Hacker News Reader

Comment by mixologic | Hacker News Reader

If you look at RCP's polling average for Clinton in 2016, she outperformed that average for just about every race.

But, what the pollsters got crazy wrong, was Trumps polling numbers, by wide margins, far outside the margin of error.

I think they got it wrong this time too, and I think it all comes down to their methodology for actually getting a random sample of voters. Many polls are still married to live interviews and also to landline contact, and also tied to live interview polling - I think there is a partisan slant that they are not accounting for that includes a "propensity to answer a polling survey in the first place"

View on HN

> I think there is a partisan slant that they are not accounting for that includes a "propensity to answer a polling survey in the first place"

They're well aware of that slant, and try their damndest to correct for it. But apparently they just don't have a good model of how large or how volatile that propensity attribute is, and how it relates to political leanings.

I was polled this year. One of the first questions I was asked is if I was answering the call on a landline or on a cell phone. They weight those differently. Also of course my basic demographic info (wage, race, marital status, education level, home ownership status, etc.)

I think your whole comment is correct, but instead of not accounting for the propensity factor, they do... just badly :)

I have no idea what the solution is to this. Maybe there isn't one, and instead we can get a silver-lining effect: If people trust the results of polls less, they're hopefully less likely to think the results are preordained. More voter turnout?

>I think your whole comment is correct, but instead of not accounting for the propensity factor, they do... just badly :)

In particular, Trump was extremely critical of polls and mail-in voting, and we have pretty much confirmed that his statements caused his supporters to avoid mail-in voting, so it's not too much of a leap to suggest the same thing happened with polls. Notably, this is a different effect from 2016, where IIRC Trump appealed to "non-likely" voters whose responses were inappropriately discounted.

> I have no idea what the solution is to this.

It is a solution that has its own problems, but mandatory voting would solve this problem. The polling failures are primarily in trying to weight the sample that you manage to capture in a way that reflects the actual turnout on election day. If everyone is forced to vote then you eliminate the RV/LV problem and pollsters would only need to make sure their sample was representative of the population at large.

Typical. Silent protest is the _most_ fundamental form of speech, how shocking that the extreme left wouldn't like it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23548802

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20141336

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20117157

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19751970

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19743834

Are the Uncle Police OK with silent protest? http://v6y.net/unclepolice.mp4

Reply on news.ycombinator.com