$20.00
$5.00
$15.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
45 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

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

Subject: So let's talk about the Polls rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I think this discussion might do us some good. A lot of explaining and theorizing to be had.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
97% of scientists agree polling is settled science.

What is there to discuss?
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
97% of scientists agree polling is settled science.

What is there to discuss?


More than that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Aubert
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddy Richards
Scotland
Allanton
Duns
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
97% of scientists agree polling is settled science.

What is there to discuss?


I think you'll find that this isn't, in fact, true. Or perhaps you have a source you could point to?

Polling (like economics) is not a science, at best it's an art that uses some statistical techniques. In the past this has worked reasonably well, however, clearly in recent times (UK general election, Brexit, US election) it hasn't - which suggests that the underlying methodology and assumptions are not really at all solid. Unlike in physics, for example, there is no underlying theory that can be tested; when you add to this that the data are extremely suspect (unlike elementary particles, people lie).

I hope that one outcome of this election is that people stop paying quite so much attention to polls!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Every person I know that was a Trump supporter never really spoke about it. The polls can't adjust for lying and in this election these people could not openly say they were voting for Trump.

I called this months ago here on RSP that Hillary would need to be up 5% in any state that she was in, in order to account for this.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Sandy Springs
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
Every person I know that was a Trump supporter never really spoke about it. The polls can't adjust for lying and in this election these people could not openly say they were voting for Trump.

I called this months ago here on RSP that Hillary would need to be up 5% in any state that she was in, in order to account for this.



If anyone admitted they were Trump supporter they were called a racist and a fascist. So people stayed in the closet with their support.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rico mcflico
United States
Mill Valley
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
97% of scientists agree polling is settled science.

What is there to discuss?

We could discuss this article: Koldfoot's Hero Nate Silver

Quote:
Even at the end of a presidential campaign, polls don’t perfectly predict the final margin in the election. Sometimes the final polls are quite accurate. An average of national polls in the week before the 2008 election had Barack Obama winning by 7.6 percentage points. He won by 7.3 points. Sometimes, however, the polls miss by more. Four years ago, an average of survey results the week before the election had Obama winning by 1.2 percentage points. He actually beat Mitt Romney by 3.9 points.

If that 2.7-point error doesn’t sound like very much to you, well, it’s very close to what Donald Trump needs to overtake Hillary Clinton in the popular vote. She leads by 3.3 points in our polls-only forecast.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
I thought this was a thread about strippers and their equipment.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
One factor is selective quoting of polls. Did anyone actually see:

IBD/TIPP Tracking: Trump +2

LA Times/USC Tracking: Trump +3

?

Beyond that, the quicker, cheaper, easy method is to more heavily poll larger urban centres, which tend to result in polls more biased towards the Democrats.



4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Basically they were nearly 100% dead wrong.

There are a couple of reasons for that, I think. In part they vastly underestimated the impact of people either not having a land line, or refusing to answer an unknown number. I probably had a hundred polls call here and only answered one; as it happened they were pro-Trump and I told them I'd just dropped off my ballot for Trump. They were quite happy.

In part they didn't catch the "embarrassment" that their own side engendered in people answering. Lots of people believed the lies and inaccurate info being slung around the media about Trump, or were worried it might be true, so when they answered the poll they either said they were undecided or that they were voting for Hillary, even if they really voted for Trump when the time came. They didn't want to be embarrassed by the pollster and made fun of, so they lied. The left has only themselves to blame there; if they didn't automatically call everybody who disagreed with them a sexist or a racist or a bigot then these types of polls would probably be more accurate.

In part too I think many Independents, some Democrats, even some Republicans didn't actually make the decision until the very last minute. The pollsters wouldn't have caught those.

Either way, HECK of an election.



Ferret
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
Every person I know that was a Trump supporter never really spoke about it. The polls can't adjust for lying and in this election these people could not openly say they were voting for Trump.

I called this months ago here on RSP that Hillary would need to be up 5% in any state that she was in, in order to account for this.



What repercussion could there possibly be for telling a pollster who you plan to vote for? Polling isn't done in the "open". It's done in the privacy of your own home.

If there was, in fact, a reluctance of Trump supporters to tell pollsters their true intentions it had nothing to do with a fear of "repercussions". It would have more to do with embarrassment or shame that they would be willing to vote for him.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Another factor is motivation. It's one thing to phone someone and ask who they support. Maybe out of 100 people 52 say Clinton and 48 say Trump (so Clinton +4), but if 40 Trump supporters actually vote and only 39 Clinton supporters do, then Trump wins.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Lost in the conversation is not how wrong they were, but how all over the map they were. They overestimated Clinton in many places, underestimated her in others (the Southwest), and hit some states pretty dead-on. The national polls had her at about a +3/+4 and she'll finish at about a +0.5 and that's a fairly normal polling error.

