Posted on 01/24/2020 8:20:42 AM PST by Kaslin
Many conservatives are concerned about polling results regarding conservative issues, especially about President Trump. For example, the latest CNN poll found that 51% of voters believe the president should be impeached. How much credence should conservatives give these polls?
Mark Twain is credited with introducing into the American vernacular the phrase, Lies, damned lies and statistics. One of the pervasive damned lies people take for granted is the results of political polls, especially in the Trump era. Most polls show him behind several of the myriad candidates vying to represent Democrats in the 2020 election. But the American Association for Public Opinion Research confirms that national polls in 2016 tended to under-estimate Trumps support significantly more than Clintons.
We are inundated with the latest polling on President Trumps approval rating and how people are likely to vote in the 2020 election. Both bode poorly for the president, but he doesnt believe them and neither should we. As an academic, I ran a research center that conducted local, state-wide and national public opinion polls and took a years leave of absence from my university to work for Lou Harris, founder of the Harris Poll.
Social Desirability
The reason why we shouldnt believe most of the current or future polling results about President Trump can be summarized in two words: Social Desirability.
Social desirability is a concept first advanced by psychologist Allen L. Edwards in 1953. It advances the idea that when asked about an issue in a social setting, people will always answer in a socially desirable manner whether or not they really believe it. Political polling, whether by telephone or online, is a social setting. Respondents know that there is an audience who are posing the questions and monitoring their response. As a result, despite a respondents true belief, many will answer polling questions in what may appear to be a more socially desirable way, or not answer at all.
When it comes to President Trump, the mainstream media and academics have led us to believe that it is not socially desirable (or politically correct) to support him. When up against such sizable odds, most conservatives will do one of three things: 1) Say we support someone else when we really support the president (lie); 2) tell the truth despite the social undesirability of that response; 3) Not participate in the poll (nonresponse bias).
This situation has several real consequences for Trump polling. First, for those in the initial voter sample unwilling to participate, the pollster must replace them with people willing to take the poll. Assuming this segment is made up largely of pro-Trump supporters, finding representative replacements can be expensive, time-consuming and doing so increases the sampling error rate (SER) while decreasing the validity of the poll. Sampling error rate is the gold standard statistic in polling. It means that the results of a particular poll will vary by no more than +x% than if the entire voter population was surveyed. All else being equal, a poll with a sampling error rate of +2% is more believable than one of +4% because it has a larger sample. Immediate polling on issues like President Trumps impeachment may provide support to journalists with a point of view to broadcast, but with a small sample and high sampling error rates, the results arent worthy of ones time and consideration.
Some political pollsters often get around the necessity of repeated sampling over the course of an election by forming a panel of people who match the demographics (party affiliation, age, gender, race, location, etc.) of registered voting public. Polling companies often compensate panel members and use them across the entire election cycle. Such panels are still subject to the effects of social desirability and initial substitution error.
Interpretive Bias
Another factor to consider is the institution that is conducting the poll and those reporting the data. Their progressive sensibilities are thumbing the scale of truth. In my experience, polls conducted by media companies are less credible since they are often guilty of the same biases seen in their news reports. The perfect example of this is The New York Timess , which provides a weekly review of their political poll. My experience is that it reflects strongly the Timess negative opinions about President Trump and conservative ideas and the papers heavy political bias.
Even the Harris Poll, when Lou was alive, suffered somewhat from this bias. Lou Harris was the first person to conduct serious political polling on a national level and is credited with giving John Kennedy the competitive advantage over Richard Nixon in the 1960 election. He made political polling de require for future elections. While many people point to Nixons twelve oclock shadow during the televised debate, Harris gave Kennedy the real competitive advantagea more complete grasp of what issues voters thought were most important and how to tailor his policy pitches toward that end.
I worked for Lou between 1999-2000. During the election season we would get the daily tab read-outs. While the results were pristine, Lou would interpret those numbers on NPR and in other media in a way that showed his clear Democrat bias. His wishful thinking that Al Gore would beat George W. Bush would color his interpretation of what the numbers meant. In the end, by a razon thin margin, Bush took the White House and Gore was relegated to inconvenient environmental truths. Similarly, the 2016 election saw Trump beat favorite Hillary Clinton by a significant electoral margin, despite the vast majority of polls giving Mrs. Clinton the edge by between 3-5%.
