How About A Poll Free Diet?

Yesterday I wrote about a new poll that puts Trump about 9 points ahead of Biden….which means little as there is over a year of polls to look forward to….

As the 2024 election creeps its way into to our lives we are now and will soon be overwhelmed with the constant polling results…..Trump is leading Biden, vice versa, Dems are squeaking by, GOP is running rampant….are just a few of the results we will probably see from this polling group or that….and make no mistake there are hundreds of them and seldom do any of them reflect the same trends.

It has been suggested that we ignore polls for now….go on a poll free diet if you will…

Jennifer Rubin has tried to stay away from “rickety” poll analyses as we inch closer to the 2024 election—a “poll-free political diet” she thinks we all should go on. Writing for theWashington Post, Rubin lays out a laundry list of reasons why, calling the polling field “broken” and the journalism behind it lacking in keeping the electorate in the know with “accurate, reliable information.” Rubin notes that the polls were way off in both 2016 and 2020, as well as in the 2022 midterms, and that voters often offer “contradictory” information on how they’re feeling ahead of elections. The latter suggests that voters “either don’t understand the question, don’t really know what they think, or respond based on tribal loyalty,” Rubin writes.

She also notes how pointless it can be to hold polls way in advance of Election Day, as the political landscape is a fluid, constantly shifting one. Rubin cites a quote from Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg on this point: “At the end of the day polling is only a snapshot into a moment, and cannot predict anything. Things change all the time in politics—change is the constant.” Most important, however, is the role of journalists in this mix, with Rubin noting that the usual “horse-race coverage” isn’t going to do the nation much good. “When the stakes are so high, and the fate of democracy hangs in the balance, continuing to gamify politics with meaningless polls does little to improve journalists’ reputation or inform voters,” she writes. More from Rubin here.

A damn fine idea!

I do not use polls to help me decide who to vote for….I use my principles as a guide.

Polls these days are used to drive news not inform.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Wanna Be An Expert Poll Analyst?

It is that time in the political cycle when polls are a daily occurrence…..this is how the system makes people think about voting and the candidates…..

But how can all these polls be read and understood?

I can help you with that and at the same time I can be the FYI blog……this is the suggestions from fivethirtyeight.com…..

Check the pollster’s track record. Some pollsters have long-standing reputations for accuracy, and others are more error-prone. You can check which are which using the FiveThirtyEight pollster ratings, which assign (most) pollsters a letter grade based on their historical accuracy and whether they follow best practices in their methodologies. In our view, the “gold standard” of polling methodology is using live phone interviewers, calling cell phones as well as landlines, and participating in the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Transparency Initiative or the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research archive.2 These gold-standard polls tend to be the most accurate, although there are exceptions — some online pollsters, like YouGov, are quite reliable as well. If a pollster doesn’t show up in our pollster ratings, it’s probably new on the scene, which means you should treat it with more caution because it doesn’t have an established track record we can judge; at worst, it might even be fake. (If you’re not sure if a pollster is trustworthy and want us to do some investigating, feel free to email us at polls@fivethirtyeight.com.)

