Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Someone in 270.com raised some serious concerns over the accuracy of polls, especially in the Midwest. Here is his argument:
I don't trust polls because the surveys are taken by what has become a luxury item to the Midwest crowds: landlines. Rural voters, Q-anon voters, 18-21 Gen Z white male voters voting for the first time (A.K.A whites with no college education who inherit their politics from their parents) in small towns, unemployed crowds that can't afford the luxury to work at home, ultra busy small business owners that don't have 1 hour or so to answer endless questions from a stranger.
Colleges are closed to in person learning, which mean that many traditional places where democrats used to register "woke" young voters have been unavailable. The Lincoln Project retweeted an article about how Republicans have done more knock on door registration than democrats.
I don't eat my food with a small percentage% of excrement, I wouldn't eat polls with a small percentage of landline calls. But for all of you poll lovers look at the methodology, not the totals. Notice how Trump still carries around 40 of female support in all the key battleground states. And that he still carries around 50% of trust on the economy. Notice also Trafalgar polls: They have PA at +2% Biden (a tie), and FL at +2% Trump. That's because they are the only polls that seem to bother to show a sample of every disctrict which might mean they survey more rural voters than other pollsters. When we include the small town voters in the swing states things might change for Trump, right? In a tight Nov 3rd result all misrepresented groups in polls might come to remind us that polls can only predict the popular vote, but it's the electoral vote which counts. People DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE POLLS they're more out of touch with reality than in 2016, mostly because the Pandemic changed a lot of things.
What are your thoughts about this? Is this guy's argument about polling flaws sound enough that no one should pay too much attention on Biden's advantage right now?
Edited by Lazlo74 on Oct 19th 2020 at 8:56:31 AM
Scaled seekerTheir claim that polls are taken entirely through landlines is baseless, they are not
. Ergo, that is not a valid reason to dismiss the polls. And this isn't a hard thing to check, a single google search found that article. That makes me doubt that the rest of their argument is worth anything if they'd make such a trivially debunkable claim.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 19th 2020 at 8:55:27 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangHave a headline that could have come straight from The Onion:
Trump: Biden will "listen to the scientists" if elected
Apparently, they're really concerned about the precision of landline calls as a polling methodology. They urge people not to trust any poll with even a small percentage of landline calls, citing that landline phones are a luxury in the more rural areas of inner America and thus blurs the picture of polls. Not sure why they're so obsessed with discrediting this methodology.
Scaled seekerGene Simmons supported Trump in 2016, so that's not a surprise.
Regarding the quoted person above on the subject of polls. He appears to be cherry-picking evidence to support a belief rather than forming a belief based on the evidence. For example, his use of the Trafalgar polls. In 2016, the Trafalgar polls predicted Trump winning when other polls 'didn't'. The problem with the statement I've just made is that it not only ignores margins for error in other polls (and how probability works in general), it also conflates 'right prediction' with 'accurate polling'. The Trafalgar polls were only right about Trump winning Michigan and Pennsylvania because they massively overinflated Trump's performance; this overinflation led them to make the wrong call on certain other states (such as Nevada). So, they were not accurate polls or, at least, no more accurate than other polls. This is important because the Trafalgar polls do have a history of overinflating Trump's performance instead of reporting it accurately. So, they have methodology pros and cons, just like all the other polling companies.
Anyway, the biggest sign that you're not dealing with a good faith argument is someone telling you to dismiss polls... by paying attention to the one poll they approve of.
The best thing you can do is ignore random people on the Internet and instead listen to actual polling experts, who investigate and discuss polling methodologies, their pros and cons, and always remind people to look at aggregate trends over time not individual polls at a single point in time.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Oct 19th 2020 at 5:17:41 PM
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.Keep in mind that this person doesn't really favor either candidate. They're just saying that there's so much uncertainty leading to November that they believe a tie is pretty likely, but as for why they think Trafalgar's numbers is even an argument is anyone's guess.
Edited by Lazlo74 on Oct 19th 2020 at 9:15:37 AM
Scaled seeker![]()
His language does, however, indicate a strong ideological bias. That is not a neutrally-worded post. Polling experts not only know the subject but tend to be neutral reporters on how polling actually works. It's their job to be.
I wouldn't trust the post you cited precisely because of the ideological language used. It comes across as agenda-driven. I know nothing about the person who made that post, but it does not use trustworthy language. Poll watchers, such as 538, are already factoring in the Trafalgar polls to their analyses so this poster acting like polling experts haven't heard of the Trafalgar polling reminds me a lot of climate deniers acting like climate scientists have never heard of the planet having natural climate cycles that predate human activity.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Oct 19th 2020 at 5:24:23 PM
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Only name that I saw and thought, "that's unfortunate" was Kelsey Grammer.
Gene Simmons was also notable to me, but only because of Pokémon's Shout-Out to KISS which I can now only react with, "well, that's awkard now..."
My musician page