|
I have no idea what is going to happen with the polls and election turnout, but I think that extrapolating peak pandemic voting behavior from 2020 out to now isn’t going to be helpful. 94% of people haven’t bothered to get the latest booster, nearly nobody is masking, bars and restaurants are packed. the overwhelming majority of dems are living life as though the pandemic is over
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Wrong Nate. We need to pass a law that says if your name is Nate you are not allowed to become a pollster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:Then again, the polls in August for Kansas and Alaska were also off (heavily biased towards Republicans.) So maybe there is “quiet progressive” demographic on the rise?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
Oracle posted:How many young people (under 35) do you know who ever pick up a call from a number they don't know? Like, ever? I know of absolutely none. I hate doing it but I do sometimes have to because I'm expecting a call from the doctor's office or a contractor or something whose number I might not recognize and I will still hang up immediately if there's that telltale pause of a robocaller transferring to a live person because that signals to me that I'm about to be sold something or scammed. Even if it says 'political call' I won't pick up because chances are its just some campaign or the DCCC asking for money and I've given enough thank you. But yeah, I did phonebanking for WisDems this year and I rarely ever got anybody young. … then again, they also might not be voting either so lol lmao. livin’ on a prayer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
I think that there's a lot of pattern invention going on with non-response rates of polls. Were Republicans actually shy about telling people they'd vote for Trump while also yelling Trump before hanging up? Will this finally be the year of the unpollable youth showing up to vote? Perhaps, pollsters are just bad at properly readjusting their turnout models in hyper polarized times when "voted the last 2 times" isn't good enough anymore. This is then exacerbated as fewer and fewer people answer the pollsters' calls, which degrades the value of the sample they do have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
Oracle posted:We need to pass a law that says if your name is Nate you are not allowed to become a pollster. The problem, people don't answer polls honestly or don't even pick up the phone. The plan? Become best friends with hundreds of thousands of voters to find out how they are going to truly vote and if they are This is Nathan for You.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
We did a paid ID this year and the refusal rate was 10% which is pretty high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I think that there's a lot of pattern invention going on with non-response rates of polls. Were Republicans actually shy about telling people they'd vote for Trump while also yelling Trump before hanging up? Will this finally be the year of the unpollable youth showing up to vote? Voting models improves my confidence in the Dems, not the opposite. Automata 10 Pack fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:Then again, the polls in August for Kansas and Alaska were also off (heavily biased towards Republicans.) So maybe there is “quiet progressive” demographic on the rise? Pollsters aren't really confident about anything these days. That article (and the thinking behind it) looks, to me, like a classic example of pollster bad behavior. It says that we should be more confident in the polls for two reasons, but both reasons are dubious at best. First of all, it says that we should be more confident in the polls because the polls are showing more like what we'd expect them to show. But that's also a telltale sign of herding: a tendency among pollsters to start pushing their results toward the average or toward pundits' predictions in the last few days before the election, because they know the last poll before the election is what everyone's going to judge their accuracy on and they're terrified of being an outlier. The other reason it gives for having confidence in the polls that there's a bunch of lovely GOP outlets issuing bullshit polls with crappy methodologies, dragging the poll averages well to the right of where the reliable polls are. He says this is a good thing regardless of the quality of these polls, because it completely eliminates any chance of the polls overestimating Dem performance, and apparently that's all he's really concerned about. Which is complete nonsense! Even if you think there's a problem with the real polls, blatantly partisan randos putting out complete garbage isn't actually going to improve things. At best, he's fallen into the trap of being so focused on avoiding embarrassing misses that he isn't actually concerned about getting things right anymore. At worst, he's developed pundit brain and decided his gut knows better than the polls do, and it usually gets very ugly when the stats nerd starts thinking they're a political analyst.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tctect/status/1589258443730190336?s=46&t=XNerC8Wj74qWLysiecIxWQ (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:If we’re ignoring polls all together and going off of vibes then my confidence is in a Republican sweep. A 2014 style shellacking. Voter’s top two interests are the economy and crime and the Democrats have absolutely 💯 lost the messaging on that. Abortion is bad and impacts many, but is “politicized” while inflation has impacted everyone and will motivate even former “nonpolitical nonvoters” to go out and cast a ballot. Record number Republican votes. I'd say if you're going to disregard polls altogether, the only actual things you have to go on are current turnout and your interpretation of trends. The biggest problem for Democrats is that because they've refused to actually do anything about voting issues, they've got to have a good night in order to just not lose. Meanwhile Republicans can win, or almost win, while losing by a couple points. Current turnout seems to make 2010 or 2014 repeats unlikely. However, it also looks like there's more of a divergence of voting rates than usual. Florida is currently voting at sub 2018 levels, for instance. So its entirely possible we're looking at Democrats picking up a few Senate seats while getting kicked in the balls in the House.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Pollsters aren't really confident about anything these days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
Turnout is up from 2018, so I have a difficult time seeing how that doesn't favor Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:Okay, this isn’t really an against your argument or an attempt to deflate it (because it’s good) but just a request: are there articles or, hell, twitter threads about these new invalid GOP polls that are more than just dismissals based on intuition? I see this narrative a lot without anything backing up the argument. Which could just be Democrats not needing to make the argument anymore because they know the evidence already. The very article you posted talked about it at some length: quote:Second: Some of the movement in polling averages is because of changes in the composition of the pollsters. You can see here why I was dismissive of the argument right off the bat. To me, the last paragraph of that reads "sure, these polls are badly flawed in extremely obvious ways, but maybe regular polls might have issues too, so there's no point in bothering evaluating quality at all". Which is pretty nonsensical, imo. For more detail, let's look at that Saturday newsletter he mentioned: quote:...
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
For what its worth, Bill Kristol is going pretty far out on a limb for the Dems. https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1589262327207309312?t=cciImH-LhZokmJ39ibEQbw&s=19
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
Rigel posted:For what its worth, Bill Kristol is going pretty far out on a limb for the Dems. Uh oh, Kristol is one of the people near the top of my "see what they say/think and then assume the opposite is true" list
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
I'd be curious to see what effect all the bible thumping the GOP has been doing recently, especially in regards to abortion, will have on right leaning libertarian types that aren't religious. This is purely anecdotal but the ones I know from when I grew up in Florida find all the bible thumping extremely off putting and I'd be surprised if they vote at all. They might not like Democrats but they also don't like having religion forced on them either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
Rigel posted:For what its worth, Bill Kristol is going pretty far out on a limb for the Dems. Isn't he always wrong about everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
Mustang posted:I'd be curious to see what effect all the bible thumping the GOP has been doing recently, especially in regards to abortion, will have on right leaning libertarian types that aren't religious. This is purely anecdotal but the ones I know from when I grew up in Florida find all the bible thumping extremely off putting and I'd be surprised if they vote at all. They might not like Democrats but they also don't like having religion forced on them either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Turnout is up from 2018, so I have a difficult time seeing how that doesn't favor Democrats. The Dems had their entire base show up in 2018. If turnout is even HIGHER now, that implies the GOP base is also showing up. We may be in for another high turnout election for both parties, but indies are breaking GOP compared to 2018.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
Mustang posted:I'd be curious to see what effect all the bible thumping the GOP has been doing recently, especially in regards to abortion, will have on right leaning libertarian types that aren't religious. This is purely anecdotal but the ones I know from when I grew up in Florida find all the bible thumping extremely off putting and I'd be surprised if they vote at all. They might not like Democrats but they also don't like having religion forced on them either. They like to punish women for having the power to reject them, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Isn't he always wrong about everything. Well hey, Larry Summers said for 20 years "massive inflation is just around the corner!" and was wrong over and over and over and over again until he was right. Maybe it's time for Bill Kristol to be right about something!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Isn't he always wrong about everything. His list of political predictions for the next couple of years is pretty shoddy. https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1589244983122329601 I'm not sure which one is more unbelievable: Congressional Dems being more productiven without holding the House or picking up a couple more seats, or Buttigieg having a real shot at the presidency anytime this decade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:His list of political predictions for the next couple of years is pretty shoddy. He has to know he's full of poo poo, right? #2 alone is so laughable (let alone #5) that I don't know how anyone without a diet of primarily lead paint could write it with a straight face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:53
