I'm surprised that someone hasn't tried to study this before. Assuming this is true and we account for it in the polls, I wonder what the map starts to look like. 10% of independents also do not want to reveal their affiliations.
I don't see this as good news for Trump. I think what the tweet is saying is that more expected Trump voters refuse to say how they're going to vote than expected Biden voters. The normal criteria for grouping a voter is either their past voting record or their party affiliation. In either case you would expect a high % of such groups to vote the same way again. It's possible that all the 'shy' voters will vote as expected (in which case the polls are accurate and there's no issue). However, if the 'shy' voters are actually shy because they are not intending to vote as expected then Trump would lose more votes than Biden ...
I don't really know if it means anything, I try not to forecast elections or make predictions because I have been wrong almost every time. I didn't think Trump would win in 2016 for instance. If I were superstitious, I would think my belief in a politicians victory would curse them to fail.
Although from the explanation in the article it seems like they are shy in the sense that they generally fear some form of retaliation for having conservative views and don't necessarily believe those things are private, so I'd say they are probably Trump folks.
I hadn't read the article before, but looking at it the way the study is designed is curious:
- first they ask whether people would tell the truth about who they support
- then they ask them who they support and, based on those answers, determine that more Trump supporters have previously said they won't tell the truth about who they support
If people were telling the truth that they won't accurately say who they support, then presumably those who said they would support Trump are in fact Biden supporters! Rather than go down that rabbit hole any more though, I think I'll just quietly forget I ever read this.
Dismiss it out of hand if you like. This has been studied before, though not by directly asking folks, and shy voters were Trump ones. The American Association for Public Opinion Research examined the evidence for shy Trump voters and got a similar number- 11%. Roughly one in ten respondents voting differently than they say is apparently common, but usually they end up breaking evenly for both parties. In 2016 the shy voter was for Trump by unprecedented margins.
Any methodology that essentially asks people to admit if they are lying is bound to have issues, but I thought their approach was as good as you could get, and it is consistent with other findings.
I find it interesting to think about because I do this, and advise other people to as well. Not to lie to pollsters but to not reveal your political beliefs if you hold right wing views. No point in getting treated as less than human by people who hate you when it can easily be avoided by not talking about it.
I have little confidence in his victory, but far less confidence in a blowout of any sort.
"Source: Pew Research Center 2016
Election Callback Study. Based on 1,254
completed re-interviews with survey respondents who said that they voted in the general election. About nine-in-ten respondents (89 percent) answered consistently while 11 percent reported something different at the ballot box than what they told the pollster before the election. In the context of recent elections, that 11 percent is quite typical. Pew Research Center has been conducting callback studies since 2000. Over the past five cycles, 12 percent of respondents, on average, were inconsistent in their pre- and post-election responses (i.e., were in an off-diagonal cell). The highest level of inconsistent responding recorded by Pew’s callback studies was 18 percent in 2000, and the lowest was 7 percent in 2012.
What is notable about the 2016 data is not how many inconsistent respondents there were, it is how the inconsistent responders voted. Figure 7 shows the presidential vote margin among respondents who gave inconsistent pre- versus post-election responses in each callback study since 2000. Typically, those who admit changing their minds more or less wash out, breaking about evenly between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. In 2016 something very different happened. In 2016, inconsistent responders in the Pew study voted for Trump by a 16-point margin. That is more than double the second largest margin observed in this time series for inconsistent responders (+7 points for George W. Bush in 2000)."
The people conducting these polls are no different than the tech support representative at your cable company. They couldn't give a flying fuck about what your answers are. Their interest is in doing their job as correctly as possible, getting off the phone, and going home. The idea that respondents are going to get treated as less than human by a pollster is beyond paranoia. They are just happy when someone doesn't hang up after 5 seconds.
This is the same mentality that causes people who are way too self-important to think a restaurant worker is going to spit in their food if you complain. They are assuming the worker gives enough of a shit about them to actually take the time and thought required to do so. They don't. When you work with the general public on a regular basis, you quickly become completely desensitized to how people act, or you don't stay long.
I'm not entirely sure what these people think is going to happen. Let's say a sample of 1500 voters included 650 who said they would vote for Trump. Do you have any idea what kind of effort it would take to indentify all those people, and how much more it would take to somehow publically shame all of them for their answer?? It's lunacy. But I suppose this is the byproduct of a political movement which is based on basically nothing but aggrievement. All of a sudden, having a Trump yard sign is like Christ getting nailed to the cross.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't tried to study this before. Assuming this is true and we account for it in the polls, I wonder what the map starts to look like. 10% of independents also do not want to reveal their affiliations.
I don't see this as good news for Trump. I think what the tweet is saying is that more expected Trump voters refuse to say how they're going to vote than expected Biden voters. The normal criteria for grouping a voter is either their past voting record or their party affiliation. In either case you would expect a high % of such groups to vote the same way again. It's possible that all the 'shy' voters will vote as expected (in which case the polls are accurate and there's no issue). However, if the 'shy' voters are actually shy because they are not intending to vote as expected then Trump would lose more votes than Biden ...
I don't really know if it means anything, I try not to forecast elections or make predictions because I have been wrong almost every time. I didn't think Trump would win in 2016 for instance. If I were superstitious, I would think my belief in a politicians victory would curse them to fail.
Although from the explanation in the article it seems like they are shy in the sense that they generally fear some form of retaliation for having conservative views and don't necessarily believe those things are private, so I'd say they are probably Trump folks.
I hadn't read the article before, but looking at it the way the study is designed is curious:
- first they ask whether people would tell the truth about who they support
- then they ask them who they support and, based on those answers, determine that more Trump supporters have previously said they won't tell the truth about who they support
If people were telling the truth that they won't accurately say who they support, then presumably those who said they would support Trump are in fact Biden supporters! Rather than go down that rabbit hole any more though, I think I'll just quietly forget I ever read this.
Dismiss it out of hand if you like. This has been studied before, though not by directly asking folks, and shy voters were Trump ones. The American Association for Public Opinion Research examined the evidence for shy Trump voters and got a similar number- 11%. Roughly one in ten respondents voting differently than they say is apparently common, but usually they end up breaking evenly for both parties. In 2016 the shy voter was for Trump by unprecedented margins.
Any methodology that essentially asks people to admit if they are lying is bound to have issues, but I thought their approach was as good as you could get, and it is consistent with other findings.
I find it interesting to think about because I do this, and advise other people to as well. Not to lie to pollsters but to not reveal your political beliefs if you hold right wing views. No point in getting treated as less than human by people who hate you when it can easily be avoided by not talking about it.
I have little confidence in his victory, but far less confidence in a blowout of any sort.
"Source: Pew Research Center 2016
Election Callback Study. Based on 1,254
completed re-interviews with survey respondents who said that they voted in the general election. About nine-in-ten respondents (89 percent) answered consistently while 11 percent reported something different at the ballot box than what they told the pollster before the election. In the context of recent elections, that 11 percent is quite typical. Pew Research Center has been conducting callback studies since 2000. Over the past five cycles, 12 percent of respondents, on average, were inconsistent in their pre- and post-election responses (i.e., were in an off-diagonal cell). The highest level of inconsistent responding recorded by Pew’s callback studies was 18 percent in 2000, and the lowest was 7 percent in 2012.
What is notable about the 2016 data is not how many inconsistent respondents there were, it is how the inconsistent responders voted. Figure 7 shows the presidential vote margin among respondents who gave inconsistent pre- versus post-election responses in each callback study since 2000. Typically, those who admit changing their minds more or less wash out, breaking about evenly between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. In 2016 something very different happened. In 2016, inconsistent responders in the Pew study voted for Trump by a 16-point margin. That is more than double the second largest margin observed in this time series for inconsistent responders (+7 points for George W. Bush in 2000)."
The people conducting these polls are no different than the tech support representative at your cable company. They couldn't give a flying fuck about what your answers are. Their interest is in doing their job as correctly as possible, getting off the phone, and going home. The idea that respondents are going to get treated as less than human by a pollster is beyond paranoia. They are just happy when someone doesn't hang up after 5 seconds.
This is the same mentality that causes people who are way too self-important to think a restaurant worker is going to spit in their food if you complain. They are assuming the worker gives enough of a shit about them to actually take the time and thought required to do so. They don't. When you work with the general public on a regular basis, you quickly become completely desensitized to how people act, or you don't stay long.
I'm not entirely sure what these people think is going to happen. Let's say a sample of 1500 voters included 650 who said they would vote for Trump. Do you have any idea what kind of effort it would take to indentify all those people, and how much more it would take to somehow publically shame all of them for their answer?? It's lunacy. But I suppose this is the byproduct of a political movement which is based on basically nothing but aggrievement. All of a sudden, having a Trump yard sign is like Christ getting nailed to the cross.
Well, having a Trump sign on your lawn CAN be hazardous to your (or other people's) health in even weirder ways. The craziness is hitting Twilight Zone levels now...
