea posted:

It's not just Wasserman, seemingly every mainline pundit got broken by 2020 and has spent the period after the election just spewing out very strange takes.

Wasserman's 2020 projections weren't that far off and historically speaking he's been a great pollster. Not saying he's perfect or doesn't have an attitude - he does not like Trump or the the Republican Party and isn't afraid to show it.

# ? Jun 2, 2021 15:48

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

I feel like there's a certain kind of liberal technocrat where 2016 made them forever paranoid and on edge.

# ? Jun 2, 2021 16:04

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Raenir Salazar posted:

I feel like there's a certain kind of liberal technocrat where 2016 made them forever paranoid and on edge.

Ddon't doxx me.

https://twitter.com/annalecta/status/1400093863113596931
Dems...actually learning to fight fire with fire?

# ? Jun 2, 2021 17:28

Murgos: Oct 21, 2010

Funny, republicans just call efforts to depress democrat turnout �legislation�.

I have to wonder at the motives of a comment that uses pejorative language about counter ads to depress engagement by democrats as something uncouth or that wasn�t pioneered by republicans 40 years ago.

# ? Jun 2, 2021 17:54

paternity suitor: Aug 2, 2016

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

Wasserman's 2020 projections weren't that far off and historically speaking he's been a great pollster. Not saying he's perfect or doesn't have an attitude - he does not like Trump or the the Republican Party and isn't afraid to show it.

Were they? I remember him being very cryptic about internal polling he had and alluding to Texas going blue.

# ? Jun 2, 2021 23:51

Rednik: Apr 10, 2005

paternity suitor posted:

Were they? I remember him being very cryptic about internal polling he had and alluding to Texas going blue.

Correct, he had seen a ton of internal and district level polls that had Trump down bigly. He also projected Dems could gain at least 10 more seats in the House. It really failed to pan out.

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1320896884068802561?s=20

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1320901747263549440?s=20

# ? Jun 3, 2021 00:10

Badger of Basra: Jul 26, 2007

Rednik posted:

Correct, he had seen a ton of internal and district level polls that had Trump down bigly. He also projected Dems could gain at least 10 more seats in the House. It really failed to pan out.

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1320896884068802561?s=20

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1320901747263549440?s=20

I mean, isn't this true for every pundit because they were all using bad polls that understated trump support?

# ? Jun 3, 2021 00:10

Rednik: Apr 10, 2005

Badger of Basra posted:

I mean, isn't this true for every pundit because they were all using bad polls that understated trump support?

Right, so take his commentary with a grain of salt, he�s capable of making the same mistakes other pundits do. Having said that, at least campaigns do share internal info with him, even if it�s wrong. �\_( ツ)_/�

# ? Jun 3, 2021 00:15

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Rednik posted:

Correct, he had seen a ton of internal and district level polls that had Trump down bigly. He also projected Dems could gain at least 10 more seats in the House. It really failed to pan out.

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1320896884068802561?s=20

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1320901747263549440?s=20

That was what the data showed but what was bizarre about the 2016 election was it broke previous assumed norms. No one in the entire goddamn world would have thought that a place like Michigan - part of the Democrat "Blue Wall" - would have finally fallen. I'd bet :20bux:

that the Republicans will not be using that same strategy used by Steve Bannon in 2024.

What I am trying to say here is that our original foundation of US Politics broke down but pollsters rarely report on these things because they're focused on quantitative information not qualitative data. Which is the crazy part because some crazy guy like Bannon was still smart enough to look past the numbers and feel that despite that the Country had fundamentally just enough that he could put such a completely different candidate like Trump in office.

Or got really lucky.

Rednik posted:

Right, so take his commentary with a grain of salt, he�s capable of making the same mistakes other pundits do. Having said that, at least campaigns do share internal info with him, even if it�s wrong. �\_( ツ)_/�

Agreed, but I would not say that Wasserman or other pollsters overreacted or were :airquote:

wrong

. Hell, Nate Silver had an excellent blog article published how Trump could very well win the election. Not that it was impossible but it was possible just unlikely.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 01:58

paternity suitor: Aug 2, 2016

This is not the thread that's going to argue that Nate Silver got it wrong because he gave Trump a ~35% chance of winning in 2016, but the claim that Wasserman's 2020 projections weren't that far off doesn't seem right to me. Wasserman had access to lots of non-public 2020 data that must have shown Republicans were in worse shape than even public data showed, and the public data did not look good for them. Wasserman seemed to be alluding to stuff like Democrats taking the Texas house. The data he had access to did not predict what actually happened. Cook political was upgrading districts to lean or likely Democrat right up until the last day, and they got a lot of them wrong.