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Turnout is up from 2018, so I have a difficult time seeing how that doesn't favor Democrats. Turnout is way up in some parts of the country, down in others. We'll have to wait until election day to see if this holds, or if the trend of expanded early voting is cannibalizing the election day totals. Like, Florida is a shitload of votes on its own, and Florida is voting at sub 2018 levels. Angry_Ed posted:Isn't he always wrong about everything. Perhaps the funniest thing about Bill Kristol is that he was always wrong about everything. Then when Trump came around he accidentally was right for a change, and was immediately excommunicated from the Republican Party for it. Still, the man is pathologically wrong about everything outside of Trump is bad, so it's always worrying when he says the sky is blue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The very article you posted talked about it at some length: So who are these “others”? What can we say about these “others”? Automata 10 Pack fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
Rigel posted:For what its worth, Bill Kristol is going pretty far out on a limb for the Dems. drat republicans likely to take the presidency THIS year given Bill’s track record lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
Rigel posted:For what its worth, Bill Kristol is going pretty far out on a limb for the Dems. Political Jim Cramer? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:His list of political predictions for the next couple of years is pretty shoddy. Well that would be pretty far from "the best midterm performance by a party in the White House in two decades", so he probably doesn't actually believe it and was trolling with that earlier post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:While the article mentions the “flood of fake rando Republican pollsters” narrative I mentioned. In the newsletter they allude to, the pollsters they named (Trafalgar Group, Rasmussen Reports, Insider Advantage) are not only established but some the most accurate pollsters for 2020. That depends on how you define "accurate". All three of those pollsters were among the worst at actually predicting who would win a state, with Trafalgar performing no better than a coin flip and InsiderAdvantage faring even worse than that. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1375095262516027392 So why did Nate crown them accurate? They tended to predict narrow GOP wins, only for the Dems to narrowly win. Part of that is herding - it's not uncommon for them to show a big GOP lead in the weeks leading up to the election, then suddenly cut it to a narrow lead at the last minute. Only the last poll counts for accuracy evaluations by the likes of 538, and so it's fine to predict big R wins for most of the cycle and then bring it down to a low-confidence result on the final day. And that leads into the main issue: confidence. If the race's final result is D+2, who's more accurate? The poll that predicted R+1, or the poll that predicted D+5? According to Nate Silver, they're equally accurate - they were both three points away from the final result. But one of them confidently predicted the result of the race, while the other gave a result that put both sides within the margin of error of victory. Who's really more accurate? The pollster who called 93% of the states correctly but significantly overestimated the margins of victory, or the pollster that called 47% of the states correctly but guessed margins of victory so low that they were basically just rating the races toss-ups? Though it's also important to note that even then, their reputation for accuracy is largely confined just to presidential elections. Trafalgar had some high-profile misses in 2018 and in special elections, and Rasmussen was branded the least accurate pollster of 2018 after completely missing any hint of the blue wave.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 21:31
