Posted on 03/27/2017 11:11:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
As they investigate the forces behind the party’s stunning losses in November, Democrats are coming to a troubling conclusion. The party didn’t just lose among rural white voters on Election Day, it may have failed to capture them in its pre-election polling as well.
Many pollsters and strategists believe that rural white voters, particularly those without college degrees, eluded the party’s polling altogether — and their absence from poll results may have been both a cause and a symptom of Donald Trump’s upset victory over Hillary Clinton in several states.
.
. Determining what exactly happened is one of the most pressing problems facing the out-of-power party. In order to win those voters back — or figure out a future path to victory without them — party strategists say they first need to measure the size of that rural and working-class cohort.
John Hagner, a partner at Clarity Campaign Labs, a D.C.-based Democratic analytics firm, said 2016 taught the party a hard lesson about polling in the Trump era.
“The folks who would talk to a stranger about politics just aren’t representative of people who wouldn’t,” he said.
The first evidence of the party’s polling blind spot surfaced in a governor’s race, the 2015 contest in Kentucky. Both public and private polls going into the election showed Democrat Jack Conway and Republican Matt Bevin running neck-and-neck — Conway had a 3-point lead in the final RealClearPolitics average — but Bevin won by a comfortable, 9-point margin.
Like some of the more Democratic states where Trump upset Clinton last year, Kentucky has a large rural and a large working-class white population (often there is considerable overlap in the groups). Whites make up 88 percent of Kentucky’s population, and fewer than a quarter of Kentucky residents over age 25 have a college degree.
Demographic trends confirm that these voters have been moving toward Republicans, but they don’t provide an easy answer for why pollsters have struggled to capture them in surveys.
Hagner sees some similarities between Bevin and Trump — both businessmen who initially positioned themselves as insurgent candidates within the GOP. In both cases, there were signs of what’s known as "social-desirability bias," the idea that voters won’t admit for whom they intend to vote because they think others will look unfavorably on their choice.
“With both Bevin and Trump, every newspaper endorsed against them,” Hagner said. “The right answer, in air quotes, was, ‘I’m not going to vote for them.’ … There’s a small group of people who knew that, at some level, they didn’t want their support for Trump to be scrutinized.”
Pollsters are still analyzing whether a “shy Trump voter” effect may have been decisive in some states. Like the public polls, Democrats struggled to measure the presidential race in private polls in a number of Upper Midwest states with large numbers of working-class white voters.
Clinton’s campaign mostly ignored Michigan and Wisconsin — where public and private surveys showed Clinton consistently ahead — until the final days of the race and was edged narrowly on Election Day by Trump. And the campaign invested heavily in Iowa and Ohio — two traditional battlegrounds where she trailed — only to lose both by larger margins than expected.
“We projected Clinton to lose Ohio by 200,000 votes,” said Hagner, “and she lost by 450,000.”
Democrats’ polling problems might not only be voters hiding their intentions from pollsters — some voters may have been hiding altogether.
That bias against responding covers a number of different elements, including geography. One top Democratic strategist who requested anonymity to discuss candidly what went wrong with the 2016 polls pointed to difficulty in reaching voters in more rural districts because of spotty cellphone service.
The same strategist added that many of these voters also may choose not to participate in polls “because they don’t like the establishment and they don’t want to take a survey.”
The yawning education gap among white voters’ preferences — Trump clobbered Clinton among white voters without a college degree, while the two ran neck-and-neck among those with a degree — means that nonresponse bias may have been determinative, said Democratic pollster Nick Gourevitch, a partner at Global Strategy Group. And it may have been going on for some time.
“I think it’s very plausible that for years pollsters have been over-representing educated voters, and that it only came back to bite us recently because it was a key driver in vote preferences this time,” Gourevitch said.
It’s too early to say for sure that this explains Democrats’ struggles over the past two election cycles — or that these issues will still be relevant in 2017 and 2018. Most Democrats — along with Republicans and nonpartisan analysts — are waiting for more states to collect and publish data of which voters did and did not cast ballots, a process expected to conclude later this spring.
Democrats aren’t ready to prescribe remedies yet, but officials at the national party committees are sending strong signals that they plan to hold pollsters to a higher standard in the upcoming midterm elections. Rep. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, who is chairing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the second consecutive election cycle, ruffled feathers last month when he suggested that “unreliable pollsters will not be invited back to the DCCC.”
A committee spokeswoman, Meredith Kelly, clarified last month that pollsters’ reliability isn’t just going to be determined by their 2016 results, but also by their willingness to participate in a DCCC-driven effort to test various polling methods.
“It’s more about unreliable data combined with an unwillingness to do better and to learn from that,” said Kelly, the DCCC’s communications director. “That’s when we’ll stop working with people.”
To that end, the DCCC plans to use this year’s races for other offices to test its pollsters — and different methods to reach the voters who caused problems in recent elections. That could include using its own automated survey infrastructure.
“We’re going to use the 2017 elections to basically ask multiple pollsters to test rural and exurban areas that have overlaps with some of our [target] districts,” Kelly said. “It’ll be an ongoing thing, so we’ll have a way to test whose approaches worked and were most predictive.”
Elisabeth Pearson, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, said her organization conducted a review after the 2015 Kentucky governor’s race and intends to use it as a model for how to proceed headed into the next two years, when gubernatorial elections will be held in 38 of 50 states.
