A Musing on Polls

[silverscreenselect]

The presidential polls recently have varied between small leads for Trump and Biden, but what's interesting is that many polls have two sets of results. One set is strict Trump v. Biden, and the other is a five-way race including RFK Jr., Cornel West, and Jill Stein, none of whom are on the ballot in all states, including presumably some of the states in which these polls are being taken. It's pretty clear that West and Stein, when they're on the ballot, aren't likely to get a lot of disgruntled would-be Trump voters. But RFK's attraction is tougher to predict.

But one thing that all these polls leave out is the Libertarian candidate. That won't be chosen until late May at their convention, but they've already said it won't be RFK. The Libertarians are on the ballot in all 50 states, and usually attract voters more attuned to Republicans (except on social issues like abortion) than Democrats. Here in Georgia, one reason that Biden and Jon Ossoff won their races is because of the Libertarian candidates. Jo Jorgenson, a psychology professor at Clemson, got 60,000 votes in a race Biden won by 11,000. And the Libertarian Senate candidate got enough votes to force a runoff, even though David Perdue got more votes in November. Traditionally, Libertarians have gotten more Presidential votes than any other third parties, including the Green Party. So, a five-way poll doesn't really reflect what's going to be on the ballot in November. In states in which one candidate wins by 10 or 20 thousand votes, those votes could make a difference. I'm curious to see what shift there will be in the polls, if any, if and when they include the Libertarian, especially if it's someone with any sort of name recognition.

[jarnon]

Interesting that Perdue finished ahead in November, yet in the runoff, with no Libertarian to take votes away from his opponent, Ossoff won. Maybe other factors influenced the runoff, like Pres. Trump calling his loss a fraud, accusing Georgia government officials and individual poll workers, and asking Congress to throw out Georgia’s electoral votes.

And these are actual results, not polls six months out. I think polls are next to worthless as predictors of the outcome.

(I was going to say polls have some utility in helping candidates decide where to spend time and money. Then I remembered Clinton, who swore by polls, misallocating resources and blowing the election.

[Bob78164]

Interesting that Perdue finished ahead in November, yet in the runoff, with no Libertarian to take votes away from his opponent, Ossoff won. Maybe other factors influenced the runoff, like Pres. Trump calling his loss a fraud, accusing Georgia government officials and individual poll workers, and asking Congress to throw out Georgia’s electoral votes.

And these are actual results, not polls six months out. I think polls are next to worthless as predictors of the outcome.

(I was going to say polls have some utility in helping candidates decide where to spend time and money. Then I remembered Clinton, who swore by polls, misallocating resources and blowing the election.

Nate Silver disagrees with you. And I agree with Nate.

The problem was that most of the mainstream media screwed up by assuming that statewide polling variance would be uncorrelated. That wasn't the case. If the polls are off by a little in Wisconsin, then they're more likely to be off by a little in the same direction in Michigan. When you account for that correlation (as Nate did in 2016), you reach the conclusion that Donny, although behind in the polling, had a realistic chance to win. Hell, a few days before the election, FiveThirtyEight ran an article with four different electoral scenarios. One of them had Donny winning by overperforming the polls by just a bit in the Rust Belt. Sound familiar?

Basically, Donny was down by 1 run going into the bottom of the ninth inning. Sure, you'd rather be ahead, but no one would claim that a team in that situation is toast. --Bob

[jarnon]

I was going to say polls have some utility in helping candidates decide where to spend time and money. Then I remembered Clinton, who swore by polls, misallocating resources and blowing the election.

Nate Silver disagrees with you. And I agree with Nate.

The problem was that most of the mainstream media screwed up by assuming that statewide polling variance would be uncorrelated. That wasn't the case. If the polls are off by a little in Wisconsin, then they're more likely to be off by a little in the same direction in Michigan. When you account for that correlation (as Nate did in 2016), you reach the conclusion that Donny, although behind in the polling, had a realistic chance to win. Hell, a few days before the election, FiveThirtyEight ran an article with four different electoral scenarios. One of them had Donny winning by overperforming the polls by just a bit in the Rust Belt. Sound familiar?

Basically, Donny was down by 1 run going into the bottom of the ninth inning. Sure, you'd rather be ahead, but no one would claim that a team in that situation is toast. --Bob

Maybe my post was unclear. Relying on polls, Clinton neglected Michigan and didn’t campaign at all in Wisconsin. She went to Arizona days before the election. Her last rally was in North Carolina. Smarter tactics could have changed the result in key states.