The current most likely culprit for the 2016 polling miss (only average miss, as I will continually remind all involved) is a failure to effectively weight by education in the polling sample. NYT/Upshot has been crusading on this for 4 years now.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't tried to study this before. Assuming this is true and we account for it in the polls, I wonder what the map starts to look like. 10% of independents also do not want to reveal their affiliations.
I don't see this as good news for Trump. I think what the tweet is saying is that more expected Trump voters refuse to say how they're going to vote than expected Biden voters. The normal criteria for grouping a voter is either their past voting record or their party affiliation. In either case you would expect a high % of such groups to vote the same way again. It's possible that all the 'shy' voters will vote as expected (in which case the polls are accurate and there's no issue). However, if the 'shy' voters are actually shy because they are not intending to vote as expected then Trump would lose more votes than Biden ...
I don't really know if it means anything, I try not to forecast elections or make predictions because I have been wrong almost every time. I didn't think Trump would win in 2016 for instance. If I were superstitious, I would think my belief in a politicians victory would curse them to fail.
Although from the explanation in the article it seems like they are shy in the sense that they generally fear some form of retaliation for having conservative views and don't necessarily believe those things are private, so I'd say they are probably Trump folks.
I hadn't read the article before, but looking at it the way the study is designed is curious:
- first they ask whether people would tell the truth about who they support
- then they ask them who they support and, based on those answers, determine that more Trump supporters have previously said they won't tell the truth about who they support
If people were telling the truth that they won't accurately say who they support, then presumably those who said they would support Trump are in fact Biden supporters! Rather than go down that rabbit hole any more though, I think I'll just quietly forget I ever read this.
Dismiss it out of hand if you like. This has been studied before, though not by directly asking folks, and shy voters were Trump ones. The American Association for Public Opinion Research examined the evidence for shy Trump voters and got a similar number- 11%. Roughly one in ten respondents voting differently than they say is apparently common, but usually they end up breaking evenly for both parties. In 2016 the shy voter was for Trump by unprecedented margins.
Any methodology that essentially asks people to admit if they are lying is bound to have issues, but I thought their approach was as good as you could get, and it is consistent with other findings.
I find it interesting to think about because I do this, and advise other people to as well. Not to lie to pollsters but to not reveal your political beliefs if you hold right wing views. No point in getting treated as less than human by people who hate you when it can easily be avoided by not talking about it.
I have little confidence in his victory, but far less confidence in a blowout of any sort.
"Source: Pew Research Center 2016
Election Callback Study. Based on 1,254
completed re-interviews with survey respondents who said that they voted in the general election. About nine-in-ten respondents (89 percent) answered consistently while 11 percent reported something different at the ballot box than what they told the pollster before the election. In the context of recent elections, that 11 percent is quite typical. Pew Research Center has been conducting callback studies since 2000. Over the past five cycles, 12 percent of respondents, on average, were inconsistent in their pre- and post-election responses (i.e., were in an off-diagonal cell). The highest level of inconsistent responding recorded by Pew’s callback studies was 18 percent in 2000, and the lowest was 7 percent in 2012.
What is notable about the 2016 data is not how many inconsistent respondents there were, it is how the inconsistent responders voted. Figure 7 shows the presidential vote margin among respondents who gave inconsistent pre- versus post-election responses in each callback study since 2000. Typically, those who admit changing their minds more or less wash out, breaking about evenly between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. In 2016 something very different happened. In 2016, inconsistent responders in the Pew study voted for Trump by a 16-point margin. That is more than double the second largest margin observed in this time series for inconsistent responders (+7 points for George W. Bush in 2000)."
The people conducting these polls are no different than the tech support representative at your cable company. They couldn't give a flying fuck about what your answers are. Their interest is in doing their job as correctly as possible, getting off the phone, and going home. The idea that respondents are going to get treated as less than human by a pollster is beyond paranoia. They are just happy when someone doesn't hang up after 5 seconds.
This is the same mentality that causes people who are way too self-important to think a restaurant worker is going to spit in their food if you complain. They are assuming the worker gives enough of a shit about them to actually take the time and thought required to do so. They don't. When you work with the general public on a regular basis, you quickly become completely desensitized to how people act, or you don't stay long.
I'm not entirely sure what these people think is going to happen. Let's say a sample of 1500 voters included 650 who said they would vote for Trump. Do you have any idea what kind of effort it would take to indentify all those people, and how much more it would take to somehow publically shame all of them for their answer?? It's lunacy. But I suppose this is the byproduct of a political movement which is based on basically nothing but aggrievement. All of a sudden, having a Trump yard sign is like Christ getting nailed to the cross.
Well, having a Trump sign on your lawn CAN be hazardous to your (or other people's) health in even weirder ways. The craziness is hitting Twilight Zone levels now...
Just to be clear here, this is not the case of someone stealing their sign. This is a property owner who was ignoring a local ordinance (color me shocked they think the rules don't apply to them), a city worker doing his job removing it per said ordinance, and because the Trump supporter is so paranoid in their BELIEF that their sign would be stolen by rampaging liberal mobs, they booby-trapped the sign in with razor blades. So yeah, we can blame the person who did it (they should face whatever charges are allowed), but let's also blame the media ecosphere that has been pumping poison into their brain ever since Rush Limbaugh went into syndication in the early-90s.
This woman is also completely full of shit. Someone stole her signs but then RETURNED them?? And the razorblades just magically appeared where someone would grab a sign on their own?? The truth here is, her signs were never stolen, and she did place the razorblades. She was convinced by her self-chosen media diet that her signs (a totem of her of identity) were in danger, and she took action to punish the hypothetical left-wing thieves she was imagining in her head, and a public worker went to the hospital as a result. And now she is clearly lying her ass off about everything.
This reminds me of the family in Minnesota who a couple weeks ago took a picture of their garage, which had both an anarchist sign and Biden/Harris 2020 spray-painted on the front. That wasn't "vandalism", that was them committing insurance fraud. I'd bet everything in my possession they did it themselves, just as I would that this woman's signs were not stolen and returned, and she did, of course, place the razor blades.
Edit: the comment section on that article is fucking golden. The working theory among conservatives in the comments is that liberals stole the signs, put the razor blades on them, RETURNED to the scene of the theft, and replanted them in the exact same place. Just a trained team of ninja warriors hanging out in suburban Detroit. If you go even further into the comments, it honestly starts to read like people are talking about the hook killer or alligators in the sewer. EVERYONE claims to have heard of someone who has had a sign stolen, or property tagged with spray-paint. The scary thing is, they seem to actually believe their own bullshit. They are inventing persecution complexes in their own head, and to them, they are, in fact, quite real.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't tried to study this before. Assuming this is true and we account for it in the polls, I wonder what the map starts to look like. 10% of independents also do not want to reveal their affiliations.
I don't see this as good news for Trump. I think what the tweet is saying is that more expected Trump voters refuse to say how they're going to vote than expected Biden voters. The normal criteria for grouping a voter is either their past voting record or their party affiliation. In either case you would expect a high % of such groups to vote the same way again. It's possible that all the 'shy' voters will vote as expected (in which case the polls are accurate and there's no issue). However, if the 'shy' voters are actually shy because they are not intending to vote as expected then Trump would lose more votes than Biden ...
I don't really know if it means anything, I try not to forecast elections or make predictions because I have been wrong almost every time. I didn't think Trump would win in 2016 for instance. If I were superstitious, I would think my belief in a politicians victory would curse them to fail.
Although from the explanation in the article it seems like they are shy in the sense that they generally fear some form of retaliation for having conservative views and don't necessarily believe those things are private, so I'd say they are probably Trump folks.
I hadn't read the article before, but looking at it the way the study is designed is curious:
- first they ask whether people would tell the truth about who they support
- then they ask them who they support and, based on those answers, determine that more Trump supporters have previously said they won't tell the truth about who they support
If people were telling the truth that they won't accurately say who they support, then presumably those who said they would support Trump are in fact Biden supporters! Rather than go down that rabbit hole any more though, I think I'll just quietly forget I ever read this.
Dismiss it out of hand if you like. This has been studied before, though not by directly asking folks, and shy voters were Trump ones. The American Association for Public Opinion Research examined the evidence for shy Trump voters and got a similar number- 11%. Roughly one in ten respondents voting differently than they say is apparently common, but usually they end up breaking evenly for both parties. In 2016 the shy voter was for Trump by unprecedented margins.
Any methodology that essentially asks people to admit if they are lying is bound to have issues, but I thought their approach was as good as you could get, and it is consistent with other findings.
I find it interesting to think about because I do this, and advise other people to as well. Not to lie to pollsters but to not reveal your political beliefs if you hold right wing views. No point in getting treated as less than human by people who hate you when it can easily be avoided by not talking about it.
I have little confidence in his victory, but far less confidence in a blowout of any sort.
