tons of polls were way off
How did the pundits get this election so wrong?
- Thread starter NoleATL
- Start date
tons of polls were way off
Come on, you found one outlier poll from FOX, in an article that said the race was neck and neck. Of course you can find a handful of outliers in every election. It doesn’t mean that polls, on balance, are garbage. Most polls are pretty darn accurate.
You asked why “the pundits” were off. I’m telling you it’s because they ignored the polls.
tons of polls were way off
I see nothing there that shows any race in which “the polls” were way off.
I did not ask anyone anything Art, I posted my thoughts and when questioned provided an example. If you feel the reason polls are off is because of something other than poorly resourced data I am happy to have the discussion.
Well, yes, in your OP you asked why the pundits were so far off.
But “The Polls” were not off, only the pundits were way off. There are always a few outliers, but “the polls” were not off. The pundits, however, were looking at all of the headwinds the Democrats faced, and the historical patterns, as well as listening to the propaganda from right wing media.
If they had only looked at the polls they would not have anticipated a Red Wave.
That is the answer to your original question.
I am not the OP, art, so again I didn't ask anything.
That said0IMO the data driving the polls and the 538-like sites is flawed because of the collection model.
Ah, I didn’t catch that there were two handles so close. Either way, the polls were t really off. The pundits were off because they were listening to the noise and not the data.
This is simple, evertything Trump touches turns to shit.
So you failed to review relevant data prior to making a statement, for shame Art? Just f with you sir
The polling data is flawed, IMO, because data collection has changed so drastically.
I did review the data. I asked some time ago for any instances in which “the polls” were off. Nobody has provided that - just an outlier from FOX. If the claim is that “some polls suck” I’d go along with it. But the polls are, on balance, pretty accurate.
JFC art, it was a joke because you could not tell the difference between the handsome devil @NoleATL and the other guy who has a similar username.
Alot of the big name pollsters of the past and the broadcast networks have really cut back or stopped polling. The right leaning polls, like Trafalgar, who got closer when Trump overperformed last election, suddenly spit polls out left and right and were taken seriously in 2022. 538 had Trafalgar as an A poll. Kind of the modern day version of Rasmussen 20 years ago. People seeing partisan polls over and over begin to think maybe they're on to something, but no.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,065
- 190,287
- 113
The point is, the vast majority of 2022 midterm polls were well within the margin of error. Polling is not and has never been intended to predict exact outcomes: it’s role is to capture a snapshot in time of voter sentiment, helping observers gauge momentum and general voter sentiment. Contrary to what some say, it remains very good at that. It is the people evaluating the data that f——d up in 2022.
It’s classic election denialism. Like these folks; imagine being upset that your ballot ended up in the bottom of a canyon instead of being counted by an election official. Americans are so entitled.
YouTube
www.youtube.com
There are articles that discuss polling this year and how the "new" pollsters have skewed the averages and that data collection is not transparent
Such as This
And This
and from your Post article,
It’s important to recognize that I’m cheating a bit here. FiveThirtyEight is assiduous about how it uses and assesses polling. Individual polls were often wrong, occasionally laughably. This is one reason that averaging polls yields better results in the first place: It eliminates much of the peril involved in cherry-picking.
If the discussion is about polls being within the margin of error, ok, I will agree without doing a deep dive into the numbers, and will also agree that some polls are valuable in providing a snapshot, but that information is not what was being discussed.
The OP was about how pundits got it so wrong and pundits being wrong could certainly be due to using the results of inaccurate polls. When pollsters are not transparent with their data and are angling for an outcome of their poll, that data is not reliable. Unfortunately, there are many people who use that information to confirm their bias.
Who would answer a call from a random number and then talk about their politics to a total stranger? Republicans.
What's wrong with the pollsters is that they never asked me (not that I would have answered).
I've said all along that dems would retain the senate and Rs would take the house. That's still in play.
I'm all for gridlock, bring it on. Forces better policy.
I've said all along that dems would retain the senate and Rs would take the house. That's still in play.
I'm all for gridlock, bring it on. Forces better policy.
Not sure but if a couple nuts do MSNBC will be there with a famer so they can discuss it 24/7 to fill air time.
honest to god 24/7 news and social media is destroying a lot of peoples ability to live a life.
honest to god 24/7 news and social media is destroying a lot of peoples ability to live a life.
"RealClearPolitics had Kari Lake winning by over 3 points because they included junk polls that gave the false impression Kari Lake was winning. Please stop using RealClearPolitics as a credible source of information; it's not."
Similar threads