[Bob78164]

I was going to say polls have some utility in helping candidates decide where to spend time and money. Then I remembered Clinton, who swore by polls, misallocating resources and blowing the election.

Nate Silver disagrees with you. And I agree with Nate.

The problem was that most of the mainstream media screwed up by assuming that statewide polling variance would be uncorrelated. That wasn't the case. If the polls are off by a little in Wisconsin, then they're more likely to be off by a little in the same direction in Michigan. When you account for that correlation (as Nate did in 2016), you reach the conclusion that Donny, although behind in the polling, had a realistic chance to win. Hell, a few days before the election, FiveThirtyEight ran an article with four different electoral scenarios. One of them had Donny winning by overperforming the polls by just a bit in the Rust Belt. Sound familiar?

Basically, Donny was down by 1 run going into the bottom of the ninth inning. Sure, you'd rather be ahead, but no one would claim that a team in that situation is toast. --Bob

Maybe my post was unclear. Relying on polls, Clinton neglected Michigan and didn’t campaign at all in Wisconsin. She went to Arizona days before the election. Her last rally was in North Carolina. Smarter tactics could have changed the result in key states.

The part of your post I was disagreeing with was the part where you say polls are next to worthless in predicting outcomes. Used correctly, I think they're valuable. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

One thing that trips a lot of people up is that they don't understand how margin of error works. If a poll says that it has a 3% margin of error, that means there is a very high probability (usually 95 to 99% depending on the poll), that the result is accurate to within 3%. But if a poll says Trump leads Biden by 4% in State A with that margin of error, that doesn't mean that it's extremely probable Trump is ahead. The margin of error applies to both figures. So, if the poll says Trump is up 52-48, Trump's total could be anywhere from 55 to 45 and Biden's would correspond. So, it's within the margin of error that the race is a 10-point blowout for Trump. But it's also within the margin of error that Biden is ahead by two points.

[Ritterskoop]

I did my part. I am under 60, and answered my phone the other day when it said Potential Spam, and I answered a bunch of poll questions. I argued with the way one of them was worded, but answered the closest I could. They did ask what year I was born, so they have some way to try to make the sample work, but I just don't see how traditional polls are of much use nowadays (because young people don't answer phones if they don't know the number - and I don't blame them). The polls are so far out, too. I guess they do help the strategists figure out which independent voters to go after. I read that in some very recent primaries, Nikki Haley was still pulling 20% of Republican votes, which in a closed primary, seems like a lot. I think it means there are some dissatisfied voters worth trying to persuade.

I may have said this already, but want on record that I think if Trump is somehow out of things by the Democratic national convention (I'm thinking health issues, not legal), that I think Biden will step back, giving them time to choose a different candidate. I could be wrong, of course, but it's my script so I can write it however I want. That scenario would make both conventions at least interesting.

[wbtravis007]

I did my part. I am under 60, and answered my phone the other day when it said Potential Spam, and I answered a bunch of poll questions. I argued with the way one of them was worded, but answered the closest I could. They did ask what year I was born, so they have some way to try to make the sample work, but I just don't see how traditional polls are of much use nowadays (because young people don't answer phones if they don't know the number - and I don't blame them). The polls are so far out, too. I guess they do help the strategists figure out which independent voters to go after. I read that in some very recent primaries, Nikki Haley was still pulling 20% of Republican votes, which in a closed primary, seems like a lot. I think it means there are some dissatisfied voters worth trying to persuade.

I may have said this already, but want on record that I think if Trump is somehow out of things by the Democratic national convention (I'm thinking health issues, not legal), that I think Biden will step back, giving them time to choose a different candidate. I could be wrong, of course, but it's my script so I can write it however I want. That scenario would make both conventions at least interesting.

I love this take, Skoop! Here’s hoping that your script plays out as imagined.

I’ve seen commentary suggesting that a lot of people are still not really expecting a binary choice of those two as the parties’ nominees, and that, therefore, the polls are even more unreliable than they’d otherwise be.

I’m curious about your thoughts about how open conventions might play out, and how you would want them to. Ear had started a thread quite awhile ago posing a similar question, asking us about whom we might want instead. Pretty sure there weren’t many responses, for whatever reason.