  • Avoid comparisons between pollsters. Anytime you see a new poll, check to see what the pollster said previously before declaring that the race has shifted. Some pollsters consistently overestimate one candidate or party relative to what other pollsters find, a phenomenon called “house effects.” Similarly, especially for non-horse-race polls, pollsters often word the same questions in different ways — for example, asking someone’s opinion about “Obamacare” can yield different results from asking about “the Affordable Care Act” — which makes direct comparisons difficult.
  • Note who’s being polled. For elections, polls of likely voters tend to be more accurate than polls of registered voters, which in turn tend to be more accurate than polls of adults. That said, many pollsters won’t start surveying likely voters until the fall, and registered-voter polls are perfectly good substitutes until then — just be aware that the results may be a few points too Democratic. And polls of adults have their place too — such as when you want to know how the entire nation feels about something, like the coronavirus.
  • Pay attention to the margin of error. Reputable polls will always include a margin of error or confidence interval — it’ll look something like “± 3 points.” This reflects that polls can’t be exact, but they do promise to be within a certain number of percentage points (in this example, 3 points) almost all of the time (the industry standard is 95 percent of the time). In practical terms, that means that if a poll puts President Trump’s approval rating at 42 percent with a 3-point margin of error, his approval rating could be anything from 39 percent to 45 percent. Note that, in head-to-head polls, the margin of error applies to each candidate’s vote share, so if the same poll gave Trump 46 percent and gave former Vice President Joe Biden 51 percent, Trump could actually be leading 49 percent to 48 percent. (Though he could also be trailing with 43 percent to Biden’s 54, or fall anywhere in between those extremes.)
  • Consider the source. Partisan groups, or even campaigns themselves, will sometimes release their own polls, but of course, they have an ulterior motive in doing so: Make their side look good. On average, these “internal polls” tend to be about 4 or 5 percentage points too favorable to their sponsor, so don’t take them at face value. Be extra skeptical of internal polls that don’t release full methodological details, like the name of the pollster or the dates of the poll. Similarly, partisan media outlets may exaggerate their side’s standing by extensively covering good polls for their candidate while ignoring bad ones. Even mainstream news outlets can mislead, albeit in a different way: They may be tempted to overhype polls they conduct themselves (e.g., calling it a “shock poll” even if it’s not that shocking) in order to get clicks.
  • If a poll has an odd result, there might be a reason for it. Check the poll’s wording — is it accurate and unbiased? For example, some campaigns will release polls showing their candidate doing better after respondents hear a positive statement about them. Check when the poll was conducted; the survey may reflect an outdated reality or have been taken after some major event (e.g., a major military victory) that temporarily swayed public opinion. Even something as basic as the order in which questions are asked can affect the results; for example, if a poll is mostly focused on immigration but then asks about the presidential matchup, respondents may subconsciously choose the candidate they feel is best on immigration, not necessarily whom they support overall.
  • That said, don’t try to outguess or “unskew” the polls. People who pick apart a poll by claiming it has, say, too many Democrats or too few black voters in its sample are generally wasting their time (and they usually have an agenda). Polls are almost always weighted to match their target population’s demographics, such as race and age. This doesn’t mean all pollsters assign weights in the same way, though, and there are practices like weighting by education on which the industry is split. Not weighting by education likely contributed to some of the most consequential polling errors of 2016, and many pollsters have now begun to factor education into their weighting, but others are still holding out. In an era when graduating from college has a significant bearing on white people’s political preferences, we recommend putting more stock in polls that weight by education than those that don’t. (On the other hand, weighting by partisanship, an idea that’s received some attention lately, is dicey3 and not something most pollsters do. That’s because party identification, unlike many demographic traits, is fluid, so setting it as a constant risks predetermining the poll’s outcome.)
  • Heed averages, not outliers. If a poll’s result differs from every other poll, treat it with caution. Although an outlier poll can sometimes represent the beginning of a new trend (especially after a major event like a debate), they’re usually just flukes. Instead, we recommend looking at an average of the polls, which will more accurately reflect the polling consensus.
  • In the aggregate, polls are pretty accurate but not perfect. Since 2000, polls of presidential general elections taken within 21 days of Election Day have a weighted average error4 of 4.0 points. (Polls of Senate, House and gubernatorial races have slightly higher historical error.) That means you can trust the polling average to get pretty close to the final result, but it will rarely nail the election exactly. When an election is close enough that a normal-sized polling error could change who wins, prepare yourself for either outcome.
  • Polls are snapshots, not predictions. Even if a poll is a perfectly accurate measure of what would happen if the election were held today, things can always change between now and Election Day. Early general-election polls have been pretty predictive in the last few presidential elections, but with huge uncertainty surrounding major issues like the coronavirus pandemic and economic crisis, we don’t know if that will hold true this year. In general, polls gradually become more accurate the closer you get to the election.

Follow these steps set up by fivethirtyeight.com and you too can be an expert and political analysis.

If you would like the article to check my post……https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-read-2020-polls-like-a-pro/

The most important one is the last one…..polls are a snapshot……not a prediction……but yet the media reads so much into the polls…..makes for good and continuous speculation.

