This is the best and most thorough ‘state of polling and how not to make it worse’ piece I’ve read in years. The small part I try to play in this is to discourage philanthropies from commissioning expensive polls designed to rationalize what they already want to do anyway. But basically it’s a war against confirmation bias at every level.
I want to stick up for the pollsters in the Wisconsin governor’s race. There’s not much evidence that they did a bad job—it was just an extremely volatile race where the facts on the ground kept changing. Notably, there were always high numbers of undecideds, and candidates kept dropping out. It’s entirely possible that the polls that were taken provided an accurate snapshot of the electorate as it existed when the poll was taken but undecideds made up their minds faster than they could be measured. Notably, Hong’s numbers in the polls were relatively stable for the last month or so and more or less matched the final outcome, which is what you’d expect if the problem with the polls was that undecideds were making up their minds.
Very good article and as close to a "stake through the heart" of modern day polling as we're likely to see. Clearly, even reputable, honest pollsters are crippled by the inherent and unfixable logistical hurdles that exist. So let's be done with cringe articles constructed around meaningless polling 'results.'
I too will now refer to making stuff up as "a social experiment".
Were elections "better" before polling, when people didn't go in with false certainty about who was going to win? When the only way to know the result was to, as they say, play the game? I guess it depends on what "better" means.
I stopped responding to polling invitations years ago because most were disguised political messaging. They'd start with one or two normal questions, and then it'd be on to leading ones like "On a scale from one to five, how would you rate Candidate X's horrible plan to destroy American prosperity?". Both left and right-leaning groups (with vaguely respectable madlibs names like "The Institute for Democratic Symposiums") would send them.
This is the best and most thorough ‘state of polling and how not to make it worse’ piece I’ve read in years. The small part I try to play in this is to discourage philanthropies from commissioning expensive polls designed to rationalize what they already want to do anyway. But basically it’s a war against confirmation bias at every level.
I want to stick up for the pollsters in the Wisconsin governor’s race. There’s not much evidence that they did a bad job—it was just an extremely volatile race where the facts on the ground kept changing. Notably, there were always high numbers of undecideds, and candidates kept dropping out. It’s entirely possible that the polls that were taken provided an accurate snapshot of the electorate as it existed when the poll was taken but undecideds made up their minds faster than they could be measured. Notably, Hong’s numbers in the polls were relatively stable for the last month or so and more or less matched the final outcome, which is what you’d expect if the problem with the polls was that undecideds were making up their minds.
Very good article and as close to a "stake through the heart" of modern day polling as we're likely to see. Clearly, even reputable, honest pollsters are crippled by the inherent and unfixable logistical hurdles that exist. So let's be done with cringe articles constructed around meaningless polling 'results.'
I too will now refer to making stuff up as "a social experiment".
Were elections "better" before polling, when people didn't go in with false certainty about who was going to win? When the only way to know the result was to, as they say, play the game? I guess it depends on what "better" means.
I stopped responding to polling invitations years ago because most were disguised political messaging. They'd start with one or two normal questions, and then it'd be on to leading ones like "On a scale from one to five, how would you rate Candidate X's horrible plan to destroy American prosperity?". Both left and right-leaning groups (with vaguely respectable madlibs names like "The Institute for Democratic Symposiums") would send them.
I almost didn't click on this peace but I'm glad I did. Excellent piece and agreed