[Ritterskoop]

I did my part. I am under 60, and answered my phone the other day when it said Potential Spam, and I answered a bunch of poll questions. I argued with the way one of them was worded, but answered the closest I could. They did ask what year I was born, so they have some way to try to make the sample work, but I just don't see how traditional polls are of much use nowadays (because young people don't answer phones if they don't know the number - and I don't blame them). The polls are so far out, too. I guess they do help the strategists figure out which independent voters to go after. I read that in some very recent primaries, Nikki Haley was still pulling 20% of Republican votes, which in a closed primary, seems like a lot. I think it means there are some dissatisfied voters worth trying to persuade.

I may have said this already, but want on record that I think if Trump is somehow out of things by the Democratic national convention (I'm thinking health issues, not legal), that I think Biden will step back, giving them time to choose a different candidate. I could be wrong, of course, but it's my script so I can write it however I want. That scenario would make both conventions at least interesting.

I love this take, Skoop! Here’s hoping that your script plays out as imagined.

I’ve seen commentary suggesting that a lot of people are still not really expecting a binary choice of those two as the parties’ nominees, and that, therefore, the polls are even more unreliable than they’d otherwise be.

I’m curious about your thoughts about how open conventions might play out, and how you would want them to. Ear had started a thread quite awhile ago posing a similar question, asking us about whom we might want instead. Pretty sure there weren’t many responses, for whatever reason.

I get why the parties are terrified of open conventions (Lawrence O'Donnell's book on the 1968 conventions is remarkable), but the way they are set up now are a huge waste of energy and money.

I would be interested in hearing policy positions by Romney, Haley, and Christie, for sure. Maybe another 1-2 I can't think of right now.

In the other group, I want to hear more from Klobuchar, Booker, Newsome, Whitmer, and maybe Warnock, though I would not be thrilled about too much church in the executive branch (I don't mind it as much in the Senate or House). There are a few more in this group I like (Katie Porter, Jeff Jackson), but there are some rough edges to polish or some dues-paying to do first for some of them.

I did like Gary Johnson, back in the day, but have not spent any time to learn about current Libertarians. As a group, I tend to agree with 7-out-of-10 of their positions.

[tlynn78]

Hammer. Nikki Haley endorses Trump.

[silverscreenselect]

Hammer. Nikki Haley endorses Trump.

Most of Nikki Haley's supporters weren't supporting her because of what she stood for. They supported her because she was the last candidate in the race not named Donald Trump. Many of them are still in play for Biden (or a third party candidate).

[tlynn78]

Hammer. Nikki Haley endorses Trump.

Most of Nikki Haley's supporters weren't supporting her because of what she stood for. They supported her because she was the last candidate in the race not named Donald Trump. Many of them are still in play for Biden (or a third party candidate).

It's truly astonishing how you have your finger on the pulse of so many Republicans.

[earendel]

Hammer. Nikki Haley endorses Trump.

Most of Nikki Haley's supporters weren't supporting her because of what she stood for. They supported her because she was the last candidate in the race not named Donald Trump. Many of them are still in play for Biden (or a third party candidate).

It's truly astonishing how you have your finger on the pulse of so many Republicans.

FWIW, Haley drew 21.7% of the votes in the Indiana Republican primary even though she had dropped out of the race several weeks earlier.

[Pastor Fireball]

Hammer. Nikki Haley endorses Trump.

Wrong, as usual. She did not "endorse" him. She said she was "voting for" him. Not the same thing. She even qualified her statement by saying, "I stand by what I said in my suspension speech. [He] would be smart to reach out to the millions of people who voted for me and continue to support me, and not assume that they're just going to be with him, and I genuinely hope he does that."

But since he's not smart, he won't reach out to the 20% of the GOP who have voted for Haley in the primaries even after she left the race. He has already lost two elections by hemorrhaging 10% in 2016 and 15% in 2020 of total GOP votes, so the only real hammer is against his own campaign. Your "hammer" is one of those inflatable plastic ones that squeaks when you hit somebody with it. That 20% is the conservative estimate, by the way. That's before a guilty verdict on any of his nearly 100 indictments. All it takes is one conviction on anything (likely to happen by the end of the month as the defense lawyers failed to present any solid evidence that their client is innocent) and that 20% goes up. They may not vote for President Biden. They may not even show up to vote at all. But they sure as hell don't want a felon running the government, regardless of how flawed "the other guy" is or how many brain worms "the other other guy" has, because that whole "I support the rule of law" platform goes out the window otherwise. That isn't conjecture, supposition, or cigar smoke. That's from actual TV interviews with actual Haley voters--that thing known as "evidence"--stating unequivocally not just "no", but "hell no" to your guy.