"Source: Pew Research Center 2016
Election Callback Study. Based on 1,254
completed re-interviews with survey respondents who said that they voted in the general election. About nine-in-ten respondents (89 percent) answered consistently while 11 percent reported something different at the ballot box than what they told the pollster before the election. In the context of recent elections, that 11 percent is quite typical. Pew Research Center has been conducting callback studies since 2000. Over the past five cycles, 12 percent of respondents, on average, were inconsistent in their pre- and post-election responses (i.e., were in an off-diagonal cell). The highest level of inconsistent responding recorded by Pew’s callback studies was 18 percent in 2000, and the lowest was 7 percent in 2012.
What is notable about the 2016 data is not how many inconsistent respondents there were, it is how the inconsistent responders voted. Figure 7 shows the presidential vote margin among respondents who gave inconsistent pre- versus post-election responses in each callback study since 2000. Typically, those who admit changing their minds more or less wash out, breaking about evenly between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. In 2016 something very different happened. In 2016, inconsistent responders in the Pew study voted for Trump by a 16-point margin. That is more than double the second largest margin observed in this time series for inconsistent responders (+7 points for George W. Bush in 2000)."
The theory of shy Trump voters applied to the last election relates to voters who eventually voted for Trump, but had not said they intended to do that at an earlier stage. The evaluation you've just posted (which needs to be treated with caution as it is based on a relatively small sample) suggests that Trump picked up 10% of his votes in 2016 from people who had not said earlier they would vote for him, while Clinton only picked up 6% of her votes in this way. If many of those people that changed their minds did so late in the campaign, that's sufficient by itself to explain the disparity between the polls and the actual votes.
Reasons for such changes of mind are not necessarily though related to a deliberate attempt to deceive pollsters. One other reason for instance was that Trump was an outsider and an unknown quantity (in relation to politics) in 2016 and therefore more likely to benefit from someone making a late decision to vote for change. Now though, he's very much a known quantity and less likely to benefit from that sort of floating voter (of which there are likely to be fewer in any case).
There aren't 5 states more isolated than North Dakota. We are now leading the nation in cases per capita, and there are only 16 ICU beds left in the entire state, the vast majority of them in one city. When I went to the pharmacy today, they didn't even let me inside. They took my card and brought my order to me outside. Which is telling me at the very least they know where it's heading here. Not sure most businesses do. Governor far more petrified of the wrath of business owners than the health of the citizens.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't tried to study this before. Assuming this is true and we account for it in the polls, I wonder what the map starts to look like. 10% of independents also do not want to reveal their affiliations.
I don't see this as good news for Trump. I think what the tweet is saying is that more expected Trump voters refuse to say how they're going to vote than expected Biden voters. The normal criteria for grouping a voter is either their past voting record or their party affiliation. In either case you would expect a high % of such groups to vote the same way again. It's possible that all the 'shy' voters will vote as expected (in which case the polls are accurate and there's no issue). However, if the 'shy' voters are actually shy because they are not intending to vote as expected then Trump would lose more votes than Biden ...
I don't really know if it means anything, I try not to forecast elections or make predictions because I have been wrong almost every time. I didn't think Trump would win in 2016 for instance. If I were superstitious, I would think my belief in a politicians victory would curse them to fail.
Although from the explanation in the article it seems like they are shy in the sense that they generally fear some form of retaliation for having conservative views and don't necessarily believe those things are private, so I'd say they are probably Trump folks.
I hadn't read the article before, but looking at it the way the study is designed is curious:
- first they ask whether people would tell the truth about who they support
- then they ask them who they support and, based on those answers, determine that more Trump supporters have previously said they won't tell the truth about who they support
If people were telling the truth that they won't accurately say who they support, then presumably those who said they would support Trump are in fact Biden supporters! Rather than go down that rabbit hole any more though, I think I'll just quietly forget I ever read this.
Dismiss it out of hand if you like. This has been studied before, though not by directly asking folks, and shy voters were Trump ones. The American Association for Public Opinion Research examined the evidence for shy Trump voters and got a similar number- 11%. Roughly one in ten respondents voting differently than they say is apparently common, but usually they end up breaking evenly for both parties. In 2016 the shy voter was for Trump by unprecedented margins.
Any methodology that essentially asks people to admit if they are lying is bound to have issues, but I thought their approach was as good as you could get, and it is consistent with other findings.
I find it interesting to think about because I do this, and advise other people to as well. Not to lie to pollsters but to not reveal your political beliefs if you hold right wing views. No point in getting treated as less than human by people who hate you when it can easily be avoided by not talking about it.
I have little confidence in his victory, but far less confidence in a blowout of any sort.
"Source: Pew Research Center 2016
Election Callback Study. Based on 1,254
completed re-interviews with survey respondents who said that they voted in the general election. About nine-in-ten respondents (89 percent) answered consistently while 11 percent reported something different at the ballot box than what they told the pollster before the election. In the context of recent elections, that 11 percent is quite typical. Pew Research Center has been conducting callback studies since 2000. Over the past five cycles, 12 percent of respondents, on average, were inconsistent in their pre- and post-election responses (i.e., were in an off-diagonal cell). The highest level of inconsistent responding recorded by Pew’s callback studies was 18 percent in 2000, and the lowest was 7 percent in 2012.
What is notable about the 2016 data is not how many inconsistent respondents there were, it is how the inconsistent responders voted. Figure 7 shows the presidential vote margin among respondents who gave inconsistent pre- versus post-election responses in each callback study since 2000. Typically, those who admit changing their minds more or less wash out, breaking about evenly between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. In 2016 something very different happened. In 2016, inconsistent responders in the Pew study voted for Trump by a 16-point margin. That is more than double the second largest margin observed in this time series for inconsistent responders (+7 points for George W. Bush in 2000)."
The theory of shy Trump voters applied to the last election relates to voters who eventually voted for Trump, but had not said they intended to do that at an earlier stage. The evaluation you've just posted (which needs to be treated with caution as it is based on a relatively small sample) suggests that Trump picked up 10% of his votes in 2016 from people who had not said earlier they would vote for him, while Clinton only picked up 6% of her votes in this way. If many of those people that changed their minds did so late in the campaign, that's sufficient by itself to explain the disparity between the polls and the actual votes.
Reasons for such changes of mind are not necessarily though related to a deliberate attempt to deceive pollsters. One other reason for instance was that Trump was an outsider and an unknown quantity (in relation to politics) in 2016 and therefore more likely to benefit from someone making a late decision to vote for change. Now though, he's very much a known quantity and less likely to benefit from that sort of floating voter (of which there are likely to be fewer in any case).
Yeah, if anything the 2016 election revealed that a significant voters made up their minds late in the election season. This isn't surprising given the last minute revelation from James Comey.
But there isn't any durable evidence for "shy Trump voters". Some people seem to desperately want this to be true, but it's not the case that the polls in 2016 were off by a large empirical amount. Polling average at the close of the election ended up within the statistical margin of error. Which means polls functioned exactly as well as we can expect them to.
This same specter arose in the 2008 election, where we also saw the Democratic candidate develop an enormous (and to some people, unbelievable) polling lead. People talked about the Bradley Effect in that election. That theory didn't pan out. The polls were right.
Moreover, conservatives have complained now for decades about polls undercounting their numbers, but it simply isn't true. Polls did a good job of predicting who would win the House in 2018. Polls also accurately predicted when Republicans were going to clearly win the House in other recent midterms -- 2014 and 2010.
The hard facts are plain but some conservatives want to cling to any shred of evidence that denies this. And I said them previously. Conservatives have lost the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections. That's historically peculiar. Polls are not systematically undercounting conservative or Republican support. We have a clear, durable phenomenon here. Conservative politics as practiced by the Republican party are simply not poplar among Americans.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't tried to study this before. Assuming this is true and we account for it in the polls, I wonder what the map starts to look like. 10% of independents also do not want to reveal their affiliations.
I don't see this as good news for Trump. I think what the tweet is saying is that more expected Trump voters refuse to say how they're going to vote than expected Biden voters. The normal criteria for grouping a voter is either their past voting record or their party affiliation. In either case you would expect a high % of such groups to vote the same way again. It's possible that all the 'shy' voters will vote as expected (in which case the polls are accurate and there's no issue). However, if the 'shy' voters are actually shy because they are not intending to vote as expected then Trump would lose more votes than Biden ...
I don't really know if it means anything, I try not to forecast elections or make predictions because I have been wrong almost every time. I didn't think Trump would win in 2016 for instance. If I were superstitious, I would think my belief in a politicians victory would curse them to fail.
Although from the explanation in the article it seems like they are shy in the sense that they generally fear some form of retaliation for having conservative views and don't necessarily believe those things are private, so I'd say they are probably Trump folks.
