Interesting article from YouGov |

Tom McVey

(tmcvey)

United States
SF Bay Area
California

Article from YouGov skeptical that the swings in the polls actually mean much for changes in voting intentions.

tl;dr summary: Radical swings in the polls seen post-conventions, and post-major news events (the Bush video, the Comey/Chaffetz letter) are more a function of the change in the *willingness* of supporters of a particular candidate to participate in the poll - and that this makes the polls "noisier" than a true measure of voting intention. As YouGov uses a persistent panel for their surveys, they're able to gauge this in a way most other pollsters are not, including weighting given previous voting records. And would put them in the camp of Sam Wang, who says the race is stable, than Nate Silver, who sees the race as more volatile.

I do have one issue with this - wouldn't willingness to participate in a poll be a decent proxy for likelihood to vote?

Last edited Wed Nov 2, 2016 3:48 pm (Total Number of Edits: 2)
Posted Wed Nov 2, 2016 3:21 pm
- QuickReply
- QuickQuote
- Reply
- Quote

[+] Dice rolls

J

(jmilum)

United States
Lexington
Kentucky

tmcvey wrote:

I do have one issue with this - wouldn't willingness to participate in a poll be a decent proxy for likelihood to vote?

It probably would if the election were held at that time, but the effect is probably transitory and in the long term, previous voting is likely a better indicator.

[+] Dice rolls

Andy Leighton

(andyl)

England
Peterborough
Unspecified

tmcvey wrote:

I do have one issue with this - wouldn't willingness to participate in a poll be a decent proxy for likelihood to vote?

I think they are saying that some people who would vote A anyway are more willing to take part and answer truthfully in a poll if A has had a great debate. Also that they may not be willing to take part or answer truthfully if there has been a major news event which has made their candidate look stupid.

[+] Dice rolls

Eddy Richards

(Ed_the_Red)

Scotland
Allanton
Duns

andyl wrote:

. Also that they may not be willing to take part or answer truthfully if there has been a major news event which has made their candidate look stupid.

Which implies that Trump's vote will be ginormously larger than the polls were showing, as there has been one of those more or less every day. Get ready for the apocalypse!

[+] Dice rolls

Mutton Chops

(mutton_chops)

United Kingdom

Ed_the_Red wrote:

andyl wrote:

. Also that they may not be willing to take part or answer truthfully if there has been a major news event which has made their candidate look stupid.

Which implies that Trump's vote will be ginormously larger ...

I believe you meant "Yuuuuge!".

[+] Dice rolls

J.D. Hall

(remorseless1)

United States
Oklahoma

Koldfoot wrote:

Polls have become the news. For decades now election coverage has shifted from issues and the candidates, to sound bytes and polls.

Polls should not be headlines and the center of reporting. Polls should supplement real reporting.

Now get off met lawn!

Fuckin' A, Bubba, Fuckin' A!

[+] Dice rolls

Robert Wesley

(GROGnads)

Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington

andyl wrote:

. Also that they may not be willing to take part or answer truthfully if there has been a major news event which has made their candidate look stupid.

Ed_the_Red wrote:

Which implies that Trump's vote will be ginormously larger than the polls were showing, as there has been one of those more or less every day. Get ready for the apocalypse!

~"There's always TIME too STOP and procure LUBRICANT!" goo

[+] Dice rolls

Tom McVey

(tmcvey)

United States
SF Bay Area
California

Koldfoot wrote:

Polls have become the news. For decades now election coverage has shifted from issues and the candidates, to sound bytes and polls.

Polls should not be headlines and the center of reporting. Polls should supplement real reporting.

Coverage of policy issues has been f**king abysmal this election.

[+] Dice rolls

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Interesting article from YouGov