Look at this week…Biden is winning by far in the national polls…..which is good news if you are Biden supporter….but is it all that good?

The respected stats site FiveThirtyEight.com is out with its first batch of polling averages for the presidential election, and it’s good news for Joe Biden—at least on the surface. Biden is up 50.5% to 41.3% nationally, and he also leads in nearly all the swing states. But Nate Silver points out that Biden’s lead in many of those swing states is not as great as it is in the national polls. In Minnesota, for example, Biden is up by 6.6 points, less than his 9.2-point margin nationally. The upshot: If the polls tighten, Trump could again lose the popular vote but win via the Electoral College.

“While a Biden landslide is possible if he wins all these swing states, so is a Trump Electoral College victory, depending on which way the race moves between now and November,” writes Silver. At Politico, Steven Shepard writes about another issue that may favor Trump: the unreliability of state polls. The Trump campaign maintains that polls this year, as in 2016, are underestimating the president’s support. And the campaign “has a point,” writes Shepard. One example: People with more education are more likely to fill out these surveys, and they’re also more likely to vote Democratic. But the polls again may be undercounting others, particularly lower-income white voters who favor Trump.

You are now capable of reading polls and getting the most information out of them without the use of your favorite news media…..try it you may just like it.

Plus do not trust all the polls….do your own research and pick a candidate from knowledge and information not some popularity contest.

Think 2016 and just how badly all the polls were in predicting the outcome.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Let’s Go To The Polls

Closing Thought–28Nov19

Polls that magical trick that pundits use to help the MSM drive the news cycle. Some polls are the heart beat of the nation and then others are fake news and some sort of “witch hunt”…..just depends what you WANT to believe….not what is accurate or truthful.

Now that I stepped off that soap box I recently saw a poll that as an antiwar and anti-interventionist I like the numbers…..

A new poll conducted by the Eurasia Group Foundation shows Americans are losing their belief in American exceptionalism, and tend to favor a more non-interventionist foreign policy. The participants were asked a range of foreign policy questions.

Over 1,200 people across the country were surveyed for the Eurasia Group poll. Here are some of its findings:

Most of the participants believe that America is an exceptional nation. 42.4 percent believe America is exceptional for what it represents, and 18.2 percent believe the nation is exceptional for what it has done in the world. 39.5 percent of the participants believe America is not exceptional, just another country acting on behalf of its own interests. That number is up 6.1 percent from the previous year.

Looking at the different age groups shows younger people do not think America is anything special. In the 18-29-year age bracket, just 45.1 percent find America to be exceptional. Those who are 60 and over find America to be the most exceptional, at 75.2 percent.

This poll from the Eurasia Group Foundation reflects a poll released by the Pew Research Center back in July. The Pew poll found most veterans they surveyed do not believe the wars they fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria were worth fighting. A shocking 64 percent found the war in Iraq was not worth it, 58 percent for the war in Afghanistan, and 55 percent for Syria.

The Costs of War project at Brown University released a study this November that found the so-called War on Terror has killed over 800,000 people, and cost the US $6.4 trillion. The death toll only takes into account those killed in direct violence, not including those killed by disease, malnutrition, or other indirect causes. It’s no mystery as to why Americans, even those who fought the wars, are starting to favor a more noninterventionist approach.

New Poll Shows Americans Favor Non-Intervention

How nice!

I do not believe any of it for a  moment.

The American people allow this sort of BS to continue….war that is….intervention that is…..regime change that is…..if they are so against this crap they need to grow a spine and speak up.

Cash trumps sentiment….

Thanx for spending some time on IST on this busy shopping day….your visits are appreciated.

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

There Is Always A Better Idea

Most of the Right wing is thumping their chest about the win of Trump over what the polls were telling the population……the polls were really wrong…..and now the pollsters are trying to explain away their total lack of knowledge of the voting public….it is almost humorous all the tap dancing going on…..

But I read a piece from the UK that made me sit up and think that it would be the best new law in a century…..

Flush all political polls down the toilet……..

