I Don't Know If Joe Can Do It

[ecogen]

Been looking at something because I was nervous..

2016

Month	Donald Trump (R) %	Hillary Clinton (D) %	Gary Johnson (L) %	Jill Stein (G) %
June	35%	40%	5%	3%
37%	42%	8%	5%
July	37%	41%	7%	4%
38%	41%	8%	4%
40%	39%	7%	3%
August	38%	42%	7%	3%
36%	44%	9%	4%
38%	42%	8%	3%
September	38%	41%	8%	3%
41%	42%	9%	3%
41%	44%	7%	2%
October	39%	44%	7%	2%
39%	46%	7%	2%
40%	46%	6%	2%
43%	45%	5%	2%
November	43%	45%	4%	2%
42%	46%	4%	2%
Actual result	46.2%^	48.0%	3.3%	1.1%
Difference between actual result and final poll	+4.2%	+2.0%	-0.7%	-0.9%

I think its safe to assume a +5-7% for Trump that doesn't show in the polls because not everyone like to show themselves as Trump supporters to friends/ pollsters but they secretly are.

That's really not how it works, like, at all.

 

[fskimospy]

Been looking at something because I was nervous..

2016

Month	Donald Trump (R) %	Hillary Clinton (D) %	Gary Johnson (L) %	Jill Stein (G) %
June	35%	40%	5%	3%
37%	42%	8%	5%
July	37%	41%	7%	4%
38%	41%	8%	4%
40%	39%	7%	3%
August	38%	42%	7%	3%
36%	44%	9%	4%
38%	42%	8%	3%
September	38%	41%	8%	3%
41%	42%	9%	3%
41%	44%	7%	2%
October	39%	44%	7%	2%
39%	46%	7%	2%
40%	46%	6%	2%
43%	45%	5%	2%
November	43%	45%	4%	2%
42%	46%	4%	2%
Actual result	46.2%^	48.0%	3.3%	1.1%
Difference between actual result and final poll	+4.2%	+2.0%	-0.7%	-0.9%

I think its safe to assume a +5-7% for Trump that doesn't show in the polls because not everyone like to show themselves as Trump supporters to friends/ pollsters but they secretly are.

There is no evidence of a ‘shy Trump supporter’ effect. This is a myth.

 

[eelw]

Did the magic 8 ball tell you that? Polls are anonymous.

Unlike the exit polls. Those trumpards were too chicken to admit they voted for him and really skewed the numbers.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree. Plus the margin of error is around 4%, so there is the 10% "lead" that could easily disappear.

Those are polling averages, so the margin of error is MUCH smaller than that.

The mental gymnastics you guys are engaging in to deny the obvious implications of the polls, even when you claim it’s the result you want, are incredible.

If Trump were up 10 and people were saying the exact same things as you are you would (rightly) deride them as delusional.

 

[K1052]

If Trump were up 10 and people were saying the exact same things as you are you would (rightly) deride them as delusional.

2016 broke a lot of brains. I’m old enough to remember the “red wave” of 2018 when all the polls were quite clear what was about to happen.

 

[TeeJay1952]

I think that depending on location and the consistency of your social network that there may be an equal number of silent Joe voters.

 

[Jhhnn]

Those are polling averages, so the margin of error is MUCH smaller than that.

The mental gymnastics you guys are engaging in to deny the obvious implications of the polls, even when you claim it’s the result you want, are incredible.

If Trump were up 10 and people were saying the exact same things as you are you would (rightly) deride them as delusional.

Yes, but he's so concerned. Always.

 

[fskimospy]

I think that depending on location and the consistency of your social network that there may be an equal number of silent Joe voters.

There were no meaningful numbers of silent Trump voters in 2016 or 2018 so why would there be now?

There is a consistent theme both within the US and in the UK where conservatives convince themselves that lots of people secretly agree with them but are too ashamed to admit it. There’s little evidence this is the case.

 

[VRAMdemon]

So far Biden is smart enough to stay out of Trump’s way while Trump repeatedly shoots himself in the foot, and steps on his dick. Biden has racked up double-digit polling leads doing it. Sounds like a pretty good approach to me.

 

[Jhhnn]

There were no meaningful numbers of silent Trump voters in 2016 or 2018 so why would there be now?

There is a consistent theme both within the US and in the UK where conservatives convince themselves that lots of people secretly agree with them but are too ashamed to admit it. There’s little evidence this is the case.

I figure a fair # mostly don't want to talk about how Trump hornswaggled 'em in 2016. Whatever else might be said, Trump has proved he's unfit to be President.

 

[compuwiz1]

There is no evidence of a ‘shy Trump supporter’ effect. This is a myth.

You can call them shy and deny their existence. It's not so much that they are shy, they just don't want to be hassled, or beat up. I have some liberals in my own family that can get pretty nasty and in your face, if they determine a person to be a Trump supporter. I have several Republican friends that will admit they don't want any issues, that they will speak in the voting booth. So, no, it's not a myth.

