Posted on 09/13/2022 1:51:16 PM PDT by conservative98
Pollsters could be overestimating the strength of Democrat senate candidates with “persistent and unaddressed biases in survey research,” the New York Times reported Monday via data analysis.
The data was assembled by analyzing and comparing the 2016 and 2020 elections, which created a “poll error” that reveals Democrat Senate candidates in the 2022 cycle “are outrunning expectations in the same places where the polls overestimated Mr. Biden in 2020 and Mrs. Clinton in 2016.” The overestimated Democrat expectations match polling failures in previous elections.
The states where pollsters in 2022 could be overestimating Democrat strength are in key races that will determine which party controls the Senate. They include Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Polling in all five states remains very tight, besides Ohio, where President Joe Biden has one of the worst approval ratings.
[W]arning sign is flashing again,” the Times wrote about previous polling. “It raises the possibility that the apparent Democratic strength in Wisconsin and elsewhere is a mirage — an artifact of persistent and unaddressed biases in survey research”:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Many conservatives despise the press and refuse to respond. They try to correct for that by adjusting for party but it doesn’t work because the Republicans who do respond are not representative of Republicans as a whole.
You hire a libtard to cheat - not for accuracy
Keep in mind that biased polling isn’t without consequences. In some ways it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy since it depressed fundraising for the candidate they are biased against.
at the moment the biggest issue is nearly every good poll for democrats is using either “adults” or registered voters. Anytime you see that, you might as well add 3 points onto the Republican to bring up to par with any similar likely voter model.
They build in a buffer for fraud. They don’t want the fraudulent outcome to so far outperform the polls that is seems highly questionable.
In 1936 magazine Literary Digest decided as a stunt to predict the presidential election it mailed out 100.000 penny post cards and got back 20,000. It then declared that Alf Landon
would win
Landon was crushed losing 46 states (there were 48 at time)
What had happened was that to mail out cards used telephone books and car registration lists
In midst of depression those who had telephone or car were much better off and more likely to vote Republican
Also those who mailed them back were more likely to be more committed to Republicans
Literary Digest folded soon after ......
The NYT “Get out the Vote” edition.
at the moment the biggest issue is nearly every good poll for democrats is using either “adults” or registered voters. Anytime you see that, you might as well add 3 points onto the Republican to bring up to par with any similar likely voter model.
+++++
You are correct. But I think your 3 points is too conservative. It’s at least 5 or 6. The best data on that subject is to compare RV polls with LV. polls on Real Clear Politics.
The Libs don’t like Likely Voter polls. They too often show the the Republican well ahead. And they are much better predictors of the election outcome.
Factoring in voter fraud
The Fox News poll is one of the worst out there.
You are correct, likely voter polls are far more accurate, but most pollsters don’t switch over to likely voter polls until closer to the election.
This results, in a tightening of the race near the end typically if the Democrat had been leading.
Now that the FBI is hunting MAGA I will never again respond to a pollster.
NYC now has RCV for a reason...
So many to the left of Bernie and AOC claim they are independent. They have never voted for an R like you would expect.
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.