Parliament looks set to consider a bill that would introduce strict rules on polling companies and could even ban polls being conducted in the weeks leading up to an election.

Labour peer Lord Foulkes introduced legislation in the last parliament aimed at setting up an Ofcom style regulator for polling companies. The body would draw up rules setting a gold standard for conducting polls and be governed by a board made up of representatives of the polling companies, political parties and the media.

That bill fell due to lack of parliamentary time but Foulkes, who has served as both and MP and an MSP in a political career stretching 40 years, is determined to revive it after the polls apparently failed to predict Donald Trump’s election victory in America.

He said: “In light of the US polls fiasco and Brexit I intend to pursue this bill again.

“Once again we’ve seen how often polling is wrong, which is why the companies involved should welcome regulation and a strict standards to adhere to which would improve their credibility.”

Foulkes’ proposals would also give the new regulator the power to ban polling ahead of a big election. He added: “Banning polling in the last couple of weeks before an election would switch the focus to the issues at stake rather than the media just regurgitating the latest poll.”

Foulkes has previously complained that polling has been “corrupted” by newspapers commissioning and reporting surveys to suit their own agenda and to help shape the narrative going into elections.

Polling companies dismissed Lord Foulkes previous Regulation of Political Polling Bill as “ludicrous” and “offensive”.

(Total Politics)

This is the greatest idea EVER!

I believe that it is in the UK where lies are NOT permitted in political ads either….another great idea.

Thoughts?

How Could Anybody Be So Damn Wrong?

One more time before I  move on…….

The question is being asked on how the polls could be so wrong….and most do not remember they were just as wrong in 2012…but few want to remember the past…..

Just a quick breakdown and the finger pointing (which I truly love)……

The prevailing question the morning after Donald Trump’s stunning victory is: How did so many get it so wrong? An “absolutely unreal” “Chance of Winning Presidency” graphic on the New York Times’ forecasting page Tuesday evening showed Trump ascending from a 20% chance of winning the White House to near certainty within a few hours. USA Today says the upset dealt a “devastating blow” to the nation’s leading pollsters, which had Clinton mostly ahead overall in the months leading up to the election, including in battleground states. Some ideas as to why:

  • The director of USC’s Center for Economic and Social Research tells USA Today human pollsters may have been at a disadvantage. “There’s some suggestion that Clinton supporters are more likely to say they’re a Clinton supporter than Trump supporters are to say they’re a Trump supporter.”
  • The president of the British Polling Council agrees, telling the Telegraph—which makes the inevitable Brexit comparison—that the UK has witnessed a similar phenomenon in that those who don’t like to reveal their “political sympathies” are more often conservative than liberal.
  • Politico offers a couple of possible reasons for the surprise switch, including surveys that maybe undersampled non-college-educated whites, as well as the “surge in momentum” Trump got when the FBI announced it was looking into Clinton-related emails just days before the election.
  • The Economist gets deeper into the numbers weeds, noting there can be a significant mismatch when trying to figure out two important variables: the demographics of the electorate, and the anticipated vote for each group.
  • To wit: “Rural America is basically screaming at us, saying, ‘Stop overlooking us!'” said NBC News’ Chuck Todd Tuesday night, and the network reports that was backed up. Clinton hit her mark in cities, while Trump exceeded expectations in rural and formerly urban districts.
  • Australia’s ABC documents some of the pollsters “now eating humble pie.” Among them: a “reflective” Nate Silver and Princeton ace Sam Wang, who in mid-October tweeted, “It is totally over. If Trump wins more than 240 electoral votes, I will eat a bug.”
  • Meanwhile, those who reported on the polling results are also taken to task by the New York Times, which notes the news media “by and large missed … the story of a lifetime,” including the “boiling anger” of a good number of Americans upset with their perceptions of the economy, the DC establishment, and the mainstream media.

The one thing that no one wants to admit….their arrogance!  They were so damn arrogant that they believed their own spin….but never fear they have learned nothing……they failed in 2012 and again in 2016…..but there is a couple of years to go and the American voter has a very short memory…..