“I’ve seen a ton of openness from pollsters. We’ve done a couple of these meetings where we’ve brought all these pollsters that we worked with and had a great conversation about best practices, deep dives into things like sampling,” said Pearson. “I think they all understand that it’s in their best interests.”
Obviously something went very, very wrong with the polls in the OH/PA/MI region. We kept getting told Ohio was close, yet Trump won by almost double digits.
““The folks who would talk to a stranger about politics just aren’t representative of people who wouldn’t,” he said.”
Actually, republicans are less likely to talk to a stranger about politics because of the abusive incivility that Dems are so proud to display when others don’t agree with them. Dems are proud of their abusive incivility - they feel they’ve won the culture war by screaming “bigot” when they encounter the market place of ideas. And here they are in this OP, still as clueless as ever. Suits me fine - let them wander in the wilderness...
Deplorable polling. :-)
They still don't get it.
It appears that they are saying that if a person doesn't have a 4 year degree they are "uneducated". Not "less educated" or "having only graduated from high school". Uneducated.
I doubt calling such folks idiots (in so many words) is going to cause many of them to vote for a party that holds them in such low regard.
Almost all the people I know who voted for Trump have colleges degrees. I know one Trumpster with hs only.
I believe that they are unable to understand that many of those who have NO college degree have more REAL education than many of those who DO. Secondly, a college degree is worth far less in the job market than a high school diploma was worth in the sixties.
It is all about credentials now, a college degree is just an easy way to reduce the number of candidates to be considered, in many cases it has little or nothing to do with actual qualifications for the job. College graduates are accepting jobs of a level which would have been filled by high school DROPOUTS in the fifties and sixties because MOST recent college graduates could not pass a high school final exam from that era if their lives depended on passing it. Education has been replaced by indoctrination, we are reduced to importing engineers and physicians from India while young Americans try to pay off huge student loans by working at jobs which my generation would have scorned as eighteen year old high school graduates.
“I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”
Mark Twain
They ignore, marginalize and stigmatize the “white rural” population, and then wonder why these good folks don’t play ball? LOL!
People who are left unprotected by the government have to protect themselves.
I don’t no how many highly educated idiots that there are out there. I notice the more one talks about how intelligent they are and how educated they are the bigger there is a lack of understanding about having areas they are not will informed in... IE biologist thinking he is qualified to talk about climate. an English major thinks she is brilliant at public policy. everyone has areas that they are not as will informed as others but democrats want to fool them selves that theses idiots don’t matter for them personally that they have a deficit and the strength of there education will make it so they make the correct decision... some times the person who makes the wise decision understands that there info is incomplete but they have to come to a conclusion’
I have a master’s degree. They are all wet.
...Or because they don't want to help you 'liberal' arseholes defeat their candidate by alerting you to your weaknesses.
YES! Would you open up to a pollster? In the vicious environment of today, I wouldn’t. Who knows what they would do with that information. Perhaps a judge would use it to put you in a gulag? These are dangerous times, and anyone who does not realize that the anarchists are determined to take over this nation has their head in the sand and polling, they hope, will help to shut up those in opposition to their plans. I pay no attention to their polls. Fake news, fake polls.
...”Almost all the people I know who voted for Trump have college degrees. I know one Trumpster with hs only.”...
I live in a very educated community and, for the first time in history my county went Republican in the last election. Now, that shocked even me. Yard signs for Trump were hardly seen because people knew the voting habits of our county and did not want to place tension between them and their neighbors. I believe the surprise here on election day is still out there and, perhaps, may be gaining steam. The fake polls we get will not show that because, today, people will be more reluctant than ever to tell anyone how they feel, or who they will fight for.
Politico articles are pollution to our fine forum.
the democraps “blindspot” is everywhere between the Tappen-Zee bridge and the PCH..
That is excellent news, and I hope the trend keeps growing. Polls have long been used to influence elections. The sooner people stop having strong belief in the infallibility of polls, the better. This is also a good weapon against vote fraud--if the polls are inaccurate, the Democrats will not know how many votes to manufacture to guarantee a win.
Democrats aren’t ready to prescribe remedies yet, but officials at the national party committees are sending strong signals that they plan to hold pollsters to a higher standard in the upcoming midterm elections.
I would humbly suggest that the Democrats start caring about the country and doing those things that best preserve freedom. And stop devising policies meant to trap people in unending poverty. I know that the Dems have conditioned poor people to vote for them and will happily keep them entrapped in slums forever--but dang, that is so inhumane.
Rep. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, who is chairing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the second consecutive election cycle, ruffled feathers last month when he suggested that “unreliable pollsters will not be invited back to the DCCC.”
This, in a nutshell, encapsulates the arrogant attitude of this article, and, indeed, of liberal (i.e. mainstream) media. The Democrats do *not* have a right to our votes. If we do not choose to vote Democrat, it is *not* an aberration against the natural order of things. But to listen to the liberal media, one would think that the only way to vote is Democrat, and that no real person would ever vote otherwise. Hence, in liberal land, those not voting Democrat are outsiders not worthy of being considered human.
The democrats still don’t get it. The pre-election polling was fake. They were designed to create the impression that Clinton was going to win, in the hope that creating that impression would create that reality. I think the liberal establishment believed their own fake polls and let their election fraud slip a little bit. Hopefully the democrats will continue to delude themselves until the next presidential election. Then when they reach out to all of us uneducated Trump voting hicks in fly over country we can tell them how disappointed we are with Trump and that we plan on voting for the democrat candidate, it will be fun to watch what that does to their polling.
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.