• BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 months ago

    I listen to those news things that interview people on the street and I’m amazed at how many are uninformed and can go either way.

    • zabadoh@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      There’s a Trump undercount in polling: Trump voters don’t trust “MSM” and therefore don’t answer calls from pollsters, or are embarrassed to admit they will vote for him.

      Same goes for asking random people on the street.

        • actually@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t know many people (boomers and younger) who answer the phone from numbers they do not recognize. I would like to imagine that the people who do answer strange numbers tend to be out of touch. Bias in the polls to fools or the lucky who are not spammed ?

        • TehWorld@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          And an undercount of women who are telling their husbands and anyone else who asks that they’ll be voting Trump, but will actually vote for Harris when the time comes. And an undercount of bro-ski-s who claim to support Harris, but secretly hate the fact that they can’t get a ‘female’ that will cater to their every whim and will vote Trump because he’ll increase oppression of women. And an undercount of cat ladies… etc. Most “high quality” models at least attempt to mitigate these over and undercounts, which definitely skews results, and why poll aggregators are important. It helps to eliminate biases in polling types. There’s really only ONE poll that matters. VOTE! BRING YOUR FRIENDS!

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Pollsters are compensating for that undercount of unlikely voters. 2016 they were low, 2020 still low but pretty close. They will have scaled it up to be more accurate this go around.

        Except there’s a few snags there. In between the 2020 election and now, there was an insurrection, Roe v. Wade was overturned, Trump was convicted of crimes and indicted for many more. These are things that a statistical process can’t really account for when putting weight on how likely a respondant is to actually vote.

        Trump lost in 2020. Do all of these events incentivize more people will turn out for him this time than in the last election? Or will less people turn out for him?

        Every time something unprecedented happens it negatively impacts the ability for a scientific statistical process to predict the outcome. Science can’t predict things there’s no model for, and how do you can’t have a model for something you haven’t seen before. And a hell of a lot of unprecedented shit has happened. Maybe next time a convicted felon that tried to overthrow democracy runs in an election there can be accurate polling, but it’s not going to be the case in this election.

        There really is no way to know what will happen on election day. So there’s else to do other than maximum effort until election day.