And then there are those that saw this coming….and we choose to ignore their input……

One of the most common questions being asked Wednesday is how pollsters and pundits managed to be so wrong about Donald Trump. Well, not everybody was wrong:

  • The Los Angeles Times/University of South California tracking poll consistently had Trump in the lead through the final months, often to much derision. As USA Today notes, of 61 polls tracking a two-way race since October, only six put Trump in the lead—and all were from the LA Times/USC. (But even the LA Times‘ own electoral map predicted a landslide for Clinton on the eve of the election.)
  • Back in September, American University history professor Allan Lichtman predicted a Trump victory based on a system that involves 13 true/false statements. One caveat: Lichtman’s system predicts the winner of the popular vote, and Trump may yet lose that. Still, coming into this year, he’s been perfect since 1984. In September, he spoke to the Washington Post.
  • Stony Brook political science professor Helmut Norpoth predicted Trump would be the next president. He says his model, which assesses candidates’ performances in the primaries, would have gotten every election right since 1912 except for 2000. See the New York Post.
  • Two other tracking polls that consistently had Trump performing better than in most national surveys were from Rasmussen Reports and Investor’s Business Daily, reports Politico.
  • On Monday, an outfit called the Democracy Institute published a poll with Trump up 5 points and “Poised For Electoral College Win.” The institute’s press release that day boasted that its public poll was the only one to get Brexit correct.

Stats guru Nate Silver managed to be both right and wrong in a sense. His final assessment at FiveThirtyEight gave Clinton a 71% chance of victory, but he also pushed back hard against polls calling her a shoo-in and observed Sunday that she was “one state away from potentially losing,” notes the Washington Post. In other words, he covered his “backside,” writes Dana Milbank.

Maybe these people should be the “go to” people next time around…the biggies have been wrong on so many occasions that they are no longer trustworthy…..

Just a thought.

How politicians, pollsters and media missed Trump’s groundswell

Once again the pollsters and the pundits got it wrong.  In 2012 they had the election a toss up and Obama screamed through to victory and in 2016 they were solidly behind a Clinton win….

Guess what?  They were wrong……….they were slapped down…..again!

They were wrong about all the so-called “battleground” states….Trump swept them…..NO one understood the anger of the American people…..Can you hear them now?

The failure of pollsters, politicians and media to recognize the Trump groundswell was on the level of Dewey defeats Truman.

That is one of the most significant lessons of the 2016 presidential election, in which Donald Trump overcame the doubts of a majority of reporters, pollsters and political scientists who believed Hillary Clinton was headed for a decisive victory.

Source: How politicians, pollsters and media missed Trump’s groundswell – Nov. 9, 2016

This should do nothing to instill confidence in the media……and the Dems they had better find a way to connect with the American people or they will be ripe for failure onto of failure……

Have they learned their lesson?

We shall see…….

2016: The Song Remains The Same

In recent years the TV and the media has played a valuable service by predicting the winner of the election….this year has been anything but normal but with that said….the closer the election gets the more familiar the reports become….

A clear theme is emerging in political coverage, one that suggests a shift in thinking in DC from a probable Hillary Clinton victory to a certain Clinton victory, with the only question being how big it will be and whether the Democrats take over Congress. Examples:

