Polls Are For Strippers: An Explanation

One of the most famous statisticians of the 20th Century, George Box, had a saying that I've known since high school (my dad is a world famous statistician himself who has won the Shewhart Medal, though his area is industrial engineering and experimental design). That saying is, "All models are wrong. Some models are useful." I say this: polling, as it currently exists in the American political space, is not useful.

I've been extremely dismissive of polling in general for a while, and there are lingering questions from commenters I interact with about where the source of that dismissiveness comes from. Well, here is my perspective.

Polling has several innate problems that exacerbate when funded by people with agendas and who don't have the amount of money to do it right. Polling is expensive. Response rates on phone calls for polling are minute. Something like 1 in 10 calls (according to a research paper, it's actually just under that at 9%) gets a response that a firm can actually use. So, to get a 1,000 sample, you have to call about 10,000 numbers. That's a lot of time if you're using real people to make the calls (reportedly the more accurate way to do it). It requires a lot of resources, and that gets expensive. Your fly-by-night polling firms, are they investing in their efforts at that level? The news organizations that pay for polling, the same ones seeing contractions at even the highest "talent" levels, are they investing at that level? Most likely not.

And then you get to the question of incentives: What incentive is there for polling firms to "try and get it right?"

"Well," you say, "that's obvious. You're dumb TJM for not figuring this out. If they're not accurate, then no one will believe them in the future."

That's a great idea, but it doesn't actually hold up with reality. Let's take Quinnipac as a case study. In 2016, their final poll of the presidential race was Clinton 50, Trump 44. The race ended 48 to 46. In 2020, their final poll was Biden 50, Trump 39. The final result was 51 to 47. Their pattern over the last two cycles is to be within a reasonable (we'll get to that) distance of the Democrat number and to regularly (sometimes vastly) underestimating Trump's support. They're not very accurate. They're not very good. What is the generalized opinion of the firm? Well, 538 calls them the 17th most accurate pollster and rates them 2.8/3 stars. How? Quinnipac is terrible.

I'm not interested in seeing what esoteric reasons 538 rates Quinnipac so highly, but it's obvious that them regularly getting things wrong isn't actually a concern for its reputation. Getting it wrong doesn't hurt them. So, what incentive is there in being right?

Another aspect that needs to be talked about is the difference between every poll a firm does other than the final poll, and the final poll. Which poll is the firm rated on if there's even a consideration for accuracy? It's the final poll. What do we mostly end up talking about over the course of the year of election season? Not the final poll. If the final poll is the only one that counts (again, assuming it actually counts), then is there even an incentive to have previous polls be accurate? Who can tell if they are or not?

You know we've been fed the line for literally decades that the polls "tighten up" after Labor Day, that the American people don't start paying attention to politics until the final month or two of an election, which is why the polls suddenly and regularly change. Is that even true? How would we know if it's true or not? We can point to election results and say, "this pollster was close and that one was not," for their final poll, but what about the polls in June? Or July? "Well, the electorate completely changed in September," is honestly not a good excuse, and accepting it is silly. The polling industry has gotten the American political commentariat to parrot its excuses for not being close to accurate for decades now, and it'd be nice if it would stop.

So, all that being said, let's assume, just for argument's sake, that polling is at least trying to be generally reflective of the facts on the ground, that the firms are trying to be accurate no matter what their limitations. Should we still accept them?

Nope because once you get into the nitty gritty of their methods, you realize how much is smoke and mirrors.

What is the one thing you need to do statistical analysis? It's not special software. It's not even that much of an education in statistics. It's a good sample. What's a good sample? Size is important, but also randomness. The sample of data needs to be large enough and truly random to apply statistics to with any kind of reliability. How to actually get a random sample has been a problem that the polling industry has actually been very publicly dealing with for a few years now. Long gone are the days when you could rely on the phone book to provide you with some kind of random population to pull a random sample from. What happens when area codes don't matter, certain segments of the population are FAR less likely to actually answer the phone? What about using online tools? Does that exclude large segments of the population as well? Without that randomness, that polling firms openly admit to struggling with, you have to rely on modelling of the data before you even begin the statistical analysis.