Where We Go from Here
Public opinion polling is generally not junk science although with some companies it can be. Companies like Gallup and Pew consistently do a good job of chronicling political opinion in America. At issue is the fact that these polling stalwarts dont work for media companies and use large national samples from current voter rolls; they also tend to not put their thumbs on the interpretation of data. President Trump is a president unlike any other and most of his supporters dont participate in political polls. Even Trumps own pollsters were surprised by his 2016 win. We would do well during these fractured times to ignore political opinion polls for they will continue to be much to do about nothing. Just be sure to vote your conscience and that is nobodys opinion but your own.
I doubt if many Freeper believes any poll from any mainstream media outfit including even Fox News polls. We have long known their polls are fraudulent garbage. Nothing new here.
Should read:
“I doubt if many Freepers believe any poll from any mainstream media outfit”
Some interesting stuff from the article’s AAPOR link:
There are a number of reasons as to why polls under-estimated support for Trump. The explanations for which we found the most evidence are:
Real change in vote preference during the final week or so of the campaign. About 13 percent of voters in Wisconsin, Florida and Pennsylvania decided on their presidential vote choice in the final week, according to the best available data. These voters broke for Trump by near 30 points in Wisconsin and by 17 points in Florida and Pennsylvania.
Adjusting for over-representation of college graduates was critical, but many polls did not do it. In 2016 there was a strong correlation between education and presidential vote in key states. Voters with higher education levels were more likely to support Clinton. Furthermore, recent studies are clear that people with more formal education are significantly more likely to participate in surveys than those with less education. Many polls especially at the state level did not adjust their weights to correct for the over-representation of college graduates in their surveys, and the result was over-estimation of support for Clinton.
Some Trump voters who participated in pre-election polls did not reveal themselves as Trump voters until after the election, and they outnumbered late-revealing Clinton voters. This finding could be attributable to either late deciding or misreporting (the so-called Shy Trump effect) in the pre-election polls. A number of other tests for the Shy Trump theory yielded no evidence to support it.
Polls told us Hillary would win in a landslide.... they were wrong.
These polls are wrong too.
The one coming up in early Nov. should be somewhat accurate.
I get at least one call a day on my cell. I do not recognize the number however I answer. I say my name and wait. At the 10 second mark the line is disconnected with nothing from the caller side. I immediately block that number. I just don’t want to be bothered any more.
2016, again?
Even on Election Day Nate Silver had Hillary at a 95% chance of winning. It was fun watching his interviews during the day. The best pre-election day poll was that Monday when Hillary cancelled her fireworks display in New York Harbor. I asked myself, “Why?” Trump knew. He tried to buy it for 5 cents on the dollar.
Also, the questions asked can weight the answers and the poll. Do you still beat your wife?
Doesn't matter that you blocked the call. You just let whoever was testing your phone number that it is indeed a legitimate, in-use phone number. That's why nobody says anything when you answer.
“I believe that in the privacy of the voting booth, these people will vote their wallets and their wallets are doing fine, thankyouverymuch”
In the past this is the democratic plan. Give blacks unemployment, food stamps, free daycare and housing. By voting democrats you get to keep those freebies. Blacks vote their democratic to keep their wallets full with freebies.
Funny thing has happened in the black community, they can fill their own wallets and don’t need their democratic master to fill them. They like Trump. He works for all America. He doesn’t pander to anyone. Blacks like him because he is a fighter also. Doesn’t back down. They fell oppressed and see this impeachment as the democrats oppressing Trump. Trump is black. Watch the black vote for Trump this year. It will be huge.
...unless it's good polling, then we can take it as gospel!
False - he had her at 2 in 3. Other sources said 95%.
Thanks for the line testing information. However calls are becoming less.
Especially Fox News polls. They’re a level of bad worse than most.
Even without the points raised in this article, the disapproval of Trump is so lopsided in New York and California that in order to defeat Trump his national number would have to be at 40% because Im sure at current levels if you take out New York and California then his approval numbers without those two states is well over 50%, leading to yet another electoral college win
Yup. If it’s good it’s gospel. /s
He did have those numbers earlier than election day, but as it drew closer he adjusted them closer to the truth.
I don’t believe any of the 2016 pollsters, especially Nate Silver, who went on the air for any biased news willing to show Hillary winning. No matter what, he highly promoted her.
Because Epstein didnt kill himself
[Voters with higher education levels were more likely to support Clinton. ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.