People keep touting that LA Times poll, saying "They got it right!" Uh no, no they didn't. That poll was one of the most-wrong, especially in that it did not even predict the winner of the popular vote correctly, which the polls that had her up DID do, albeit a couple of percentage points off.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
Lost in the conversation is not how wrong they were, but how all over the map they were. They overestimated Clinton in many places, underestimated her in others (the Southwest), and hit some states pretty dead-on. The national polls had her at about a +3/+4 and she'll finish at about a +0.5 and that's a fairly normal polling error.

People keep touting that LA Times poll, saying "They got it right!" Uh no, no they didn't. That poll was one of the most-wrong, especially in that it did not even predict the winner of the popular vote correctly, which the polls that had her up DID do, albeit a couple of percentage points off.


Well, the latest figures I've seen have Clinton at 47.7 and Trump at 47.5 of the popular vote. So that's actually +0.2 percent of the popular vote. My point wasn't that the polls showing Trump with a slim lead were "right" and the others "wrong". The point was that polls showing Trump with any lead tended to not be shown by the media. When all of the polls that you see show Clinton with a lead it's easier to start to think that she in fact has that lead. When you add in a couple polls that show Trump with a bit of a lead, it becomes less clear. In fact the "correct" answer was much closer to a tie than any of the polls showed. Mathematically a poll showing +2 for Trump was closer than a poll showing +3 or +4 for Clinton.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kirk
United States
Commerce Twp.
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that there were a lot of people that didn't like either but disliked her more. Last minute vote against her rather than a vote FOR Trump. Many people likely entered the booth frustrated and undecided.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
deadkenny wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
Lost in the conversation is not how wrong they were, but how all over the map they were. They overestimated Clinton in many places, underestimated her in others (the Southwest), and hit some states pretty dead-on. The national polls had her at about a +3/+4 and she'll finish at about a +0.5 and that's a fairly normal polling error.

People keep touting that LA Times poll, saying "They got it right!" Uh no, no they didn't. That poll was one of the most-wrong, especially in that it did not even predict the winner of the popular vote correctly, which the polls that had her up DID do, albeit a couple of percentage points off.


Well, the latest figures I've seen have Clinton at 47.7 and Trump at 47.5 of the popular vote. So that's actually +0.2 percent of the popular vote. My point wasn't that the polls showing Trump with a slim lead were "right" and the others "wrong". The point was that polls showing Trump with any lead tended to not be shown by the media. When all of the polls that you see show Clinton with a lead it's easier to start to think that she in fact has that lead. When you add in a couple polls that show Trump with a bit of a lead, it becomes less clear. In fact the "correct" answer was much closer to a tie than any of the polls showed. Mathematically a poll show +2 for Trump was closer than a poll showing +3 or +4 for Clinton.


What sites were you looking at? I saw polls that had Trump ahead, but the AVERAGE was +3 Clinton, which was clearly closer to the truth than +3 Trump.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
North Dakota
flag msg tools
I'm not your lover. I'm not your friend.
badge
I am something you will never comprehend.
mbmbmbmbmb
In a way, the media created its own problem. First, they unleashed a never-ending salvo of insults at anyone who dared support Trump, causing those people to pretty much shut up about their support.

Then they asked poll questions to the people they had already bullied into silence.

Kind of hard to get accurate results from that.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
To shampoo,

Oh fer fucks sake.

Now YOU questioned the polls?

You were right there the whole time cautioning us not to get overconfident because all the polls were within the margin of error?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
To shampoo,

Oh fer fucks sake.

Now YOU questioned the polls?

You were right there the whole time cautioning us not to get overconfident because all the polls were within the margin of error?



No? When did I claim that?

I'm just talking about the actual results vs. the poll results. Yes the polls were wrong, but the truth is much more complex than "they underestimated Trump" (some did, some underestimated Clinton), or "the polls that showed Trump ahead nationally were actually the correct ones" (they weren't, Clinton looks to win the national vote, albeit by a razor thin margin).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
deadkenny wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
Lost in the conversation is not how wrong they were, but how all over the map they were. They overestimated Clinton in many places, underestimated her in others (the Southwest), and hit some states pretty dead-on. The national polls had her at about a +3/+4 and she'll finish at about a +0.5 and that's a fairly normal polling error.

People keep touting that LA Times poll, saying "They got it right!" Uh no, no they didn't. That poll was one of the most-wrong, especially in that it did not even predict the winner of the popular vote correctly, which the polls that had her up DID do, albeit a couple of percentage points off.


Well, the latest figures I've seen have Clinton at 47.7 and Trump at 47.5 of the popular vote. So that's actually +0.2 percent of the popular vote. My point wasn't that the polls showing Trump with a slim lead were "right" and the others "wrong". The point was that polls showing Trump with any lead tended to not be shown by the media. When all of the polls that you see show Clinton with a lead it's easier to start to think that she in fact has that lead. When you add in a couple polls that show Trump with a bit of a lead, it becomes less clear. In fact the "correct" answer was much closer to a tie than any of the polls showed. Mathematically a poll show +2 for Trump was closer than a poll showing +3 or +4 for Clinton.


What sites were you looking at? I saw polls that had Trump ahead, but the AVERAGE was +3 Clinton, which was clearly closer to the truth than +3 Trump.