 

[fskimospy]

You can call them shy and deny their existence. It's not so much that they are shy, they just don't want to be hassled, or beat up. I have some liberals in my own family that can get pretty nasty and in your face, if they determine a person to be a Trump supporter. I have several Republican friends that will admit they don't want any issues, that they will speak in the voting booth. So, no, it's not a myth.

The empirical evidence shows otherwise. National level polls were very accurate in both 2016 and 2018 and there's no reason to believe they somehow changed since then.

Ironically, this is exactly the same thing you predicted in 2018 before the Republicans got blown out. Didn't you learn anything?

Page 4 - Election prediction thread

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

Democrats are unable to get a feel for how this election is going to turn out, much like in 2016. The polls will once again indicate one thing, while the electorate does another. Conservatives are not very vocal, as they've learned to play their cards close to the vest, lest they get attacked at every turn. Again, we have a silent group, whom I fully expect to surge on election day.

Only mental morons are going to vote for people who campaigned on raising our taxes. Only mental morons would not recognize that unemployment among women is the lowest it's been since the early 1960's and that Black and Hispanic unemployment are at historic lows. Democrats I've talked to are concerned about the Latino vote this time around. Lots of Black people are waking up and see the positive things this administration has done for them. Democrat's policies will reduce our GDP, increase regulations again, lower employment, increase our taxes and make our border less secure. There is a quiet, strong numbered electorate out there that doesn't want those things to happen. What is going to happen on Tuesday, November 6th, is going to shock some people. I will not be one of them.

That is my prediction. In the event I'm wrong, I will take it like a grownup. I won't be stomping my feet, cursing, breaking things, burning things, or attacking my fellows. There will always be another election, been though a lot of them in my lifetime.

 

[Fenixgoon]

You can call them shy and deny their existence. It's not so much that they are shy, they just don't want to be hassled, or beat up. I have some liberals in my own family that can get pretty nasty and in your face, if they determine a person to be a Trump supporter. I have several Republican friends that will admit they don't want any issues, that they will speak in the voting booth. So, no, it's not a myth.

Hahaha that's rich. Because liberals totally hassle conservatives in the exact same manner...

 

[ecogen]

You can call them shy and deny their existence. It's not so much that they are shy, they just don't want to be hassled, or beat up. I have some liberals in my own family that can get pretty nasty and in your face, if they determine a person to be a Trump supporter. I have several Republican friends that will admit they don't want any issues, that they will speak in the voting booth. So, no, it's not a myth.

Truly the most oppressed minority

 

[woolfe9998]

The empirical evidence shows otherwise. National level polls were very accurate in both 2016 and 2018 and there's no reason to believe they somehow changed since then.

Ironically, this is exactly the same thing you predicted in 2018 before the Republicans got blown out. Didn't you learn anything?

Page 4 - Election prediction thread

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

LOL he did say "In the event I'm wrong, I will take it like a grownup." Yet instead of acknowledging his error then, he doubles down and makes the same prediction, once again based on allegedly faulty polls.

Good catch.

 

[K1052]

Another warning sign on the way to the cliff edge for the GOP. Not hard to figure out who's causing that to happen.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1283789615804055552

 

[Grey_Beard]

The polls were right on in 2016. There were a number of things I read in the lead up to the election that were worrisome. 538, especially, had a number of reads that pointed to the outcome. tRump was not that far behind in the national polls that he could not pull off the win. 70,000 votes were the difference in 3 States. No poll will pick that up, but given the error rate or 3% to 4% on either side, means that his 5% deficit could be less. As it turned out, it was. 136,700,000 votes cast. This means the election swung on .05%. No poll in the history of man is that accurate. Just because the outcome may have not been what was predicted does not mean the polling was bad or wrong. In the last poll he had a 4% deficit, meaning the error rate of the poll. Given the margin of victory, I would say the polls were very accurate.

 

[fskimospy]

The polls were right on in 2016. There were a number of things I read in the lead up to the election that were worrisome. 538, especially, had a number of reads that pointed to the outcome. tRump was not that far behind in the national polls that he could not pull off the win. 70,000 votes were the difference in 3 States. No poll will pick that up, but given the error rate or 3% to 4% on either side, means that his 5% deficit could be less. As it turned out, it was. 136,700,000 votes cast. This means the election swung on .05%. No poll in the history of man is that accurate. Just because the outcome may have not been what was predicted does not mean the polling was bad or wrong. In the last poll he had a 4% deficit, meaning the error rate of the poll. Given the margin of victory, I would say the polls were very accurate.

The problem in 2016 is that polling errors are correlated and some people feeding polls into prediction models failed to account for that.

 

[Grey_Beard]

I agree. Plus the margin of error is around 4%, so there is the 10% "lead" that could easily disappear.

