Lol, no.
2 Likes
that’s an ovech-trick.
Insert Herman Cain 9-9-9 joke.
I googled, but not sure which article you’re referring to. I’d like to check it out.
3 Likes
Parties and candidates that say less controversial things, and are associated with less-controversial ideas, win more elections.
lol?
4 Likes
[Mob with pitchforks mad about the polls appears.]
Guy averaging the polls: “I don’t make the polls I just work here.”
Also guy averaging the polls: “The polls weren’t that far off and overall were fucking great, you buncha assholes.”
Like, I dunno, maybe if you’re the expert poll analysis guy don’t throw your hands up and say “I didn’t make these polls!” while trying to have it both ways and dunk when the model narrowly escapes with a 0.1% victory. The polls being that far off–especially in the key states where they were way off–is pretty notable since we aren’t talking about just normal sampling error here. There’s either bad biasing or non-sampling error going on, the pattern of which does not appear to be consistent across states nor in accordance with commonly-pushed narratives (i.e., shy Trump voters). I’d probably be spiking fewer footballs and trying to figure out how an A+ (lol) pollster could miss seniors by 30 points in a state as valuable as Wisconsin.
1 Like
Nate is a monkey whose core skill can be done by thousands of people right now, and he is desperately trying to defend his job/prestige… probably as much to himself as the public.
1 Like
I will never understand the Nate hate. The model holds up pretty good. This outcome is, to use Nate’s phrase, within the fat part of the distribution. It’s like a standard deviation from the model’s median outcome.
Pretty much the Presidential election played out how most of us expected based on looking at his model, with the margins in Wisconsin and Ohio being the only big surprises. The polls weren’t super wrong overall, only medium wrong, and that’s not Nate’s fault anyway. No one is saying that the error was sampling error, nor did the models assume that the only error would be sampling error.
2 Likes
A lot of polls were criminally awful.
There were A+ pollsters in the final week saying the following (and I’m sure there are many more):
Wisconsin: Biden+17
Florida: Biden+6
North Carolina: Biden+6
Ohio: Biden+1
Montana senate: Daines+3
These aren’t just off, they’re WTF off (and all in the same direction).
If Nate wants to be respected, the first thing to do is to strip these organizations of their A+ ratings.
4 Likes
They were also systematically way off. Like all the polls said Biden was supposedly going to turn the tide with seniors and win them by a decent margin, and Trump won them by 5. The actual result is what would have been expected with no pollsters.
1 Like
Really? Biden wins Georgia and Arizona? The conventional wisdom became the conventional wisdom because of polls!
4 Likes
Why are we giving so much credit for free Bingo squares? It reminds me of that pitch the MLBUA makes against replay: they claim MLB umps get 99.5% of the calls correct. That is dumb though because anyone could accurately make a large majority of those calls. On reviewed plays, umpires were cumulatively worse than 50% at one point (and perhaps they still are).
Whoops. But also nah it was worse than that.
No one is saying anyone is saying […]. But these bros always just shrug this shit off like it’s all the same. Meow the polls are off by Y% in an average year. Right, but that offness is (mostly) not due to chance, and the fact they’re averaging a bunch of polls means the bias should be greatly reduced. It implies non-sampling error is the prime suspect, so what grand theories have been pitched to explain what’s happening? That shy Trump voters are lying to pollsters–but apparently only in states that matter like Wisconsin and Ohio, whereas Maine Trump voters are very honest with pollsters because [reasons]. So like, I dunno, maybe the EXPERT POLLS GUY is someone you’d expect to unpack that, decompose the error structure, develop some novel theories that actually explain what’s happening instead of tossing CA and NY onto the scales and claiming victory.
4 Likes
The votes are still being counted, give it a bit of time. Nate has already said they’re going to analyze what went wrong with the polls and publish some pieces. After 2016, pollsters did reflect on what went wrong, and started weighting by education more. And their adjustments apparently worked for 2018 because the polls were really good in 2018.
For 2020, there have already been theories beyond shy Trump proposed (link), but there’s a lot of data to gather and process, and the error was weird, so it’s gonna take a deep dive to come up with something that explains it.
2 Likes
I also want to push back on the stupid notion that we just magically would have known public opinion without polls and called more states correctly. Like a good example was the first debate where people itf were melting down, Biden looks weak, Trump is steamrolling, waaf, but then polls came out showing large majorities saying Biden won, and everybody forgets about it.
Without polling, it’s not clear why we don’t expect the rust belt to go for Trump again. Incumbent Presidents almost always win, and everybody here thought Biden was a terrible candidate. So my guess is not only would people here have called more states wrong, they would have called the election wrong and predicted a Trump win. The “intelligent” betting markets certainly would have predicted a Trump win if polls didn’t exist. Obviously the BLM protests would doom Biden in the rust belt.
7 Likes
As cheese said, polls are the biggest reason ppl itt made a collective ~6 figures on the election. Are we just upset it was a sweat?
2 Likes
Something that people in our party say a lot is, “The problem with Democrats is they talk too much about issues and they don’t talk enough about values.” And I think that’s actually exactly backward. I think the problem is that fundamentally, swing voters generally don’t share our values and only and mainly vote for us because they agree with us on issues.
Yeah this kind of crystallises my thinking on this. I cringe whenever Dems (or progressives in general) lead with values because it’s such bad politics.
One simple and clear example is healthcare. I frequently see people lead with “healthcare is a human right”. I think this is a dumb and meaningless proposition because “healthcare” is a collection of many disparate things, some of which (insulin for diabetics) are arguably a human right and some of which (million-dollar experimental treatments that might extend a terminally ill person’s life by a couple weeks) no government in their right mind should pay for. Saying “healthcare is a human right” doesn’t help at all with the question of what should and shouldn’t be publicly funded.
The larger problem, though, is that it’s a terrible way to convince people that M4A is a good idea. Telling people that “healthcare is a human right” amounts to badgering them about their values and morals. If you’re not a vegan, think about how you would react if a vegan was to lecture you about being a bad person for eating animal products. I don’t know about you, but my reaction is “fuck off”. If anything, the fact that I think they have good points about the ethical treatment of animals makes me less, not more, receptive to an attack on my values. I might well support a whole range of policies which lead to more ethical treatment of animals, but arguing that my values are inadequate makes me instantly hostile. It’s the same with any political issue.
It would be one thing if moralizing was the only way to argue for M4A, but in reality it’s easy to argue for M4A on simple grounds of cost, efficiency and so forth, given the particular pathologies of the American healthcare sector. To make it your mission to convert other people to your values is to be a slave to a pointless middleman. Just advocate for policy. I don’t give a shit whether other people’s values accord with mine or not if they’re willing to support the policies I want.
The way the Democratic party builds its coalition around shared values is the enemy of class politics (because class politics is supposed to involve shared material conditions, not shared values) and is a major driving force behind the Democrats becoming the party of educated city-dwellers. I’ve used Joe Rogan as an example of someone not welcome in the Democratic coalition a number of times because I think it’s illustrative. While I’m sure there are a number of concrete Democratic policies he would oppose, it’s noteworthy that all the actual complaints about him are values complaints. That is, he has bad men on his show, he says problematic things about trans people, and (unspoken but a major driving force imo) he is a dumbass who doesn’t really value intellectual rigour.
The Democrats are constantly on the attack on values and have very little to show for it, for example the line for four years of Trump was “racism racism racism white supremacy” and the result was that in 2020 he peeled off a substantial chunk of Latino voters and got, if anything, a higher share of Black voters than Republicans typically do. I mean Jesus, even attacking people on THEIR OWN VALUES clearly doesn’t fucking work, look at Evangelicals and Trump. It’s not that Evangelicals are uniquely hypocritical among human beings, it’s that people are just generally willing to compromise their values if they don’t like the conclusions they lead to (recall my veganism example earlier) and that everyone hates being lectured on their values. Despite this, I still see people leading with values in political arguments on a daily basis. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the point of this is that they enjoy lecturing people and feeling superior to them, rather than that it’s a serious attempt to change minds or build coalitions.
16 Likes
My beef is with the pollsters. They had 4 years to fix their shit and they were just as far off with the same Trump-no bias in 2020 as they were in 2016. Biden +17 in Wisconsin with a +/- 4 margin of error. That’s not even close. Biden with consistent leads in Florida, gets destroyed. Etc. I had my hopes up for a blue wave based on the polls but it turns out 70 million people voted for Trump and Biden is gonna be president because he won like ~4-5 swing states by ~1% or less margins
2 Likes
“Healthcare is a human right” immediately sends you down a boring philosophical rabbithole. Like, I had to cut you off right there because I got bored with what you were saying. IDGAF is healthcare is technically a Constitutional “right” or not, I want the people I care about to have healthcare. Campaign on giving me and my family access to healthcare, I don’t don’t give flying fuck if it’s categorically defined as a right or whatnot as long as I have it.
One of the better moments from Joe Biden’s campaign was him pointing out that millions of Americans now have pre-existing conditions due to COVID. Fuck me, I don’t have strong opinions on the natural rights of man, I just want to be able to afford health insurance if I get pozzed out.
2 Likes
Right. Also as kind of an addendum, the idea that the way you convince people to support policy is to change their values is just a fallacy. At least as often, it works in the opposite direction. The reason “socialist” institutions like fire departments, public trash collection, public roads, public education, Medicare etc etc are very widely supported in America is not that people were philosophically convinced that trash collection is a government responsibility. It’s because that is just the way things work and people see that it functions well and so they support it. That’s also why people in countries with public healthcare are much more likely to see that as the natural way of things. People’s values are determined by what works in their experience, only fringe politics nerds change their values based on logical argument. Similarly, people in cities support immigration and multiculturalism because that’s their experience of the world, it’s not that they’re just genetically better people than those in all-white rural areas panicking about MS-13.
4 Likes