The polls listed in the OP, which clearly average more than Clinton +3 since they are +3, +4, +6. I mentioned two polls +2 Trump and +3 Trump. So you take the lowest + Clinton poll vs. the highest + Trump poll and declare the + Clinton poll to be "closer" based on the actual result of +0.2? shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
What repercussion could there possibly be for telling a pollster who you plan to vote for? Polling isn't done in the "open". It's done in the privacy of your own home.

If there was, in fact, a reluctance of Trump supporters to tell pollsters their true intentions it had nothing to do with a fear of "repercussions". It would have more to do with embarrassment or shame that they would be willing to vote for him.


You cant be serious ? If you are , I have to assume you vote Democrat and have never had to fear any repercussions for it.

Unless its a labor union pollster and you belong to the union, then you might not be so quick to answer honestly.

Remember when a Pizza shop got attacked for answering an impromptu poll from a reporter about gay marriage ? Fuck no, I would not tell anyone claiming to be a pollster that I was planning to vote for Trump.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
deadkenny wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
deadkenny wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
Lost in the conversation is not how wrong they were, but how all over the map they were. They overestimated Clinton in many places, underestimated her in others (the Southwest), and hit some states pretty dead-on. The national polls had her at about a +3/+4 and she'll finish at about a +0.5 and that's a fairly normal polling error.

People keep touting that LA Times poll, saying "They got it right!" Uh no, no they didn't. That poll was one of the most-wrong, especially in that it did not even predict the winner of the popular vote correctly, which the polls that had her up DID do, albeit a couple of percentage points off.


Well, the latest figures I've seen have Clinton at 47.7 and Trump at 47.5 of the popular vote. So that's actually +0.2 percent of the popular vote. My point wasn't that the polls showing Trump with a slim lead were "right" and the others "wrong". The point was that polls showing Trump with any lead tended to not be shown by the media. When all of the polls that you see show Clinton with a lead it's easier to start to think that she in fact has that lead. When you add in a couple polls that show Trump with a bit of a lead, it becomes less clear. In fact the "correct" answer was much closer to a tie than any of the polls showed. Mathematically a poll show +2 for Trump was closer than a poll showing +3 or +4 for Clinton.


What sites were you looking at? I saw polls that had Trump ahead, but the AVERAGE was +3 Clinton, which was clearly closer to the truth than +3 Trump.


The polls listed in the OP, which clearly average more than Clinton +3 since they are +3, +4, +6. I mentioned two polls +2 Trump and +3 Trump. So you take the lowest + Clinton poll vs. the highest + Trump poll and declare the + Clinton poll to be "closer" based on the actual result of +0.2? shake


I was talking about all of the polls, not just the ones in the OP. The average was about +3 Clinton, which was within the margin of error, and predicted the winner of the popular vote unlike and +Trump poll even if the Trump poll was closer in the overall percentage. And any +2 or +3 Clinton poll DID in fact end up closer to the truth than any +3 Trump poll.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
Shampoo4you wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
To shampoo,

Oh fer fucks sake.

Now YOU questioned the polls?

You were right there the whole time cautioning us not to get overconfident because all the polls were within the margin of error?



No? When did I claim that?

I'm just talking about the actual results vs. the poll results. Yes the polls were wrong, but the truth is much more complex than "they underestimated Trump" (some did, some underestimated Clinton), or "the polls that showed Trump ahead nationally were actually the correct ones" (they weren't, Clinton looks to win the national vote, albeit by a razor thin margin).


There is not a single pollster anywhere who is unaware that the president is not elected by popular vote. They were predicting a win somewhere between huge and embarrassing. Yes, I heard "embarrassing loss" clips on the radio today when they were discussing the polls and their failure.

You want to take the polls everyone knows are meaningless but fun to talk about, and ignore the serious, state polls that they really try to get right and analyze the shit out of.

Pollsters predicted an embarrassing loss based upon high quality, individual state polls.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
To shampoo,

Oh fer fucks sake.

Now YOU questioned the polls?

You were right there the whole time cautioning us not to get overconfident because all the polls were within the margin of error?



No? When did I claim that?

I'm just talking about the actual results vs. the poll results. Yes the polls were wrong, but the truth is much more complex than "they underestimated Trump" (some did, some underestimated Clinton), or "the polls that showed Trump ahead nationally were actually the correct ones" (they weren't, Clinton looks to win the national vote, albeit by a razor thin margin).


There is not a single pollster anywhere who is unaware that the president is not elected by popular vote. They were predicting a win somewhere between huge and embarrassing. Yes, I heard "embarrassing loss" clips on the radio today when they were discussing the polls and their failure.

You want to take the polls everyone knows are meaningless but fun to talk about, and ignore the serious, state polls that they really try to get right and analyze the shit out of.

Pollsters predicted an embarrassing loss based upon high quality, individual state polls.


You're confusing POLLSTERS with PROJECTORS.

We can talk about how the projectors all got it wrong (or most of them, anyway). But that's not what this thread is about. Right now I'm discussing specific poll results, those of the national popular vote. We're all well aware that doesn't matter as far as who gets elected, but it's what we're talking about.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.