But you shelter yourself from the numbers. You're either too scared or too delusional to put your finger on the pulse of your party. You live in Montana. You don't live in a real state like Arizona or Georgia, where those numbers do matter. So good luck on winning a national election when over 20% of your own party won't vote for your party's nominee. Not even Russia can rig enough votes to counteract that.

[tlynn78]

Hammer. Nikki Haley endorses Trump.

Wrong, as usual. She did not "endorse" him. She said she was "voting for" him. Not the same thing. She even qualified her statement by saying, "I stand by what I said in my suspension speech. [He] would be smart to reach out to the millions of people who voted for me and continue to support me, and not assume that they're just going to be with him, and I genuinely hope he does that."

But since he's not smart, he won't reach out to the 20% of the GOP who have voted for Haley in the primaries even after she left the race. He has already lost two elections by hemorrhaging 10% in 2016 and 15% in 2020 of total GOP votes, so the only real hammer is against his own campaign. Your "hammer" is one of those inflatable plastic ones that squeaks when you hit somebody with it. That 20% is the conservative estimate, by the way. That's before a guilty verdict on any of his nearly 100 indictments. All it takes is one conviction on anything (likely to happen by the end of the month as the defense lawyers failed to present any solid evidence that their client is innocent) and that 20% goes up. They may not vote for President Biden. They may not even show up to vote at all. But they sure as hell don't want a felon running the government, regardless of how flawed "the other guy" is or how many brain worms "the other other guy" has, because that whole "I support the rule of law" platform goes out the window otherwise. That isn't conjecture, supposition, or cigar smoke. That's from actual TV interviews with actual Haley voters--that thing known as "evidence"--stating unequivocally not just "no", but "hell no" to your guy.

But you shelter yourself from the numbers. You're either too scared or too delusional to put your finger on the pulse of your party. You live in Montana. You don't live in a real state like Arizona or Georgia, where those numbers do matter. So good luck on winning a national election when over 20% of your own party won't vote for your party's nominee. Not even Russia can rig enough votes to counteract that.

Damn - I had no idea Montana isn't a "real" state. Is it like you're a "real" pastor?

[mrkelley23]

Most of Nikki Haley's supporters weren't supporting her because of what she stood for. They supported her because she was the last candidate in the race not named Donald Trump. Many of them are still in play for Biden (or a third party candidate).

It's truly astonishing how you have your finger on the pulse of so many Republicans.

FWIW, Haley drew 21.7% of the votes in the Indiana Republican primary even though she had dropped out of the race several weeks earlier.

Indiana's primaries require you to declare which type of ballot you want, Republican or Democrat. But there is no requirement that you are actually a member of that party. There was only one contested race for the majority of Democrats in Indiana, especially in the Indianapolis area, and it was for a Senate race that is probably not going to be close. So it's a reasonable assumption that many registered Democrats crossed over to vote in the Republican primary. And in fact, an analysis of voting numbers and patterns suggest that as many as half of Haley voters were actually registered Dems.

That still leaves a pretty large number (around 70,000) of registered Republicans in one of the reddest states in the Union who were willing to vote for someone other than Trump in the primary. Whether that translates to the general election remains to be seen.

[tlynn78]

It's truly astonishing how you have your finger on the pulse of so many Republicans.

FWIW, Haley drew 21.7% of the votes in the Indiana Republican primary even though she had dropped out of the race several weeks earlier.

Indiana's primaries require you to declare which type of ballot you want, Republican or Democrat. But there is no requirement that you are actually a member of that party. There was only one contested race for the majority of Democrats in Indiana, especially in the Indianapolis area, and it was for a Senate race that is probably not going to be close. So it's a reasonable assumption that many registered Democrats crossed over to vote in the Republican primary. And in fact, an analysis of voting numbers and patterns suggest that as many as half of Haley voters were actually registered Dems.

That still leaves a pretty large number (around 70,000) of registered Republicans in one of the reddest states in the Union who were willing to vote for someone other than Trump in the primary. Whether that translates to the general election remains to be seen.

I suspect if Biden remains the dem nominee, and continues his current level of performance, an increasing number of voters will hold their nose.