ADVERTISEMENT

Can we conclude that polling just sucks in general?

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 1, 2001
41,353
48,297
113
All the dbm and bailey bashing aside, haven't the pollsters of all stripes shown they're bad at their jobs? Were they ever? What would it take for them to get good? What are they doing (or not doing) wrong?
 
All the dbm and bailey bashing aside, haven't the pollsters of all stripes shown they're bad at their jobs? Were they ever? What would it take for them to get good? What are they doing (or not doing) wrong?
I tend to think this was them making up for sins of the past and overstating independents switching to GOP this time.

But yes.
 
All the dbm and bailey bashing aside, haven't the pollsters of all stripes shown they're bad at their jobs? Were they ever? What would it take for them to get good? What are they doing (or not doing) wrong?
I thought polling was good. Most senate races were within margin of error. One complicating factor, some votes were cast 30 days ago but polling moves. That does make it more difficult.
 
I thought polling was good. Most senate races were within margin of error. One complicating factor, some votes were cast 30 days ago but polling moves. That does make it more difficult.

Okay, then where did dbm and bailey go wrong?
 
All the dbm and bailey bashing aside, haven't the pollsters of all stripes shown they're bad at their jobs? Were they ever? What would it take for them to get good? What are they doing (or not doing) wrong?
Too early to say, but it looks like overall, the polling averages are going to be well within a standard margin of error. Big Red Wave and Surprise Blue Win were both within the realm of possibility, but on the edges of it. Close race but with a clear GOP advantage was right in the middle. So it looks like, overall, the polls underestimated Dems, it doesn't look like it will end up being by a huge amount.
 
Too early to say, but it looks like overall, the polling averages are going to be well within a standard margin of error. Big Red Wave and Surprise Blue Win were both within the realm of possibility, but on the edges of it. Close race but with a clear GOP advantage was right in the middle. So it looks like, overall, the polls underestimated Dems, it doesn't look like it will end up being by a huge amount.

Meh, I sort of agree with @UncleMark . Trump's win over Hillary, Red Wave not materializing, etc. seem like pollsters and predictions are about as useful as those provided by economists.

I just read this WSJ piece (sorry if paywall):


I came away thinking, how in the world did the GOP not pick up more? (other than the disastrous timing on abortion).

kBRuXzO.png


nddvkcR.png


While, in theory, these trends bode well for the GOP going forward, they didn't seem to change the key races this time around. Until it can shed Trump's influence, it will likely continue to underperform in reality, regardless of what the polls predict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Okay, then where did dbm and bailey go wrong?
They fell for a very well orchestrated GOP disinformation campaign, where people like Trafalgar and Rasmussen combined with phony unknown pollsters to push a false narrative over a 10 day period where non-partisan polls weren't really releasing any results. They basically filled the void, and if you go back and see the posts linking to tweets from people like Barris it's pretty easy to trace the period in question...

Several people were suspicious because it seemed such a drastic shift, and people esp the fans on this board kept repeating the false mantra of excellence for Traf and Ras. I said all along that the "likely voter" model they were using was outdated for 2022, due to the amount of first time registrants (esp women and youth) that were spurred to register by issues like Dobbs and loan forgiveness, but did not meet that outdated characterization of "likely voters". And early voting numbers, that I posted on incessantly as well, did not fit the narrative the partisan GOP polls were pushing, esp in PA.

That's why I started that thread where 17 yr campaign veteran Simon Rosenberg called out the partisan GOP hype, and also indicted the mainstream for ignoring reality because they "needed" the various myths about midterms to be true. People made fun of him, and of me for posting a Meidas Touch clip, but he basically nailed exactly what was going on.

So going back to the original premise of that thread, the person undoubtedly proven right on election night was drumbeat... duh duh duh duh... Simon Rosenberg...
 
All the dbm and bailey bashing aside, haven't the pollsters of all stripes shown they're bad at their jobs? Were they ever? What would it take for them to get good? What are they doing (or not doing) wrong?
What is funny is that I've said from the very beginning not to count your chickens before they hatch. II put of the post about Democrats doing better than Republicans in the polls and got a lot of pushback. I've thought it would be close from the beginning.
 
Too early to say, but it looks like overall, the polling averages are going to be well within a standard margin of error. Big Red Wave and Surprise Blue Win were both within the realm of possibility, but on the edges of it.

That kind of makes my point. If the margin of error contains both Big Red Wave and Surprise Blue Win, then the polls don't really tell us much, do they?
 
Really it boils down to rural vs urban for the most part. The rural areas and urban areas needs are different and each one wants to tell the other side what to do.

UzVUQ7C.jpg
 
All the dbm and bailey bashing aside, haven't the pollsters of all stripes shown they're bad at their jobs? Were they ever? What would it take for them to get good? What are they doing (or not doing) wrong?

I would say the traditional, mainstream polls were more accurate this cycle than they have been for a while. What specific races did you have polling issues with?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT