# The future of political polling? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 9, 2016, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150 "2016-11-09T07:17:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/61 "2016-11-12T17:09:42Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (underline added) > > Part of which problem? The polling organizations failure to accurately predict Hillary’s loss? If the polling organizations wish to make a profit selling polling data, which is their primary goal, the polling organizations have to adapt to the current situation, not the other way around. > > There are no rules, regulations, or laws that require the targeted audience to cooperate with what they consider to be intrusive pollsters. If people consider polls to be faulty, biased, or horseshit, they aren’t going to cooperate. Exactly right. To paraphrase what I posted many posts previously, but more emphatically: fuck the pollsters, and fuck the media who report on them. I don’t get all the friggin’ handwringing about the polls being accurate, inaccurate, etc. I don’t want elections covered as if they were a 20-month horse race. “He’s ahead, she’s ahead now, the gap is widening, the gap is narrowing, we’re coming down the homestretch.” Uggghh. I hate it. The polls don’t just (try to) reflect what people are thinking, they influence both the coverage and the outcome. I would rather have no election polls whatsoever. I either don’t participate when I get contacted by pollsters, or I lie to them. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/62 "2016-11-12T17:27:58Z")
The national polls were off by about 2% which is pretty reasonable it was just a little worse in some of the state level polling. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/63 "2016-11-12T19:27:49Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The polling organizations failure to accurately predict Hillary’s loss? This is not correct. there were many polls that had the percentages in the right ranges within the margins of error. It is only that you lack the mathematical education to correctly understand the statistical information. Like almost all the journalists and many persons generally. The 538 discussion linked above by Pleonast is useful. not that it is expected the stubbornly non numerate will let go of their non numeracy complaints. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2016, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/64 "2016-11-13T00:46:18Z")
538 even said that Trump is a [normal polling error](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/) behind Clinton. The polls were off by just two points this year, which is the average of all past presidential elections since 1968 (a chart is in the article I linked to.) The polls were as accurate as they have ever been. The problem this year is that this is the first year that a polling error swung the election. Every other year the polls correctly predicted the winner despite any polling errors (in 2000 they did not predict the popular vote winner, but they did predict the election winner.) Is it not enough that 538 explicitly said that Trump was within the margin of error and could win the election? Did they have to predict that there would be a polling error and it would be exactly two percent in favor of Trump and swing the election? The polls were not the problem this year. The commentators who laughed and thought a Trump Presidency was impossible were a much bigger problem. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2016, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/65 "2016-11-13T04:53:48Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Nate Silver has a nice [post-election summary of his uncertainty model](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/). Not bad. I just wish he would gnash his teeth and rend his garments a little more. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2016, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/66 "2016-11-13T10:45:35Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > 538 even said that Trump is a [normal polling error](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/) behind Clinton. and this is dated the 4 November. > [@](#): > > Is it not enough that 538 explicitly said that Trump was within the margin of error and could win the election? Did they have to predict that there would be a polling error and it would be exactly two percent in favor of Trump and swing the election? it is indeed not even exactly a ‘polling error’ (as this phrase is likely to be understood incorrectly by those who are not numerate) but the legitimate variation (uncertainty) that all sampling is always subject to. [quote[The polls were not the problem this year. The commentators who laughed and thought a Trump Presidency was impossible were a much bigger problem.[/QUOTE] It is the fundamental problem that most people are not educated in the math enough to understand the numbers and make continuous fundamental errors in understanding the statistical numbers. They ignore the variances, they do not understand the need to understand the changes in the population that is underneath the sample. It is seen also in the naive reaction and comparison on the Trump number for minorities where a percentage is treated as if it is some fixed object, and not a ratio that is varying when the underlying populations are changing. So the people who do not know how to read the numbers and read the incorrectly become angry when their reading is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2016, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/67 "2016-11-13T17:40:38Z")
A very surprising (to them) election outcome is a big part of it, too. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/68 "2016-11-13T18:01:39Z")