This doesn't disparage his past work, but something seems off and if these guys want their jobs to exist they're going to have to figure it out.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 13:02

Chinese Gordon: Oct 22, 2008

The thing is, the polls in 2018 were reasonably accurate and the GA senate run-off polls were dead-on (although I do accept that 2020 GE polls of GA turned out to be accurate). It seems like Trump being on the ballot simply activates a type of low-propensity voter who is very difficult to poll/adjust for and when he's not there then accuracy reverts to normal. We'll have to see what happens going forward I guess, but I think calling the death of polling industry is slightly premature.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 13:30

Rea: Apr 5, 2011; Komi-san won.

Chinese Gordon posted:

The thing is, the polls in 2018 were reasonably accurate and the GA senate run-off polls were dead-on (although I do accept that 2020 GE polls of GA turned out to be accurate). It seems like Trump being on the ballot simply activates a type of low-propensity voter who is very difficult to poll/adjust for and when he's not there then accuracy reverts to normal. We'll have to see what happens going forward I guess, but I think calling the death of polling industry is slightly premature.

I don't have the link on hand, but there was a 2020 postmortem that said the 2020 polling miss was at least influenced by Dem voters being way too happy to be polled, in contrast with Trump (note: not necessarily GOP) voters who, for one reason or another, saw polling as a method to get them to admit that they liked Trump, in order for some deep state agency to have them hauled away or something.

It's those kinds of voters, the ones paranoid that polls are secretly a way to get them convicted of wrongthink, who, if 2018 is any indication, will have their turnout heavily depressed in 2022. Whether or not that "fixes" polling remains to be seen.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 15:03

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Rea posted:

I don't have the link on hand, but there was a 2020 postmortem that said the 2020 polling miss was at least influenced by Dem voters being way too happy to be polled, in contrast with Trump (note: not necessarily GOP) voters who, for one reason or another, saw polling as a method to get them to admit that they liked Trump, in order for some deep state agency to have them hauled away or something.

It's those kinds of voters, the ones paranoid that polls are secretly a way to get them convicted of wrongthink, who, if 2018 is any indication, will have their turnout heavily depressed in 2022. Whether or not that "fixes" polling remains to be seen.

I think this ultimately links back to the piece you're thinking about.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-did-republicans-outperform-the-polls-again-two-theories/

# ? Jun 3, 2021 15:20

BigFactory: Sep 17, 2002

Rea posted:

I don't have the link on hand, but there was a 2020 postmortem that said the 2020 polling miss was at least influenced by Dem voters being way too happy to be polled, in contrast with Trump (note: not necessarily GOP) voters who, for one reason or another, saw polling as a method to get them to admit that they liked Trump, in order for some deep state agency to have them hauled away or something.

It's those kinds of voters, the ones paranoid that polls are secretly a way to get them convicted of wrongthink, who, if 2018 is any indication, will have their turnout heavily depressed in 2022. Whether or not that "fixes" polling remains to be seen.

I�m way more convinced that Trump ended up getting votes from lots of unlikely voters, and mainstream pollsters ignored them. Even if they were polled, they would have been ignored because they didn�t fit the classic definition of likely voter.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 15:49

Killer robot: Sep 6, 2010; I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it!; Pillbug

Related to that, one thing I've been wondering about since the election. If I'm correct, in most districts Biden overperformed relative to Democratic House/Senate candidates, and a the same time there was an all-time low in split-ticket voting. Is that accurate, and if so has there been any useful data on how that actually worked? Were there a lot of people who came in voting only for President and leaving congress blank, or vice-versa?

# ? Jun 3, 2021 16:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 14:14

Morrow: Oct 31, 2010

BigFactory posted:

I�m way more convinced that Trump ended up getting votes from lots of unlikely voters, and mainstream pollsters ignored them. Even if they were polled, they would have been ignored because they didn�t fit the classic definition of likely voter.

If you look at polling from the past few months, you see Dems performing better with LV screens, which is something I haven't been expecting to see.

2022 is going to test whether typical turnout patterns have flipped: if Dems have secured support among high propensity voters then political strategy will need to be reworked.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 17:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Political Polls and Party Strategy 2021: Political Polling Somehow Still a Thing

«‹›82 »