Spoke with a client yesterday who voted for Harris and said a few times he wished the bullet wasn't off by inches and that Trump needs to die. Whoa! I understand passion for your politics, but wishing someone dead, even an opponent, is so chilling and demonic. He firmly believes that if Trump wins the poor and middle class are going to buried, he also believes many lies about abortion. He also said Republicans are texting fear to students for breaking the law by voting, which is wrong and I do not endorse all that the GOP is doing and saying. Listening to the tirade helped prepare me for meeting with our son and understand how my husband thinks, their minds are captivated and the spiritual warfare is real, there is no discussion or rational critical assessment of facts or openness, and now it's murderous. It is similar to dealing with someone in a psychotic break and Romans 1 says God gives them over to a depraved mind...God have mercy upon us.
Great analysis. The independents, men, and black men are interesting for me to think about. I am concerned about the citizens living abroad and their impact. I’m not sure well they are polled.
Statistically, that happens less often than we might think. It does happen, but if a poll has a large enough sample population, that tends to not be a major element of polling bias.
The exception to this, of course, was in 2016, when the “hidden Trump voter” turned out to be a real phenomenon, and gave Hillary Clinton her very own “Dewey Defeats Truman” moment.
Agreed. Im intrigued by the quality and balance of the sample pools of each poll. I’ve conducted lots of customer surveys in my professional life. Random balanced samples seem difficult.
“Random balanced” is, for polling, really a contradiction in terms. If you’re controlling for things like party affiliation—which this poll does—then the poll is no longer entirely random.
This is also why I suspect that, even though this poll is not good news for Kamala Harris, it’s actually a “best case” for her. If Gallup is right about the distribution of party affiliation in this country, then the poll numbers oversample Democrats and undersample Independents, and the results are skewed accordingly.
If that is the case, then then the “real” percentages are in fact even worse for Kamala Harris.
Every poll is going to have its flaws, which is why I say we need to take these numbers with a certain degree of skepticism. This poll could have overlooked a vital demographic, or might have gotten a demographic breakdown completely wrong.
What we can say is that this poll aligns with not just other polls but also with the betting markets, and also with a number of media narratives. For me, that’s what makes this data worth closer scrutiny. The touchstone of reliability in any scientific inquiry is replication: can you get the same results, and does one test confirm another test?
This data and the implications that arise align with other information sources about the election. While all data sets can be biased, and when we’re looking at elections all data to a degree is always going to be biased, the more convergence and the more confluence we see, the more likely it is that, in spite of any bias that exists, we have a realistic snapshot of what is happening.
Spoke with a client yesterday who voted for Harris and said a few times he wished the bullet wasn't off by inches and that Trump needs to die. Whoa! I understand passion for your politics, but wishing someone dead, even an opponent, is so chilling and demonic. He firmly believes that if Trump wins the poor and middle class are going to buried, he also believes many lies about abortion. He also said Republicans are texting fear to students for breaking the law by voting, which is wrong and I do not endorse all that the GOP is doing and saying. Listening to the tirade helped prepare me for meeting with our son and understand how my husband thinks, their minds are captivated and the spiritual warfare is real, there is no discussion or rational critical assessment of facts or openness, and now it's murderous. It is similar to dealing with someone in a psychotic break and Romans 1 says God gives them over to a depraved mind...God have mercy upon us.
I don’t like Harris or Biden at all, but I do not wish them to be assassinated. Who again is the party of love?
Great analysis. The independents, men, and black men are interesting for me to think about. I am concerned about the citizens living abroad and their impact. I’m not sure well they are polled.
I’m a jerk to get polled. I lie. I think lots of independents and Trump supporters do.
Statistically, that happens less often than we might think. It does happen, but if a poll has a large enough sample population, that tends to not be a major element of polling bias.
The exception to this, of course, was in 2016, when the “hidden Trump voter” turned out to be a real phenomenon, and gave Hillary Clinton her very own “Dewey Defeats Truman” moment.
Agreed. Im intrigued by the quality and balance of the sample pools of each poll. I’ve conducted lots of customer surveys in my professional life. Random balanced samples seem difficult.
“Random balanced” is, for polling, really a contradiction in terms. If you’re controlling for things like party affiliation—which this poll does—then the poll is no longer entirely random.
This is also why I suspect that, even though this poll is not good news for Kamala Harris, it’s actually a “best case” for her. If Gallup is right about the distribution of party affiliation in this country, then the poll numbers oversample Democrats and undersample Independents, and the results are skewed accordingly.
If that is the case, then then the “real” percentages are in fact even worse for Kamala Harris.
Every poll is going to have its flaws, which is why I say we need to take these numbers with a certain degree of skepticism. This poll could have overlooked a vital demographic, or might have gotten a demographic breakdown completely wrong.
What we can say is that this poll aligns with not just other polls but also with the betting markets, and also with a number of media narratives. For me, that’s what makes this data worth closer scrutiny. The touchstone of reliability in any scientific inquiry is replication: can you get the same results, and does one test confirm another test?
This data and the implications that arise align with other information sources about the election. While all data sets can be biased, and when we’re looking at elections all data to a degree is always going to be biased, the more convergence and the more confluence we see, the more likely it is that, in spite of any bias that exists, we have a realistic snapshot of what is happening.