The fact that this is a normal polling error seems most damming of all. If the data is so coarse that polling cannot confidently say anything more than that Clinton’s result may range from a blowout electoral victory to a close loss, what is its value? ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/69 "2016-11-13T19:57:36Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The fact that this is a normal polling error seems most damming of all. If the data is so coarse that polling cannot confidently say anything more than that Clinton’s result may range from a blowout electoral victory to a close loss, what is its value? What is its value, no matter how accurate or precise it is? Why do you need to guess or predict the outcome of an election in advance ? What purpose does that serve? I’m glad the polls are not dependable. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2016, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/70 "2016-11-13T20:09:59Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The fact that this is a normal polling error seems most damming of all. it is only daming of the education system that leaves people with out the good math skills. > [@](#): > > If the data is so coarse that polling cannot confidently say anything more than that Clinton’s result may range from a blowout electoral victory to a close loss, what is its value? the value of the polling if one is paying attention to the uncertainty ranges is to tell you some thing about the stability of the situation and some thing about the potential challenge - although the ‘blow-out’ I think is only the prediction about the electoral votes under your system and it is sensitive to the minor changes in a few states… big electoral numbers are thusly very deceptive standards. The 538 site even before the actual election was making statements of warning about the large margins of error and the instability. Their confidence as they were stating even before the results was not like the 2012 election. the problem is that many people do not understand the probabilities math and misinterpret the numbers. with perhaps some minor changes, a minor change in the effort by the Clinton campaign you would not be yelling about this but laughing at the Trumps. that closeness is in the perfect keeping with the kind of prediction of the 538 site (although not the super confident other predictions). unfortunately many people do not understand probabilities and treat them as magic crystal balls of fixed results. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/71 "2016-11-14T15:35:39Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > This is not correct. there were many polls that had the percentages in the right ranges within the margins of error. > > It is only that you lack the mathematical education to correctly understand the statistical information. Like almost all the journalists and many persons generally. > > The 538 discussion linked above by Pleonast is useful. > > not that it is expected the stubbornly non numerate will let go of their non numeracy complaints. Hahahaha. The polling organizations fucked up and predicted a Hillary win. And you chose to blame the people who believed the horseshit the polling organizations were shoveling. Just for the record, on Nov 7th I was finally convinced that Trump would win. NRA members would vote for Trump. 2nd Amendment supporters would vote for Trump. Conservatives would vote for Trump. Republicans would vote for Trump. Independents would vote for Trump. Rural voters would vote for Trump. People of all colors said they would be voting for Trump. On the other hand, Nate Silver stated that Hillary should receive 270 Electoral College votes (unless she doesn’t). Other major polling agencies (9 out of 10?) predicted a Hillary win. But I no longer trust these polling agencies to correctly pick/predict/guesstimate a political winner. If anything, the Democrat collective should be furious with the polling organizations for lulling the Democrat collective into a false sense of security which probably served to suppress the pro-Hillary turnout. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/72 "2016-11-14T15:46:42Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > …it is only daming of the education system that leaves people with out the good math skills. > > …the problem is that many people do not understand the probabilities math and misinterpret the numbers. > > …unfortunately many people do not understand probabilities and treat them as magic crystal balls of fixed results. (post shortened) Are you talking about the Democrats who believed the majority of the polling results? Democrats were shocked by the election results. The Republicans, conservatives, independents, and people of all races, creeds, and colors who didn’t believe Hillary had a lock on the Presidency, went to the polls, or sent in their early ballots, and voted for Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/73 "2016-11-14T18:43:39Z")
Thus proving the old adage that you can take a horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/74 "2016-11-14T18:49:28Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > it is only daming of the education system that leaves people with out the good math skills… There is nothin’ like a dame. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150/75 "2016-11-14T20:06:51Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > It is the fundamental problem that most people are not educated in the math enough to understand the numbers and make continuous fundamental errors in understanding the statistical numbers. People specifically had a great deal of trouble comprehending PROBABILITY, and we’ve seen it on this board. 60% chance of winning? Huge lead! I had an argument with someone IRL that went like this: Other Guy: 538 was stupid and wrong! Me: No, they said Trump had a chance. OG: They said she’d win in a landslide! Me: Nope. Never said that, and gave Trump approximately three chances in ten. OG: Then they were wrong! If the weather guy said there was a thirty percent chance of rain and it rained, you’d say they were wrong! Me: Of course I wouldn’t. That’s absurd. OG: 538 is STUPID! I tried every example I could think of, things like “Okay, I’m going to roll a fair six-sided die. Can you tell me if I’ll get a number lower than a 3?” Nothing sank in. Probability is an area the human mind doesn’t grasp intuitively. [QUOTE=doorhinge] Democrats were shocked by the election results. [/QUOTE] Nate Silver’s a Democrat, and was not shocked by the results. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-political-polling/771150.md?page=3)