I hadn't read the article before, but looking at it the way the study is designed is curious:
- first they ask whether people would tell the truth about who they support
- then they ask them who they support and, based on those answers, determine that more Trump supporters have previously said they won't tell the truth about who they support
If people were telling the truth that they won't accurately say who they support, then presumably those who said they would support Trump are in fact Biden supporters! Rather than go down that rabbit hole any more though, I think I'll just quietly forget I ever read this.
Dismiss it out of hand if you like. This has been studied before, though not by directly asking folks, and shy voters were Trump ones. The American Association for Public Opinion Research examined the evidence for shy Trump voters and got a similar number- 11%. Roughly one in ten respondents voting differently than they say is apparently common, but usually they end up breaking evenly for both parties. In 2016 the shy voter was for Trump by unprecedented margins.
Any methodology that essentially asks people to admit if they are lying is bound to have issues, but I thought their approach was as good as you could get, and it is consistent with other findings.
I find it interesting to think about because I do this, and advise other people to as well. Not to lie to pollsters but to not reveal your political beliefs if you hold right wing views. No point in getting treated as less than human by people who hate you when it can easily be avoided by not talking about it.
I have little confidence in his victory, but far less confidence in a blowout of any sort.
"Source: Pew Research Center 2016
Election Callback Study. Based on 1,254
completed re-interviews with survey respondents who said that they voted in the general election. About nine-in-ten respondents (89 percent) answered consistently while 11 percent reported something different at the ballot box than what they told the pollster before the election. In the context of recent elections, that 11 percent is quite typical. Pew Research Center has been conducting callback studies since 2000. Over the past five cycles, 12 percent of respondents, on average, were inconsistent in their pre- and post-election responses (i.e., were in an off-diagonal cell). The highest level of inconsistent responding recorded by Pew’s callback studies was 18 percent in 2000, and the lowest was 7 percent in 2012.
What is notable about the 2016 data is not how many inconsistent respondents there were, it is how the inconsistent responders voted. Figure 7 shows the presidential vote margin among respondents who gave inconsistent pre- versus post-election responses in each callback study since 2000. Typically, those who admit changing their minds more or less wash out, breaking about evenly between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. In 2016 something very different happened. In 2016, inconsistent responders in the Pew study voted for Trump by a 16-point margin. That is more than double the second largest margin observed in this time series for inconsistent responders (+7 points for George W. Bush in 2000)."
The theory of shy Trump voters applied to the last election relates to voters who eventually voted for Trump, but had not said they intended to do that at an earlier stage. The evaluation you've just posted (which needs to be treated with caution as it is based on a relatively small sample) suggests that Trump picked up 10% of his votes in 2016 from people who had not said earlier they would vote for him, while Clinton only picked up 6% of her votes in this way. If many of those people that changed their minds did so late in the campaign, that's sufficient by itself to explain the disparity between the polls and the actual votes.
Reasons for such changes of mind are not necessarily though related to a deliberate attempt to deceive pollsters. One other reason for instance was that Trump was an outsider and an unknown quantity (in relation to politics) in 2016 and therefore more likely to benefit from someone making a late decision to vote for change. Now though, he's very much a known quantity and less likely to benefit from that sort of floating voter (of which there are likely to be fewer in any case).
Yeah, if anything the 2016 election revealed that a significant voters made up their minds late in the election season. This isn't surprising given the last minute revelation from James Comey.
But there isn't any durable evidence for "shy Trump voters". Some people seem to desperately want this to be true, but it's not the case that the polls in 2016 were off by a large empirical amount. Polling average at the close of the election ended up within the statistical margin of error. Which means polls functioned exactly as well as we can expect them to.
This same specter arose in the 2008 election, where we also saw the Democratic candidate develop an enormous (and to some people, unbelievable) polling lead. People talked about the Bradley Effect in that election. That theory didn't pan out. The polls were right.
Moreover, conservatives have complained now for decades about polls undercounting their numbers, but it simply isn't true. Polls did a good job of predicting who would win the House in 2018. Polls also accurately predicted when Republicans were going to clearly win the House in other recent midterms -- 2014 and 2010.
The hard facts are plain but some conservatives want to cling to any shred of evidence that denies this. And I said them previously. Conservatives have lost the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections. That's historically peculiar. Polls are not systematically undercounting conservative or Republican support. We have a clear, durable phenomenon here. Conservative politics as practiced by the Republican party are simply not poplar among Americans.
It's not really worth getting into the inaccuracies and generalizations since it's clear you didn't read it, or even read my post very well, and just want to rant. Polls weren't off by greater amounts, even the amount of voters who voted differently than what they were polled on were generally the same. The phenomenon of 2016 was something entirely different, and did not have a replica in the previous elections you keep referencing to prove something or other. In fact, you mostly got it right, and nothing I posted argued the fact, other than it was pretty much unprecedented for so many of the "polled differently than voted" demographic to vote one way. The retrospective came to that conclusion, the more recent study merely reinforces it. Since these are trying to understand a single election that happened only a few years ago, and not some systemic issue that has happened for years as you mischaracterize it as, I'm not sure how much "durable" evidence you are asking for. It's merely food for thought, but you seem determined to doubt my intent.
In 2016 we had, okay won’t call it interfering don’t want to rustle feathers, let’s call it outside agitators. This was new to a greater degree and we didn’t have much defense against it, and we had a late campaign email thingy(also suspect). It was an anomaly and I think that anyone counting on another such anomaly should probably brace themselves for disappointment. The United States of America is not run by the outliers, but the majority in and around the cities, the population pool. They have chosen consistently, there is a running theme in the country and the right is losing. We have seen that politics can go wonky, reference our current president for said wonkiness, the trend is not going away away however.
We had a president that got elected after he said he could grab a woman by her hoo haa, now I would not be surprised about anything. He really stepped all over his private parts in the last four years though, I cannot imagine the nation will forgive him. Sure, there are those that pray to their lord and savior Donald Trump, the rest of the country has a brain. Find a different orbit GOP, this sun is about to explode.
so Trump had a osteopathic doctor (equivalent to an urgent care doctor it seems and the first ever for the White House) say Trump isn't transmitting the virus anymore. Not that he tested negative or anything. But maybe he's getting better? It's tough to say because Trump surrounds himself with liars and yes men. So anyway, Trump's going to give a rally on Monday because he's tanked in the polls and is probably dragging the entire Republican party with him into the gutter and he thinks yelling conspiracies, lies and racists BS at people will help him.
I sure as shit wouldn't be in his vicinity right now, can't trust trump or the quacks he influences to do his bidding.
Trump has a long history of getting doctors to lie for him going back to his bone spurs that he doesn't know which knee they are on, to the crazy one page note from Dr. Borenstein or Ronny Jackson saying he was like superhumanly healthy or whatever. To the crazy demon semen woman Trump had give a coronavirus briefing.
He might truly be getting over the disease, good for him, but you can't trust his word or anyone associate with him at all ever.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't tried to study this before. Assuming this is true and we account for it in the polls, I wonder what the map starts to look like. 10% of independents also do not want to reveal their affiliations.
I don't see this as good news for Trump. I think what the tweet is saying is that more expected Trump voters refuse to say how they're going to vote than expected Biden voters. The normal criteria for grouping a voter is either their past voting record or their party affiliation. In either case you would expect a high % of such groups to vote the same way again. It's possible that all the 'shy' voters will vote as expected (in which case the polls are accurate and there's no issue). However, if the 'shy' voters are actually shy because they are not intending to vote as expected then Trump would lose more votes than Biden ...
I don't really know if it means anything, I try not to forecast elections or make predictions because I have been wrong almost every time. I didn't think Trump would win in 2016 for instance. If I were superstitious, I would think my belief in a politicians victory would curse them to fail.
Although from the explanation in the article it seems like they are shy in the sense that they generally fear some form of retaliation for having conservative views and don't necessarily believe those things are private, so I'd say they are probably Trump folks.
I hadn't read the article before, but looking at it the way the study is designed is curious:
- first they ask whether people would tell the truth about who they support
- then they ask them who they support and, based on those answers, determine that more Trump supporters have previously said they won't tell the truth about who they support
If people were telling the truth that they won't accurately say who they support, then presumably those who said they would support Trump are in fact Biden supporters! Rather than go down that rabbit hole any more though, I think I'll just quietly forget I ever read this.
Dismiss it out of hand if you like. This has been studied before, though not by directly asking folks, and shy voters were Trump ones. The American Association for Public Opinion Research examined the evidence for shy Trump voters and got a similar number- 11%. Roughly one in ten respondents voting differently than they say is apparently common, but usually they end up breaking evenly for both parties. In 2016 the shy voter was for Trump by unprecedented margins.
Any methodology that essentially asks people to admit if they are lying is bound to have issues, but I thought their approach was as good as you could get, and it is consistent with other findings.
I find it interesting to think about because I do this, and advise other people to as well. Not to lie to pollsters but to not reveal your political beliefs if you hold right wing views. No point in getting treated as less than human by people who hate you when it can easily be avoided by not talking about it.
I have little confidence in his victory, but far less confidence in a blowout of any sort.
"Source: Pew Research Center 2016
Election Callback Study. Based on 1,254
completed re-interviews with survey respondents who said that they voted in the general election. About nine-in-ten respondents (89 percent) answered consistently while 11 percent reported something different at the ballot box than what they told the pollster before the election. In the context of recent elections, that 11 percent is quite typical. Pew Research Center has been conducting callback studies since 2000. Over the past five cycles, 12 percent of respondents, on average, were inconsistent in their pre- and post-election responses (i.e., were in an off-diagonal cell). The highest level of inconsistent responding recorded by Pew’s callback studies was 18 percent in 2000, and the lowest was 7 percent in 2012.
What is notable about the 2016 data is not how many inconsistent respondents there were, it is how the inconsistent responders voted. Figure 7 shows the presidential vote margin among respondents who gave inconsistent pre- versus post-election responses in each callback study since 2000. Typically, those who admit changing their minds more or less wash out, breaking about evenly between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. In 2016 something very different happened. In 2016, inconsistent responders in the Pew study voted for Trump by a 16-point margin. That is more than double the second largest margin observed in this time series for inconsistent responders (+7 points for George W. Bush in 2000)."
The people conducting these polls are no different than the tech support representative at your cable company. They couldn't give a flying fuck about what your answers are. Their interest is in doing their job as correctly as possible, getting off the phone, and going home. The idea that respondents are going to get treated as less than human by a pollster is beyond paranoia. They are just happy when someone doesn't hang up after 5 seconds.
This is the same mentality that causes people who are way too self-important to think a restaurant worker is going to spit in their food if you complain. They are assuming the worker gives enough of a shit about them to actually take the time and thought required to do so. They don't. When you work with the general public on a regular basis, you quickly become completely desensitized to how people act, or you don't stay long.
I'm not entirely sure what these people think is going to happen. Let's say a sample of 1500 voters included 650 who said they would vote for Trump. Do you have any idea what kind of effort it would take to indentify all those people, and how much more it would take to somehow publically shame all of them for their answer?? It's lunacy. But I suppose this is the byproduct of a political movement which is based on basically nothing but aggrievement. All of a sudden, having a Trump yard sign is like Christ getting nailed to the cross.
Well, having a Trump sign on your lawn CAN be hazardous to your (or other people's) health in even weirder ways. The craziness is hitting Twilight Zone levels now...
Just to be clear here, this is not the case of someone stealing their sign. This is a property owner who was ignoring a local ordinance (color me shocked they think the rules don't apply to them), a city worker doing his job removing it per said ordinance, and because the Trump supporter is so paranoid in their BELIEF that their sign would be stolen by rampaging liberal mobs, they booby-trapped the sign in with razor blades. So yeah, we can blame the person who did it (they should face whatever charges are allowed), but let's also blame the media ecosphere that has been pumping poison into their brain ever since Rush Limbaugh went into syndication in the early-90s.
This woman is also completely full of shit. Someone stole her signs but then RETURNED them?? And the razorblades just magically appeared where someone would grab a sign on their own?? The truth here is, her signs were never stolen, and she did place the razorblades. She was convinced by her self-chosen media diet that her signs (a totem of her of identity) were in danger, and she took action to punish the hypothetical left-wing thieves she was imagining in her head, and a public worker went to the hospital as a result. And now she is clearly lying her ass off about everything.
This reminds me of the family in Minnesota who a couple weeks ago took a picture of their garage, which had both an anarchist sign and Biden/Harris 2020 spray-painted on the front. That wasn't "vandalism", that was them committing insurance fraud. I'd bet everything in my possession they did it themselves, just as I would that this woman's signs were not stolen and returned, and she did, of course, place the razor blades.
Edit: the comment section on that article is fucking golden. The working theory among conservatives in the comments is that liberals stole the signs, put the razor blades on them, RETURNED to the scene of the theft, and replanted them in the exact same place. Just a trained team of ninja warriors hanging out in suburban Detroit. If you go even further into the comments, it honestly starts to read like people are talking about the hook killer or alligators in the sewer. EVERYONE claims to have heard of someone who has had a sign stolen, or property tagged with spray-paint. The scary thing is, they seem to actually believe their own bullshit. They are inventing persecution complexes in their own head, and to them, they are, in fact, quite real.
Michigan seems to be taking front and center in The Outer Limits this year for sure. I guess it's not surprising considering the split between urban and rural in my state. Even many of the city folks take their vacations 'Up North' here so are privy to the Great Outdoors and their way of thinking. There's a valid reason we're considered a 'Swing State'.
There aren't 5 states more isolated than North Dakota. We are now leading the nation in cases per capita, and there are only 16 ICU beds left in the entire state, the vast majority of them in one city. When I went to the pharmacy today, they didn't even let me inside. They took my card and brought my order to me outside. Which is telling me at the very least they know where it's heading here. Not sure most businesses do. Governor far more petrified of the wrath of business owners than the health of the citizens.
Well I guess you can send the tough cases to Minneapolis or Duluth if it comes to it. Minnesota's not doing too badly right now.
Earlier today, Thom Tillis made the statement "the best bulwark against a Biden Administration is a GOP Senate" which is an.......interesting thing to say if you think your guy has a shot. And then there was also this:
Wasserman is the guy you'll see on election night saying "I've seen enough" on Twitter. He doesn't sugar coat it for either side, or give you false hope for 2 or 3 more hours. He can do this because he has studied races down to the county level. So when certain areas report, he is able to quickly understand if the candidate who is behind can possibly make up the ground necessary with what is left outstanding. So these polls tomorrow should be interesting.
Sobering analysis from a network that does not like Trump at all. I've won hands in poker where I drew to an inside straight. It happens. In poker, however, a lot has to happen to even take that chance if you're a good player. The betting might be light, the opponent might show weakness so you think even a high pair might beat him if you draw the right card, or you may have bet a lot already and are pot-committed. I've seen it all when it comes to cards. It really sucks to think about this when the stakes are as high as this prick getting four more years though...
Sobering analysis from a network that does not like Trump at all. I've won hands in poker where I drew to an inside straight. It happens. In poker, however, a lot has to happen to even take that chance if you're a good player. The betting might be light, the opponent might show weakness so you think even a high pair might beat him if you draw the right card, or you may have bet a lot already and are pot-committed. I've seen it all when it comes to cards. It really sucks to think about this when the stakes are as high as this prick getting four more years though...
Sobering analysis from a network that does not like Trump at all. I've won hands in poker where I drew to an inside straight. It happens. In poker, however, a lot has to happen to even take that chance if you're a good player. The betting might be light, the opponent might show weakness so you think even a high pair might beat him if you draw the right card, or you may have bet a lot already and are pot-committed. I've seen it all when it comes to cards. It really sucks to think about this when the stakes are as high as this prick getting four more years though...
While I agree that there is a non-zero chance of Trump winning the election, I really do believe these articles are posted out of an overabundance of caution from 2016 - not that Trump won, but that some pundits and models were saying Clinton had a 99% chance of winning.
She never had nearly so good of a chance, but the pundits couldnt imagine a world where a reality television host would be President of the USA. So the pendulum has swung back, the other way.
Sobering analysis from a network that does not like Trump at all. I've won hands in poker where I drew to an inside straight. It happens. In poker, however, a lot has to happen to even take that chance if you're a good player. The betting might be light, the opponent might show weakness so you think even a high pair might beat him if you draw the right card, or you may have bet a lot already and are pot-committed. I've seen it all when it comes to cards. It really sucks to think about this when the stakes are as high as this prick getting four more years though...
While I agree that there is a non-zero chance of Trump winning the election, I really do believe these articles are posted out of an overabundance of caution from 2016 - not that Trump won, but that some pundits and models were saying Clinton had a 99% chance of winning.
She never had nearly so good of a chance, but the pundits couldnt imagine a world where a reality television host would be President of the USA. So the pendulum has swung back, the other way.
My analytical brain says you're right. My spidey-sense honed by my upbringing in a fundamentalist Christian home, however, can't stop tingling. I don't pray much anymore, but mine are for the least non-Christlike of this pair of candidates. Yes, I chose that syntax on purpose. I try to stay away from the religious aspects of politics, but I can understand why the religious right are not Democrats. This is serious as all Hell for them. Atreides vs. Harkonnen from their PoV. That's why a total moral black-hole like Trump becomes a Christlike figure to them. It isn't about Trump the person with them, it's about a few specific issues where he gives them what they want. It's scary as Hell to me and I won't believe it's over until the last ballot is counted and Trump relinquishes power.
Not sure your Peter tingle is right on this one. I understand what you are saying but he is not War Admiral winning he triple crown, he is not even very good at what he does. Others make billions of dollars without leveraging everything they have over and over. I truly believe that he has painted himself into a corner and finally the walls are starting to crumble around him. I would suggest we not sit around and expect him to pull another rabbit out of his ass, everyone pays. Someone that demanded the spotlight like him and has manipulated everything around him to get where he is at, his fall will be hard. His bulwark is crumbling, don’t give him more credit than he deserves. Maybe I am wrong, if I am in just a few short week you can say I told you so. Don’t hatchet your counts before they chicken though.
