How are pollsters accounting for the "too embarrassed to admit I voted for Trump" effect?

[EscAlaMike]

@NDP

And of those, there were probably people who voted for Trump but didn’t want him to win. They incorrectly expected Hillary would get elected but didn’t want to sully their hands by voting for her.

Yes, I can see that too.

[wolfman]

@KidCharlemagne

You’re all welcome to debate whether you think the effect is real, but just so you know I’m not just making this up, here’s a Scientific American article about it:

Voter Embarrassment about Trump Support May Have Messed Up Poll Predictions

http://https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/voter-embarrassment-about-trump-support-may-have-messed-up-poll-predictions/

I may have missed something in that, but I don’t see anything that even tried to look for an “embarrassment factor”. Just an recounting of the facts that the underdog came in, and a suggestion of a possible cause. If there is a study of people who said they voted for Trump but didn’t report it before than I missed it.

[John_Mace]

@Jasmine

That doesn’t make sense to me because Trump supporters have shown themselves to be anything but shy. In fact, they have shown themselves to be defiantly loyal and loud in the face of overwhelming and justified criticism of their dubious hero.

You are seeing the self-selected vocal ones. How would you know if someone was a Trump supporter and didn’t want to admit it?

[Czarcasm]

One sign is that, if pressed, they will say that they will not vote for Trump…but they spend all their time bad-mouthing the other candidate.

[wolfman]

@Czarcasm

One sign is that, if pressed, they will say that they will not vote for Trump…but they spend all their time bad-mouthing the other candidate.

Or they could have been someone who who tried to force an amoral kings consort down the throat of a public that said they were never going going to vote for that no matter what.

[Czarcasm]

@wolfman

Or they could have been someone who who tried to force an amoral kings consort down the throat of a public that said they were never going going to vote for that no matter what.

I always said giving SCA members the right to vote was a bad idea.

[Quartz]

@duality72

You’re referring to a variation of the Bradley effect.

I disagree. If it exists, it’s much more likely to be akin to the Shy Tory Factor which has been well studied - and corrected for - here in the UK.

[NDP]

@E-DUB

There’s also the factor of people flat out lying about it because a higher percentage of trump supporters are , let’s be honest about it, A-holes. They lie to the pollsters so that when the polls are wrong they can say: “See, you can’t trust the polls.”

That attitude (i.e., the “Fuck you, media!” factor) predates Trump and is one aspect the Bradley effect overlooks. The right-wing’s distrust of the media has been around since Nixon was president. Over the past 50 years, there have likely been many incidents of arch-conservatives intentionally lying to pollsters just to screw with them.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Lance_Turbo

That article is wrong because it starts with the premise that the polls were wrong. They weren’t.

The RCP average had Clinton +3.3. The actual result was Clinton +2.1. That’s well within the margin of error.

The shy Trumper effect, if it exists, is at most around 1%. This is swamped by the margin of error of typical polls.

Yeah, this.

The polls in 2016 were within the margin of error. It was a close election, and a ~70% chance of Clinton victory is obviously not the same as a 100% chance.