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Well that would be pretty far from "the best midterm performance by a party in the White House in two decades", so he probably doesn't actually believe it and was trolling with that earlier post. I mean it sounds like he's not including 2002, so we're talking 2018 which just means Retain Senate + <36 seat deficit in the House... sure that'd be the kind of better-than-feared result to call on twitter. Gerund fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That depends on how you define "accurate". All three of those pollsters were among the worst at actually predicting who would win a state, with Trafalgar performing no better than a coin flip and InsiderAdvantage faring even worse than that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:His list of political predictions for the next couple of years is pretty shoddy. I don't think he's saying that Ds will be more productive, just that it will be good "politically" because the next elections followed Democrats taking back the House and/or Senate. Obama was pretty productive until 2011, as was Biden possibly until the end of the year. I wouldn't underestimate how palatable Buttigieg would be in the general election. He's young and sharp and pretty likeable. I never thought that Biden would beat Bernie but here we are. Edit: Also, I would bet that the inflation situation and Covid would be near nonexistent come end of 2024 and the market would have already broken through old ATHs. Mortgage rates will be down. The war in Ukraine will prove to be insurmountable for Russia, resulting in a withdrawal. Climate change will be causing havoc in the US, something that Democrats are trusted on. In that kind of situation, a "steady" continuation of what people will see as successful Democratic policy could be enough for a seemingly nonradical like Buttigieg to win. small butter fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
small butter posted:I wouldn't underestimate how palatable Buttigieg would be in the general election. He's young and sharp and pretty likeable. I never thought that Biden would beat Bernie but here we are. Buttigieg was doing slightly better than the tag team of Harris and Klobuchar. People don't actually like them, however corporations and other big money donors love them which is why they're still being floated. There's a reason that most of the arguments for a Buttigieg/Harris ticket involve Biden pulling out after the convention and the DNC creating it's own ticket without voter input. Also, lets not pretend that Biden totally beat Bernie through hard work and superior campaigning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 22:15
|
|
|
small butter posted:I don't think he's saying that Ds will be more productive, just that it will be good "politically" because the next elections followed Democrats taking back the House and/or Senate. Obama was pretty productive until 2011, as was Biden possibly until the end of the year. Imo from a dumb vibes pov I want J. B. Pritzker to run and win 2024. If we’re reentering serfdom, at least give me the least bad billionaire. Gerund posted:I mean it sounds like he's not including 2002, so we're talking 2018 which just means Retain Senate + <36 seat deficit in the House... sure that'd be the kind of better-than-feared result to call on twitter. Automata 10 Pack fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
small butter posted:I don't think he's saying that Ds will be more productive, just that it will be good "politically" because the next elections followed Democrats taking back the House and/or Senate. Obama was pretty productive until 2011, as was Biden possibly until the end of the year. It’s also. a gop house will be an endless circus of awful circus dumb shitshows of the chuds infighting and racing to the bottom and probably 20 impeachment attempts for Biden and probably purity votes and excommunication that push away the moderates and suburbs again and etc. Automata 10 Pack posted:Feel good post, thanks. 👍
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That depends on how you define "accurate". All three of those pollsters were among the worst at actually predicting who would win a state, with Trafalgar performing no better than a coin flip and InsiderAdvantage faring even worse than that. This is all correct but one extra element - I genuinely suspect some of these GOP pollsters are just making up numbers/cross tabs to get results that seem accurate, and also herding at the very end of the election to bolster their ratings. Trafalgar et al. had some absolutely wild polls all election only to show the "race narrowing" at the last second to have a plausible but still slightly GOP leaning result. Go look at their penultimate polls compared to their final ones - their averages all got crazy closer to the average polls right around a week before election day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
smackfu posted:https://twitter.com/tctect/status/1589258443730190336?s=46&t=XNerC8Wj74qWLysiecIxWQ FWIW this was a silly probe. The tweet didn't actually need context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 01:29
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:Yeah, we are losing the house no matter what, the question is can the bleeding be staunched. I think it can. Why do you think dems are sure to lose the house? The polls have drifted back towards the Democrats in the past week. Their EV turnout has apparently been stronger than 2018. There's a new contingent of pissed off, mostly young Democrats that want to break the GOP over their knees, which pollsters might not be picking up on. I think the Dems narrowly keep the house and add a seat in the senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Why do you think dems are sure to lose the house? The polls have drifted back towards the Democrats in the past week. Their EV turnout has apparently been stronger than 2018. There's a new contingent of pissed off, mostly young Democrats that want to break the GOP over their knees, which pollsters might not be picking up on. I think the Dems narrowly keep the house and add a seat in the senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 02:05
|
|