Sobering analysis from a network that does not like Trump at all. I've won hands in poker where I drew to an inside straight. It happens. In poker, however, a lot has to happen to even take that chance if you're a good player. The betting might be light, the opponent might show weakness so you think even a high pair might beat him if you draw the right card, or you may have bet a lot already and are pot-committed. I've seen it all when it comes to cards. It really sucks to think about this when the stakes are as high as this prick getting four more years though...
I'm certain most Americans will reject Trump, again, but he still might win based on a cocktail of voter suppression, election fraud and the electoral college.
Sobering analysis from a network that does not like Trump at all. I've won hands in poker where I drew to an inside straight. It happens. In poker, however, a lot has to happen to even take that chance if you're a good player. The betting might be light, the opponent might show weakness so you think even a high pair might beat him if you draw the right card, or you may have bet a lot already and are pot-committed. I've seen it all when it comes to cards. It really sucks to think about this when the stakes are as high as this prick getting four more years though...
While I agree that there is a non-zero chance of Trump winning the election, I really do believe these articles are posted out of an overabundance of caution from 2016 - not that Trump won, but that some pundits and models were saying Clinton had a 99% chance of winning.
She never had nearly so good of a chance, but the pundits couldnt imagine a world where a reality television host would be President of the USA. So the pendulum has swung back, the other way.
My analytical brain says you're right. My spidey-sense honed by my upbringing in a fundamentalist Christian home, however, can't stop tingling. I don't pray much anymore, but mine are for the least non-Christlike of this pair of candidates. Yes, I chose that syntax on purpose. I try to stay away from the religious aspects of politics, but I can understand why the religious right are not Democrats. This is serious as all Hell for them. Atreides vs. Harkonnen from their PoV. That's why a total moral black-hole like Trump becomes a Christlike figure to them. It isn't about Trump the person with them, it's about a few specific issues where he gives them what they want. It's scary as Hell to me and I won't believe it's over until the last ballot is counted and Trump relinquishes power.
I guarantee its a single issue: abortion. One of the biggest scam in politics in the last, what, 30 years? Is how hard the republican gives lip service to ending abortion, which causes the vast majority of religious conservatives to vote for them, when the party does everything it can to either defund or outright remove programs that would actually prevent abortions. For most Christians, this one issue tru-uh outweighs everything else the party says or does.
Sobering analysis from a network that does not like Trump at all. I've won hands in poker where I drew to an inside straight. It happens. In poker, however, a lot has to happen to even take that chance if you're a good player. The betting might be light, the opponent might show weakness so you think even a high pair might beat him if you draw the right card, or you may have bet a lot already and are pot-committed. I've seen it all when it comes to cards. It really sucks to think about this when the stakes are as high as this prick getting four more years though...
I'm certain most Americans will reject Trump, again, but he still might win based on a cocktail of voter suppression, election fraud and the electoral college.
Yep, the telling and troubling thing about the current state of affairs is that there's almost zero doubt Trump will lose the popular vote. But could win through appealing to a minuscule slice of swing voters in certain states.
This, imo, actually goes a long way to explaining some of the awful dynamics everyone complains about in US politics. Republicans/conservatives don't have to appeal to the center. Democrats/liberals don't feel standard politics serves their interests.
Sobering analysis from a network that does not like Trump at all. I've won hands in poker where I drew to an inside straight. It happens. In poker, however, a lot has to happen to even take that chance if you're a good player. The betting might be light, the opponent might show weakness so you think even a high pair might beat him if you draw the right card, or you may have bet a lot already and are pot-committed. I've seen it all when it comes to cards. It really sucks to think about this when the stakes are as high as this prick getting four more years though...
I'm certain most Americans will reject Trump, again, but he still might win based on a cocktail of voter suppression, election fraud and the electoral college.
Yep, the telling and troubling thing about the current state of affairs is that there's almost zero doubt Trump will lose the popular vote. But could win through appealing to a minuscule slice of swing voters in certain states.
This, imo, actually goes a long way to explaining some of the awful dynamics everyone complains about in US politics. Republicans/conservatives don't have to appeal to the center. Democrats/liberals don't feel standard politics serves their interests.
Nothing illustrates this more than the current media obsession with Biden and Harris dodging the court packing question. Apparently, this is viewed as 10x worse than every Republican in existence purposefully LYING about the issue for four years.
Yes, Biden and Harris are dodging the question. And I don't care. Why?? Because Republicans already packed the court. They packed the court when they let the amount of justices go down to 8 for an entire year and change when a Democrat was in office. They packed it again when the moved the number BACK up to 9 the moment a Republican regained the White House. And they are packing it a THIRD time by blatantly disregarding their own rule for the first two incidences, basically saying "lmao, you thought we were being truthful?? Jokes on you."
If Hillary Clinton were President right now, based on the own stated position of the Republican Party, there would only be 6 Supreme Court Justices, because she wouldn't have gotten a single hearing for anyone. I KNEW this was going to happen. That the "consensus" position would be that one party has to sacrifice their power for the good of the country, and since the Republicans WON'T do it, the Democrats MUST do it. Fuck that shit.
The utter lack of context surrounding this issue in the campaign right now is infuriating. It isn't an issue AT ALL if Republicans simply adhere to the standards they were allowed to set for everyone. And yet they are viewed as SO lacking in any principles, that there is no point in even bothering to hold them to any. So the Democrats are expected to be held to standards for both of them. Once again, at the expense of the vast majority of actual voters.
From one of the best interviewers in the biz (Isaac Chotiner) interviewing one of the best polling specialists in the biz (Sean Trende). Chotiner is a liberal and Trende is a conservative, fwiw. The interview goes over polling, shy Trump voters, Hillary Clinton, Trump's strengths and weaknesses and more.
Turns out I was wrong about the confirmation hearings, because even I didn't think the Republicans would put someone who tested positive LAST WEEK in a hearing room with a group of people whose median age is probably 75 without a mask (Mike Lee). Because even I can't imagine the depths of depravity these people will sink to during this pandemic. Kamala Harris isn't even addressing the subject at hand. She is just going after the GOP for being criminally irresponsible, which is the story of 2020 as a whole.
I can't even set foot in certain places of business (and I don't spend a SECOND complaining about it) and these troglodytes can't even put a piece of cloth over their face. I'm sick of having my life stuck in this endless loop because a certain (almost entirely Republican) portion of the electorate is sociopathic. I don't know why I should care what happens to these people when they clearly give a fuck about NO ONE but themselves.
The UK has introduced the 3 tier system I referred to last week. Those are named "medium", "high" and "very high" (which seems a bit reminiscent of condom naming ). In practice though there's very little change. The medium areas constitute the majority of the country. The high areas are essentially those where local lockdowns were already in place and there's no real change in the level of restrictions. Liverpool is the only area to be immediately placed in the very high category and there are increased restrictions there on the hospitality sector, gyms and betting shops.
The lockdown on the 23rd March had an immediate and pretty dramatic effect on the disease - turning what was at that stage a run-away infection into a slowly diminishing one. This announcement is more of a rebadging and rationalization of what was there already and, though Boris Johnson has put this forward as a major initiative, I doubt if it will make much difference. He may be hoping that this will persuade people to take more care and hence suppress the virus though individual choices rather than government restrictions, but I'm doubtful how much effect there will be. My guess is that over the next week or so there will be a significant drift of areas into the higher categories, but if that does not show quick results the government may be forced into yet another national initiative.
The growing current problem is accentuated by the government's actions becoming more controversial and they are now under increasing attack on several fronts. The majority of health professionals and modellers think that action should have been taken sooner and with stronger measures - pointing out for instance that more people are now in hospital with Covid-19 than at the time of the March lockdown (though the disease is not growing anything like as fast now). The Labour party, who had generally been pretty supportive following the "we're all in this together" line, are now being much more critical and openly skeptical about whether the growth in infections can be turned around. On the other side, the more libertarian wing of the Conservative party are pushing hard for less restrictions - Charles Walker, who's one of the most prominent backbenchers, has been surprisingly blunt today about the idea we should accept more deaths as those are so concentrated in the elderly.
The UK has introduced the 3 tier system I referred to last week. Those are named "medium", "high" and "very high" (which seems a bit reminiscent of condom naming ). In practice though there's very little change. The medium areas constitute the majority of the country. The high areas are essentially those where local lockdowns were already in place and there's no real change in the level of restrictions. Liverpool is the only area to be immediately placed in the very high category and there are increased restrictions there on the hospitality sector, gyms and betting shops.