No, 4% Is an 8% swing. It’s the States that matter. If the individual State leads are less than 8%, then this could happen, but given the mathematical probability that this would happen again is slim. If of the 9, now we call it 9, swing States, Biden leads in all but one. In 7 he las close to a 10 point margin. Unless these get closer to 5 points, it will be ugly for the red team. We saw in 2016 that the overall polling was right, 4% lead for Clinton, she won the popular vote by 2.1%. The electoral college spells a different path. Individual States matter. We would need to have a repeat of three to five States polling to be off by the error rate to get a tRump win again. Not sure that can happen. Not relaxing by any stretch of the imagination, but it looks very grim for tRumpanzeeism.

 

[Grey_Beard]

The problem in 2016 is that polling errors are correlated and some people feeding polls into prediction models failed to account for that.

They are prediction models, when have they ever been totally accurate? We cannot and should not expect predictive models to be totally accurate. Last I checked, human behavior has some variability in it.

 

[woolfe9998]

The problem in 2016 is that polling errors are correlated and some people feeding polls into prediction models failed to account for that.

I think a common mistake by people, including many liberals, who believe the polls were way off in 2016, is that people think polls predict winners and losers. They do not. They provide data from which others make predictions.

Consider a hypothetical poll which says D+1 where the outcome turns out to be R+1. The "poll" got the winner and loser wrong, right? Shit poll! No, the polling error was a margin of 2, which is OK. In another hypothetical, the poll says D+9 and the result is D+2. Everyone thinks this poll was great because it accurately "predicted" the winner. But in reality, the error margin there is 7, and polling was much worse than in the first case.

It's why no one seems to realize that polling in 2012 was actually a little more off than polling in 2016, because they think the 2012 polls accurately "predicted" the winner, but in reality, they showed Obama with a much smaller lead than he actually had.

I think lots of people just do not get this.

 

[fskimospy]

I think a common mistake by people, including many liberals, who believe the polls were way off in 2016, is that people think polls predict winners and losers. They do not. They provide data from which others make predictions.

Consider a hypothetical poll which says D+1 where the outcome turns out to be R+1. The "poll" got the winner and loser wrong, right? Shit poll! No, the polling error was a margin of 2, which is OK. In another hypothetical, the poll says D+9 and the result is D+2. Everyone thinks this poll was great because it accurately "predicted" the winner. But in reality, the error margin there is 7, and polling was much worse than in the first case.

It's why no one seems to realize that polling in 2012 was actually a little more off than polling in 2016, because they think the 2012 polls accurately "predicted" the winner, but in reality, they showed Obama with a much smaller lead than he actually had.

I think lots of people just do not get this.

I strongly agree! I'm not super surprised that people don't get that though - so long as your prediction matches the result happens it doesn't matter how poorly you achieved that.

It reminds me of the electoral models (like the keys to the White House) that are to me transparently silly exercises but since they 'predicted' a few winners in a row people thought they meant something.

 

[brycejones]

You can call them shy and deny their existence. It's not so much that they are shy, they just don't want to be hassled, or beat up. I have some liberals in my own family that can get pretty nasty and in your face, if they determine a person to be a Trump supporter. I have several Republican friends that will admit they don't want any issues, that they will speak in the voting booth. So, no, it's not a myth.

Damn who knew, pollsters beat up people for giving the wrong answer to poll questions.

 

[Jhhnn]

You can call them shy and deny their existence. It's not so much that they are shy, they just don't want to be hassled, or beat up. I have some liberals in my own family that can get pretty nasty and in your face, if they determine a person to be a Trump supporter. I have several Republican friends that will admit they don't want any issues, that they will speak in the voting booth. So, no, it's not a myth.

Funny how y'all were all up in our faces 4 years ago. Where's that "Fuck your feelings, Libtards!" we saw so much of back then? And now you're skeered & don't want anybody hurting your fee-fees. I understand how a person could get all juiced up on culture warrior bullshit & vote for him, once. The way it's working out, I can't see any truly rational person doing it again.

 

[Paratus]

I think a common mistake by people, including many liberals, who believe the polls were way off in 2016, is that people think polls predict winners and losers. They do not. They provide data from which others make predictions.

Consider a hypothetical poll which says D+1 where the outcome turns out to be R+1. The "poll" got the winner and loser wrong, right? Shit poll! No, the polling error was a margin of 2, which is OK. In another hypothetical, the poll says D+9 and the result is D+2. Everyone thinks this poll was great because it accurately "predicted" the winner. But in reality, the error margin there is 7, and polling was much worse than in the first case.

It's why no one seems to realize that polling in 2012 was actually a little more off than polling in 2016, because they think the 2012 polls accurately "predicted" the winner, but in reality, they showed Obama with a much smaller lead than he actually had.

I think lots of people just do not get this.

Besides not understanding the polling they also don’t understand the predictions. I think 538 gave Trump a 1/3 chance of winning on Election Day. Conservatives laughed about how “wrong” that prediction was.

However take another scenario with a 1/3 chance of happening like say playing Russian Roulette with a six shot revolver loaded with two rounds and no one is going to be surprised when the guy blows his head off.