What do I mean by modeling? I mean that you have to take your raw data set, realize that it probably doesn't reflect reality because it's not actually random, the breakouts of the data don't reflect the population in any form, and something has to be done. So, you say, "Well, we got 50% Democrats, 35% Republicans, and 15% Independents, but we know that's not right. So, we have to reweight this to 35% Democrat, 35% Republican, and 30% Independent." Except...what mix do you actually choose? I chose that mix at random because it "seemed" reasonable. Is it accurate? Where do we go for accurate information about what something like partisan (could be racial, could be income, could be education) makeup of the electorate will be? There are sources you can pull like registration numbers or even a larger survey like Gallup's, but then you also have to assume what percentage of these groups will vote and how much that'll be of the electorate.

We haven't even gotten to the statistics, and we're already compiling assumptions on top of each other. What's the point of data gathering at this point if you're just going to change everything around?

This brings me to the margin for error. I seriously, seriously doubt that the posted margins for error are close to accurate. 3.5% on data that you've had to massage to get to a place where you can even begin to analyze it? Please. But, let's give in and say that everything is fine with the process and the margin of error is accurate. Do we know what that means?

The margin for error is usually interpreted (at least through implication) that it's the overall margin for error of everything. It's not. It's the margin for error of every data point individually. So, the poll showing 48-48 with a MoE of 3.5%? The actual range of possible results given the data is from 44.5-51.5 to 51.5-44.5 within one standard deviation. The idea is that the most likely scenario is somewhere between those results...somewhere. That's extremely far from precise. It also expands the idea of what's "outside the margin of error". When you see a poll saying 45-49 with a 3.5% margin of error, the natural implication in our innumerate society is to say that it's outside the margin of error. It's not. It's comfortably inside it. And some of these polls have margins for error admitted to be at least 5%. Think of that, it's at least somewhat likely that there's a 10% swing in the placement of the two main data points that the firm is ADMITTING to.

"Well, they all agree around the same point, and they're kind of right some of the times."

When you don't know what you're doing, when you don't know the actual result, but you have an inclination that it's generally a 50-50 race, how hard is it to massage the data during modeling to get to results like 48-49 consistently? Is there an incentive to keep to that kind of result if everyone else is doing it? If everyone is saying 48-48 but then a firm comes out with 45-55, are they considered probably right or wrong? Usually wrong because, well, no one else sees that. This is called herding, and looking over the history of polling, it seems obvious that it's an extremely common practice, telling me that, really, almost no one doing public polling is independent or even doing it that well.

"But the aggregates!"

Ask a statistician what happens to the margin of error when you average two averages. It gets bigger, not smaller. If aggregates are right, it's because of herding, not because averaging statistics is a good idea. And, again, assuming a major party's candidate gets at least 45% of the vote is not a hard assumption. Assuming that they'll get no more than 55% is the same thing. That gives you a 10 point window to say that both candidates are in there somewhere, leaning more towards one or the other. And Quinnipac failed even that in 2020.

So, polling is imprecise, done badly, and full of assumptions while firms have their own incentives for doing whatever they do (trying to be accurate or selling a narrative), and even accuracy isn't even rewarded by major players in the game. It's also not that hard to get within a couple of points because it's not like we live in a world where a political candidate at the national level is going to get 25% of the vote. Is polling to be dismissed entirely?

I think so. I'm a pretty firm First Amendment guy, but if there came a law to outlaw all polling, I'd be hard pressed to come up with an argument not relying on free speech against it.

Is there something else we can do?

Well, ultimately, even reactions to polling are about gut feelings. "This poll looks right," and "This poll looks wrong." We're automatically dismissive of things that don't mesh with our preconceived notions and accepting of things that do. That creates a set of assumptions about results right there. But what other actual data is out there?

Well, I started all of this because I found the below thread:

🧵1/ PA Vote Analysis: This is a follow up to my previous one from early today, just due to some more information now that pollsters are asking voters they poll their voting preference: Mail Early Voting vs Election Day voting.