The lockdown on the 23rd March had an immediate and pretty dramatic effect on the disease - turning what was at that stage a run-away infection into a slowly diminishing one. This announcement is more of a rebadging and rationalization of what was there already and, though Boris Johnson has put this forward as a major initiative, I doubt if it will make much difference. He may be hoping that this will persuade people to take more care and hence suppress the virus though individual choices rather than government restrictions, but I'm doubtful how much effect there will be. My guess is that over the next week or so there will be a significant drift of areas into the higher categories, but if that does not show quick results the government may be forced into yet another national initiative.
The growing current problem is accentuated by the government's actions becoming more controversial and they are now under increasing attack on several fronts. The majority of health professionals and modellers think that action should have been taken sooner and with stronger measures - pointing out for instance that more people are now in hospital with Covid-19 than at the time of the March lockdown (though the disease is not growing anything like as fast now). The Labour party, who had generally been pretty supportive following the "we're all in this together" line, are now being much more critical and openly skeptical about whether the growth in infections can be turned around. On the other side, the more libertarian wing of the Conservative party are pushing hard for less restrictions - Charles Walker, who's one of the most prominent backbenchers, has been surprisingly blunt today about the idea we should accept more deaths as those are so concentrated in the elderly.
Same things Chris Christie said. And I'm sure just like him, the moment this Mr. Walker contracts the virus, he will also be preemptively admitted to the hospital and given care your average citizen could only dream of. These people are all for sacrifice right up to the point they start experiencing legitimate symptoms. Then, all of a sudden, it's to be taken VERY seriously, in their specific case.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
There is nothing else that needs to be said about it, in the US or the UK. That is the crux of the issue.
You probably noted I was dubious yesterday about the likely efficacy of the latest UK restrictions. Today we've found out just how different those restrictions are to those advised by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). That's a long-established group, but has had a lot of prominence in this epidemic because of how closely the government were following their advice in earlier months.
In the run-up to the March lockdown the level of information about what was actually happening was poor (partly a consequence of less knowledge of Covid-19, but more because of the lack of testing). Therefore, while SAGE would have liked a slightly quicker lockdown, there was internal disagreement about the situation and government could legitimately say they were following the scientific advice.
However, much of the advice provided by SAGE is published retrospectively and we've just seen the advice given to ministers in September - that was to have a short lockdown to act as a 'circuit-breaker', along with introducing significantly stronger social distancing measures. The government acted on only a small fraction of that advice, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise that cases have been rising since.
As I've said before there is no 'good' solution to Covid-19. The government does need to balance health risks with the wider impact on society. There is increasing pressure against current restrictions from business and sectors like sports and arts & culture and, while the public still generally support stronger measures, that support is not as strong as it was earlier in the year. It's therefore legitimate for government action to differ from scientific advice, but I would argue that action should still be informed by a rational debate about the overall benefits and harms of different courses of action - and I'm not convinced that's happening. To me this feels like a government being shoved around by competing pressures, rather than deciding on what they consider to be the best strategy and sticking to it. My guess is that, within a few weeks, the pressures on the NHS will become irresistible once more and the government will be pushed into stronger social distancing measures - but as in March the impact of the delay will be to make the required medicine worse than it would have been if done earlier.
Comments
The people conducting these polls are no different than the tech support representative at your cable company. They couldn't give a flying fuck about what your answers are. Their interest is in doing their job as correctly as possible, getting off the phone, and going home. The idea that respondents are going to get treated as less than human by a pollster is beyond paranoia. They are just happy when someone doesn't hang up after 5 seconds.
This is the same mentality that causes people who are way too self-important to think a restaurant worker is going to spit in their food if you complain. They are assuming the worker gives enough of a shit about them to actually take the time and thought required to do so. They don't. When you work with the general public on a regular basis, you quickly become completely desensitized to how people act, or you don't stay long.
I'm not entirely sure what these people think is going to happen. Let's say a sample of 1500 voters included 650 who said they would vote for Trump. Do you have any idea what kind of effort it would take to indentify all those people, and how much more it would take to somehow publically shame all of them for their answer?? It's lunacy. But I suppose this is the byproduct of a political movement which is based on basically nothing but aggrievement. All of a sudden, having a Trump yard sign is like Christ getting nailed to the cross.
Well, having a Trump sign on your lawn CAN be hazardous to your (or other people's) health in even weirder ways. The craziness is hitting Twilight Zone levels now...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2020/10/08/commerce-township-may-seek-legal-action-after-worker-was-cut-by-razor-blades-taped-on-sign/?outputType=amp
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-supporters-arent-shy-but-polls-could-still-be-missing-some-of-them/
The current most likely culprit for the 2016 polling miss (only average miss, as I will continually remind all involved) is a failure to effectively weight by education in the polling sample. NYT/Upshot has been crusading on this for 4 years now.
Just to be clear here, this is not the case of someone stealing their sign. This is a property owner who was ignoring a local ordinance (color me shocked they think the rules don't apply to them), a city worker doing his job removing it per said ordinance, and because the Trump supporter is so paranoid in their BELIEF that their sign would be stolen by rampaging liberal mobs, they booby-trapped the sign in with razor blades. So yeah, we can blame the person who did it (they should face whatever charges are allowed), but let's also blame the media ecosphere that has been pumping poison into their brain ever since Rush Limbaugh went into syndication in the early-90s.
This woman is also completely full of shit. Someone stole her signs but then RETURNED them?? And the razorblades just magically appeared where someone would grab a sign on their own?? The truth here is, her signs were never stolen, and she did place the razorblades. She was convinced by her self-chosen media diet that her signs (a totem of her of identity) were in danger, and she took action to punish the hypothetical left-wing thieves she was imagining in her head, and a public worker went to the hospital as a result. And now she is clearly lying her ass off about everything.
This reminds me of the family in Minnesota who a couple weeks ago took a picture of their garage, which had both an anarchist sign and Biden/Harris 2020 spray-painted on the front. That wasn't "vandalism", that was them committing insurance fraud. I'd bet everything in my possession they did it themselves, just as I would that this woman's signs were not stolen and returned, and she did, of course, place the razor blades.
Edit: the comment section on that article is fucking golden. The working theory among conservatives in the comments is that liberals stole the signs, put the razor blades on them, RETURNED to the scene of the theft, and replanted them in the exact same place. Just a trained team of ninja warriors hanging out in suburban Detroit. If you go even further into the comments, it honestly starts to read like people are talking about the hook killer or alligators in the sewer. EVERYONE claims to have heard of someone who has had a sign stolen, or property tagged with spray-paint. The scary thing is, they seem to actually believe their own bullshit. They are inventing persecution complexes in their own head, and to them, they are, in fact, quite real.
The theory of shy Trump voters applied to the last election relates to voters who eventually voted for Trump, but had not said they intended to do that at an earlier stage. The evaluation you've just posted (which needs to be treated with caution as it is based on a relatively small sample) suggests that Trump picked up 10% of his votes in 2016 from people who had not said earlier they would vote for him, while Clinton only picked up 6% of her votes in this way. If many of those people that changed their minds did so late in the campaign, that's sufficient by itself to explain the disparity between the polls and the actual votes.
Reasons for such changes of mind are not necessarily though related to a deliberate attempt to deceive pollsters. One other reason for instance was that Trump was an outsider and an unknown quantity (in relation to politics) in 2016 and therefore more likely to benefit from someone making a late decision to vote for change. Now though, he's very much a known quantity and less likely to benefit from that sort of floating voter (of which there are likely to be fewer in any case).
Yeah, if anything the 2016 election revealed that a significant voters made up their minds late in the election season. This isn't surprising given the last minute revelation from James Comey.
But there isn't any durable evidence for "shy Trump voters". Some people seem to desperately want this to be true, but it's not the case that the polls in 2016 were off by a large empirical amount. Polling average at the close of the election ended up within the statistical margin of error. Which means polls functioned exactly as well as we can expect them to.
This same specter arose in the 2008 election, where we also saw the Democratic candidate develop an enormous (and to some people, unbelievable) polling lead. People talked about the Bradley Effect in that election. That theory didn't pan out. The polls were right.
Moreover, conservatives have complained now for decades about polls undercounting their numbers, but it simply isn't true. Polls did a good job of predicting who would win the House in 2018. Polls also accurately predicted when Republicans were going to clearly win the House in other recent midterms -- 2014 and 2010.
The hard facts are plain but some conservatives want to cling to any shred of evidence that denies this. And I said them previously. Conservatives have lost the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections. That's historically peculiar. Polls are not systematically undercounting conservative or Republican support. We have a clear, durable phenomenon here. Conservative politics as practiced by the Republican party are simply not poplar among Americans.