  • “With Donald Trump’s path to victory so narrow that he appears to be looking beyond the election … the focus of the presidential race is shifting down the ballot. Democrats are making new investments in red states to help party candidates, while Republicans are focusing on salvaging their congressional majorities.” Real Clear Politics.
  • “Trump’s free fall is forcing American Action Network and its sister PAC, Congressional Leadership Fund, to also shell out millions in red-leaning districts that weren’t even in play until this month. Their suddenly urgent mission: Build a firewall to prevent a Democratic takeover of the House.” Politico.
  • “The pivot is a sign that Clinton is confident enough in her own prospects to start thinking about what comes after Nov. 8, when she’ll need a friendly Senate to approve her nominees, and would like to help Democrats make inroads in the House. Her advisers feel they’ve made Trump as radioactive as possible, so now is the time to use him against his colleagues.” NBC News.
  • “The maneuvering speaks to the unexpected tension facing Mrs. Clinton as she hurtles toward what aides increasingly believe will be a decisive victory—a pleasant problem, for certain, but one that has nonetheless scrambled the campaign’s strategy weeks before Election Day: Should Mrs. Clinton maximize her own margin, aiming to flip as many red states as possible to run up an electoral landslide, or prioritize the party’s congressional fortunes, redirecting funds and energy down the ballot?” The New York Times.
  • “With Clinton favored to win the presidential election in November, she and other allies are shifting their gaze to the Senate and House races that will determine whether she has a Congress that can help her advance her agenda or one that will be an intransigent roadblock, as Congress has been for President Barack Obama.” Newsweek.
  • “The GOP’s wisest course of action now, with Trump clearly headed for defeat, is to quietly concede the presidential race and spread the message that Republican voters must support their Congressional candidates to block the Clinton agenda. And with Clinton’s poor approval ratings, this is a message that could resonate with independents as well.” Cliston Brown at the Observer, whose publisher is Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner.
  • FiveThirtyEight puts Clinton’s current chance of victory at 88%.

Keep in mind that the election of 2012 was predicted to be a nail biter….it was anything but….Romney had his ass handed to him by Obama…..

Just a reminder before you believe everything you read or hear……

What The Polls Won’t Tell Us

Let’s be honest…..the MSM has nothing going for them in the journalistic world of politics but polls…….without polls they have very little……even gossip takes a back seat to polls….

They use this to drive whatever agenda they have signed on to……matters not whether pro or con……it is their “spinach” that gives them the strength to report crap.

I read an excellent article about this phenom of American elections……

The media’s obsessive preoccupation with polls is a ritual that propels the laughable coverage of US elections.

You’d think that the 24/7 cable “news” networks could spare a few moments during this odious, interminable election for the millions of Americans who have to endure the kind of daily, grinding poverty that is decidedly at odds with the aspirational and largely mythical American “dream”.

You’d think these journalists might be able to pay at least a passing, if symbolic, nod to the fourth estate’s increasingly anachronistic clarion call: to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

Source: US elections: What the polls won’t tell us – Al Jazeera English

Polls are used to make the agenda as they, the media, sees fit……in the election of 2012 the polls were proven wrong when they predicted that the race was dead even…..just as in yester-year……they are wrong today.

If you are a voter then please do NOT be swayed by the con job of the polls and the media…….do your own research and vote accordingly……

And The Survey Says………..

The news dump ends!  I now return to my normal posting day.

Since 2008 I have been telling anyone who will listen or read that I think this daily poll crap is a waste of time.  all it does is generate something for the lazy MSM to use to make up the reports that we get daily.

Look at the most recent election in England…..all the polls were telling the media that it was going to be a very close election….too close to even attempt a prediction….and in the end it was a massive win for the Tories.

2012 was a similar story…..the media, after reading their pol;ling, were telling us that it was a close election and that Mitt would give Obama a run for his money…..it was CRAP!  Obama won outright.

The media needs polls!  How else can they make up the story that they want told?  Polls drive the dialog especially this far out of the real election.

Polls are CRAP!  Stop listening to the bullsh*t!

Polls predicted a close election in the UK, and the polls were dead wrong. What happened? “The World May Have a Polling Problem,” asserts the headline of a post by poll-assessing whiz Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com. His site’s forecast, based on those lousy polls, was way off, and Silver writes that it’s not an isolated incident. Polls ahead of the 2014 midterms, Scotland’s referendum on independence, the Israeli elections, and even the 2012 presidential race were considerably skewed as well. On the latter, President Obama beat the polling averages by 3 points, which may not sound like much, but if it had gone the other way, we might be addressing President Romney today.

Silver cites a number of possible factors, including vanishing landlines that make voters harder to contact, along with more wonky problems such as pollsters ditching “probability sampling” or holding back results that differ with other surveys. All in all, “there may be more difficult times ahead for the polling industry,” writes Silver. (And, consequently, for poll readers such as Silver, points out Dylan Byers at Politico.) Click to read Silver’s full post.

Polls are CRAP!

Do I need to say it again?