Caution: lot's of math here but if I had to do it,� https://t.co/mLSHsfGIth
— CA ET Nerd (@earlyvotedata) October 10, 2024

It's a thread from a guy looking at Pennsylvania early voting data, making a series of assumptions and extrapolating from that. I think the assumptions are reasonable considering past behavior, but they're still just assumptions. They could be wrong, but it feels right to me (my own assumption). It also feels more grounded in the reality of how things are actually going in PA than pollsters who make assumptions about turnout based on...whatever they want.

Is Trump going to win? It depends on a whole lot more than voting. Are the polls going to be wrong again? Hell, the most accurate individual pollsters of 2020 were wrong by a few points. Pretty much every pollster is "wrong" every single election. It's not a question of who's the most right but of who's the least wrong. Are there signs out there other than polling that we could use as a potential sign of how things will go? For sure.

It's just that polling generally sucks, and I hate it.

Polls are for strippers.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison at 12:07 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 I bet the movie sucked.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:08 PM (GBKbO)

2 Nooded....

Back to cleaning the garage...

Posted by: Stateless at October 11, 2024 12:08 PM (jvJvP)

3 George Box?!?!? I'd eat that guy for lunch.

Posted by: Hillary Clinton at October 11, 2024 12:09 PM (NXYp1)

4 "Polls are not just for strippers, dude. Oh, POLLS. I thought you said 'poles.'"

-- Pete Bootyjuice

-- Tim Walz

Posted by: Doctor Elric the Blade at October 11, 2024 12:09 PM (iFTx/)

5 Only thing of any use is how the polls are changing and the rate of change.

Posted by: Jukin the Deplorable a Clear and Present Danger at October 11, 2024 12:10 PM (17s+e)

6 BLUE WALL!!

That worked well for Hillary.

Posted by: Jay in PA at October 11, 2024 12:11 PM (i7Q7S)

7 Polls are commissioned by people and entities with an agenda and narrative they want to push. The polling outfits comply with this.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at October 11, 2024 12:11 PM (Q4IgG)

8 Have polls always been "important?"

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at October 11, 2024 12:11 PM (63Dwl)

9 The only polls I trust are on the head/face of a hammer, especially if it was made in the US.

Posted by: Hour of the Wolf at October 11, 2024 12:11 PM (VNX3d)

10 I'm not interested in seeing what esoteric reasons 538 rates Quinnipac so highly, but it's obvious that them regularly getting things wrong isn't actually a concern for its reputation. Getting it wrong doesn't hurt them. So, what incentive is there in being right?

A large problem with Soviet America is that so many groups and organizations have no incentive to "get it right". From polling to the news to pretty much everything the government does there are no downsides to screwing up.

Posted by: 18-1 at October 11, 2024 12:12 PM (oZhjI)

11 5 Only thing of any use is how the polls are changing and the rate of change.
Posted by: Jukin the Deplorable a Clear and Present Danger at October 11, 2024 12:10 PM (17s+e)

======

Most of this is within the margin of error which is, by definition, statistical noise.

From one election to the next, the presidential results are within just a few points, somewhere between 45-51% for each candidate. A total spread within one standard deviation of 6 points.

That's within the margin of error for every poll ever (well, the vast majority of them, some say they have margins as low as 2.5%).

How hard is it to just randomly guess a result within a couple of points in a presidential election?

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:12 PM (GBKbO)

12 I would think the online betting markets would have the more accurate polls. People will wager their money if they think they will make money

Granted, some will put a bit on a longshot, but most people want a sure thing.

Posted by: Kindltot at October 11, 2024 12:12 PM (D7oie)

13 I would think the online betting markets would have the more accurate polls. People will wager their money if they think they will make money

Amusingly the more people use them as a predictive device the less accurate they will be.

If you can make people believe Harris is going to win for $10K plenty of people will throw that kind of money away...