It's not really worth getting into the inaccuracies and generalizations since it's clear you didn't read it, or even read my post very well, and just want to rant. Polls weren't off by greater amounts, even the amount of voters who voted differently than what they were polled on were generally the same. The phenomenon of 2016 was something entirely different, and did not have a replica in the previous elections you keep referencing to prove something or other. In fact, you mostly got it right, and nothing I posted argued the fact, other than it was pretty much unprecedented for so many of the "polled differently than voted" demographic to vote one way. The retrospective came to that conclusion, the more recent study merely reinforces it. Since these are trying to understand a single election that happened only a few years ago, and not some systemic issue that has happened for years as you mischaracterize it as, I'm not sure how much "durable" evidence you are asking for. It's merely food for thought, but you seem determined to doubt my intent.
We had a president that got elected after he said he could grab a woman by her hoo haa, now I would not be surprised about anything. He really stepped all over his private parts in the last four years though, I cannot imagine the nation will forgive him. Sure, there are those that pray to their lord and savior Donald Trump, the rest of the country has a brain. Find a different orbit GOP, this sun is about to explode.
I sure as shit wouldn't be in his vicinity right now, can't trust trump or the quacks he influences to do his bidding.
Trump has a long history of getting doctors to lie for him going back to his bone spurs that he doesn't know which knee they are on, to the crazy one page note from Dr. Borenstein or Ronny Jackson saying he was like superhumanly healthy or whatever. To the crazy demon semen woman Trump had give a coronavirus briefing.
He might truly be getting over the disease, good for him, but you can't trust his word or anyone associate with him at all ever.
Michigan seems to be taking front and center in The Outer Limits this year for sure. I guess it's not surprising considering the split between urban and rural in my state. Even many of the city folks take their vacations 'Up North' here so are privy to the Great Outdoors and their way of thinking. There's a valid reason we're considered a 'Swing State'.
Well I guess you can send the tough cases to Minneapolis or Duluth if it comes to it. Minnesota's not doing too badly right now.
Wasserman is the guy you'll see on election night saying "I've seen enough" on Twitter. He doesn't sugar coat it for either side, or give you false hope for 2 or 3 more hours. He can do this because he has studied races down to the county level. So when certain areas report, he is able to quickly understand if the candidate who is behind can possibly make up the ground necessary with what is left outstanding. So these polls tomorrow should be interesting.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/10/politics/polling-trump-can-win/index.html
I've seen most people online compare it to how many times they've missed shots in XCOM with a 95% hit chance.
While I agree that there is a non-zero chance of Trump winning the election, I really do believe these articles are posted out of an overabundance of caution from 2016 - not that Trump won, but that some pundits and models were saying Clinton had a 99% chance of winning.
She never had nearly so good of a chance, but the pundits couldnt imagine a world where a reality television host would be President of the USA. So the pendulum has swung back, the other way.
My analytical brain says you're right. My spidey-sense honed by my upbringing in a fundamentalist Christian home, however, can't stop tingling. I don't pray much anymore, but mine are for the least non-Christlike of this pair of candidates. Yes, I chose that syntax on purpose. I try to stay away from the religious aspects of politics, but I can understand why the religious right are not Democrats. This is serious as all Hell for them. Atreides vs. Harkonnen from their PoV. That's why a total moral black-hole like Trump becomes a Christlike figure to them. It isn't about Trump the person with them, it's about a few specific issues where he gives them what they want. It's scary as Hell to me and I won't believe it's over until the last ballot is counted and Trump relinquishes power.
I'm certain most Americans will reject Trump, again, but he still might win based on a cocktail of voter suppression, election fraud and the electoral college.
I guarantee its a single issue: abortion. One of the biggest scam in politics in the last, what, 30 years? Is how hard the republican gives lip service to ending abortion, which causes the vast majority of religious conservatives to vote for them, when the party does everything it can to either defund or outright remove programs that would actually prevent abortions. For most Christians, this one issue tru-uh outweighs everything else the party says or does.
Yep, the telling and troubling thing about the current state of affairs is that there's almost zero doubt Trump will lose the popular vote. But could win through appealing to a minuscule slice of swing voters in certain states.
This, imo, actually goes a long way to explaining some of the awful dynamics everyone complains about in US politics. Republicans/conservatives don't have to appeal to the center. Democrats/liberals don't feel standard politics serves their interests.
Nothing illustrates this more than the current media obsession with Biden and Harris dodging the court packing question. Apparently, this is viewed as 10x worse than every Republican in existence purposefully LYING about the issue for four years.
Yes, Biden and Harris are dodging the question. And I don't care. Why?? Because Republicans already packed the court. They packed the court when they let the amount of justices go down to 8 for an entire year and change when a Democrat was in office. They packed it again when the moved the number BACK up to 9 the moment a Republican regained the White House. And they are packing it a THIRD time by blatantly disregarding their own rule for the first two incidences, basically saying "lmao, you thought we were being truthful?? Jokes on you."
If Hillary Clinton were President right now, based on the own stated position of the Republican Party, there would only be 6 Supreme Court Justices, because she wouldn't have gotten a single hearing for anyone. I KNEW this was going to happen. That the "consensus" position would be that one party has to sacrifice their power for the good of the country, and since the Republicans WON'T do it, the Democrats MUST do it. Fuck that shit.
The utter lack of context surrounding this issue in the campaign right now is infuriating. It isn't an issue AT ALL if Republicans simply adhere to the standards they were allowed to set for everyone. And yet they are viewed as SO lacking in any principles, that there is no point in even bothering to hold them to any. So the Democrats are expected to be held to standards for both of them. Once again, at the expense of the vast majority of actual voters.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-to-make-sense-of-the-polls
From one of the best interviewers in the biz (Isaac Chotiner) interviewing one of the best polling specialists in the biz (Sean Trende). Chotiner is a liberal and Trende is a conservative, fwiw. The interview goes over polling, shy Trump voters, Hillary Clinton, Trump's strengths and weaknesses and more.
I can't even set foot in certain places of business (and I don't spend a SECOND complaining about it) and these troglodytes can't even put a piece of cloth over their face. I'm sick of having my life stuck in this endless loop because a certain (almost entirely Republican) portion of the electorate is sociopathic. I don't know why I should care what happens to these people when they clearly give a fuck about NO ONE but themselves.
The lockdown on the 23rd March had an immediate and pretty dramatic effect on the disease - turning what was at that stage a run-away infection into a slowly diminishing one. This announcement is more of a rebadging and rationalization of what was there already and, though Boris Johnson has put this forward as a major initiative, I doubt if it will make much difference. He may be hoping that this will persuade people to take more care and hence suppress the virus though individual choices rather than government restrictions, but I'm doubtful how much effect there will be. My guess is that over the next week or so there will be a significant drift of areas into the higher categories, but if that does not show quick results the government may be forced into yet another national initiative.
The growing current problem is accentuated by the government's actions becoming more controversial and they are now under increasing attack on several fronts. The majority of health professionals and modellers think that action should have been taken sooner and with stronger measures - pointing out for instance that more people are now in hospital with Covid-19 than at the time of the March lockdown (though the disease is not growing anything like as fast now). The Labour party, who had generally been pretty supportive following the "we're all in this together" line, are now being much more critical and openly skeptical about whether the growth in infections can be turned around. On the other side, the more libertarian wing of the Conservative party are pushing hard for less restrictions - Charles Walker, who's one of the most prominent backbenchers, has been surprisingly blunt today about the idea we should accept more deaths as those are so concentrated in the elderly.
Same things Chris Christie said. And I'm sure just like him, the moment this Mr. Walker contracts the virus, he will also be preemptively admitted to the hospital and given care your average citizen could only dream of. These people are all for sacrifice right up to the point they start experiencing legitimate symptoms. Then, all of a sudden, it's to be taken VERY seriously, in their specific case.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
There is nothing else that needs to be said about it, in the US or the UK. That is the crux of the issue.
In the run-up to the March lockdown the level of information about what was actually happening was poor (partly a consequence of less knowledge of Covid-19, but more because of the lack of testing). Therefore, while SAGE would have liked a slightly quicker lockdown, there was internal disagreement about the situation and government could legitimately say they were following the scientific advice.
However, much of the advice provided by SAGE is published retrospectively and we've just seen the advice given to ministers in September - that was to have a short lockdown to act as a 'circuit-breaker', along with introducing significantly stronger social distancing measures. The government acted on only a small fraction of that advice, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise that cases have been rising since.
As I've said before there is no 'good' solution to Covid-19. The government does need to balance health risks with the wider impact on society. There is increasing pressure against current restrictions from business and sectors like sports and arts & culture and, while the public still generally support stronger measures, that support is not as strong as it was earlier in the year. It's therefore legitimate for government action to differ from scientific advice, but I would argue that action should still be informed by a rational debate about the overall benefits and harms of different courses of action - and I'm not convinced that's happening. To me this feels like a government being shoved around by competing pressures, rather than deciding on what they consider to be the best strategy and sticking to it. My guess is that, within a few weeks, the pressures on the NHS will become irresistible once more and the government will be pushed into stronger social distancing measures - but as in March the impact of the delay will be to make the required medicine worse than it would have been if done earlier.
I'd wash it down with bleach before using if you buy one...