Posted by: 18-1 at October 11, 2024 12:14 PM (oZhjI)

14 You get a lie and I'll get a poll, honey
You get a lie and I'll get a poll, babe
You get a lie and I'll get a poll
We'll go down to the media hole
Honey, baby, mine

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Now With Pumpkin Spice! at October 11, 2024 12:14 PM (L/fGl)

15 Excellent analysis, have you tried your hands at movie reviews?

I bet you'd be good at that.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at October 11, 2024 12:14 PM (XV/Pl)

16 I would think the online betting markets would have the more accurate polls. People will wager their money if they think they will make money
==

Yes but remember that a lot of betters are not Americans so may not know the lay of the political land.

Posted by: Jukin the Deplorable a Clear and Present Danger at October 11, 2024 12:14 PM (17s+e)

17 8 Have polls always been "important?"
Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at October 11, 2024 12:11 PM (63Dwl)

========

I think they kind of started in the 40s when phones started proliferating. There had been surveys, of course, but phones sped up the process.

And phones became a great data well. It was huge. It was cross-sectional because pretty much everyone had one. It was designated by region very specifically.

It made it relatively easy, especially before Caller ID when you answered every call, to get large samples relatively quickly, large enough to be approximately random. It gave the polling industry the legs on which it still stands.

We don't live in that world anymore, and the polling industry admits, in public, that they don't know how to counteract the issues.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:14 PM (GBKbO)

18 I think that polls can be reasonably accurate. It depends on how accurate the pollster wants to be. A campaign's internal polls need to be accurate -- or at least should be -- to give the campaign valuable info on where the candidate really is with votes. But internal polls rarely if ever seen the light of day (unless leaked).

I will pimp here again my strong belief that Whoriss' internal polls have her ranking slightly below the blood-soaked jizz that oozes out of Inmate No. 457 after Big Leroy takes him hard in the prison shower.

Posted by: Doctor Elric the Blade at October 11, 2024 12:14 PM (iFTx/)

19 Top of, or near the top of the news, I was greeted with Wretchen Grifter's heavily made up mug, screaming about how ugly Donald Trump was for talking bad(?) about Detroit at the Detroit Economic Club.

She and Dana Nessel were quoted (opposition), and only on quoted in support (MI spokesperson).

Posted by: Deplorable Ian Galt at October 11, 2024 12:15 PM (ufFY8)

20 15 Excellent analysis, have you tried your hands at movie reviews?

I bet you'd be good at that.
Posted by: Thomas Bender at October 11, 2024 12:14 PM (XV/Pl)

=======

Men should only stonework in between moments of contemplating Marcus Aurelius' writings.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:15 PM (GBKbO)

21 16 I would think the online betting markets would have the more accurate polls. People will wager their money if they think they will make money
==

Yes but remember that a lot of betters are not Americans so may not know the lay of the political land.
Posted by: Jukin the Deplorable a Clear and Present Danger at October 11, 2024 12:14 PM (17s+e)

=======

And are heavily influenced by...polls.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:15 PM (GBKbO)

22 Good afternoon Ace and everyone

Posted by: Skip at October 11, 2024 12:15 PM (fwDg9)

23
What do the "internal pollsters" do that makes them more accurate? Or at least more credible to the people directly concerned who get the results?

Posted by: Blonde Morticia's phone at October 11, 2024 12:16 PM (bQ0Es)

24 If PT Barnum we’re alive today he would own at least three polling companies.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:16 PM (D6PGr)

25 Polls are for strippers.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison at 12:07 PM
---
And yet this post is remarkably light on strippers....

Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at October 11, 2024 12:16 PM (7fElN)

26 Polls are like a roller coaster ride. 🎢

Posted by: redridinghood at October 11, 2024 12:17 PM (NpAcC)

27 Response rates on phone calls for polling are minute. Something like 1 in 10 calls (according to a research paper, it's actually just under that at 9%) gets a response that a firm can actually use. So, to get a 1,000 sample, you have to call about 10,000 numbers.

I haven't read it all yet, but did you mention that the smaller the response rate, the larger the chance that you're only polling a self-selected group which is unrepresentative of the larger electorate?

I think this is absolutely true of the left, which is populated by people who take their own worth and opinions WAY too seriously.

Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 12:17 PM (xCA6C)

28 Here would be a fun exercise. Engage with a polling firm to ask people if they would choose a coke or a pepsi.

Then after you get your results bring all the people polled in and ask them which one they want right now.

Yes there would be drift from people that like both and changed their mind before coming in...but I wonder how close the results would be to the poll results

Posted by: 18-1 at October 11, 2024 12:17 PM (oZhjI)

29 Presently at Polymarket, Trump is up nearly 10 points (54.6% chance to win vs 44.8% chance for Mrs. Emhoff).

https://tinyurl.com/3hemx8n7

Posted by: ShainS -- Assassination is The Ultimate Form of Censorship at October 11, 2024 12:17 PM (TDdfP)

30 I would think the online betting markets would have the more accurate polls. People will wager their money if they think they will make money

Granted, some will put a bit on a longshot, but most people want a sure thing.
Posted by: Kindltot at October 11, 2024 12:12 PM (D7oie)
______

I'm convinced the "betting markets" are another money-laundering scam that are easily manipulated for nefarious purposes. Sports betting is at the top of this list. It's a sleazy, scummy, scammy, fecal industry that makes money off of people's misery and addictions.

Posted by: Doctor Elric the Blade at October 11, 2024 12:17 PM (iFTx/)

31 @1

>> I bet the movie sucked.

Are we talking about Joker 2?

Because I've seen it, and if it had merely sucked, it perhaps, might have been worth the time.

Everybody associated with this film will probably demand all of the credits be changed to Alan Smitthee.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at October 11, 2024 12:17 PM (XV/Pl)

32 12 I would think the online betting markets would have the more accurate polls. People will wager their money if they think they will make money

Granted, some will put a bit on a longshot, but most people want a sure thing.
Posted by: Kindltot

For online betting to work, you must assume a robust market of politically disinterested bettors because if the bettors themselves are biased, then the results in your betting poll with be skewed. Likewise, you have to assume perfect markets with perfect information, otherwise, for example, people rely on the tainted information from the media to make betting decisions which again skews the betting market.

In reality, betting markets have not proven to be very useful as a predictor itself in the poli sci literature other than confirmation of conventional wisdom presented by polling and media stories.

About the same relation exists between the stock market indexes and the state of the economy. There is correlation but causation and prediction is beyond such a model.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 12:18 PM (bt/Nj)

33 18 Posted by: Doctor Elric the Blade at October 11, 2024 12:14 PM (iFTx/)

======

I'm willing to believe that internal polls are more accurate than public ones. A lot of the incentive problems go away. The entire funding issue goes away, too. Kamala has a billion dollar war chest. If she can't afford a decent poll, they're just not paying for it by choice.

However, they're almost never leaked, and when they are leaked it's for narrative purposes. They're still prone to statistical errors and human errors. You'd need a consistent look at them to get an idea of what they're saying. That's where the trend idea would have merit.

Watching Quinnipac piss in the wind randomly and saying, "I see a pattern!" is not the same thing.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:18 PM (GBKbO)

34 Sports betting is at the top of this list.

Since the NBA is fixed, anyone that bets on NBA games without the insider knowledge on who will win is a fool.

Posted by: 18-1 at October 11, 2024 12:18 PM (oZhjI)

35 Polls are like a roller coaster ride. 🎢
Posted by: redridinghood at October 11, 2024

***
To be avoided at all costs?

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 12:18 PM (J2vNu)

36 27
I haven't read it all yet, but did you mention that the smaller the response rate, the larger the chance that you're only polling a self-selected group which is unrepresentative of the larger electorate?

I think this is absolutely true of the left, which is populated by people who take their own worth and opinions WAY too seriously.
Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 12:17 PM (xCA6C)

======

I did.

But, I didn't expect anyone to read any of the content.

It's just not done.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:18 PM (GBKbO)

37 I thought I needed to get out of the house. Oh my.

Posted by: Tech Sgt. Chen at October 11, 2024 12:18 PM (Z8Yh2)

38 The maximum margin of error in polling we see is 10% from the middle which allows anyone to produce fake polling data.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:19 PM (D6PGr)

39 I would think the online betting markets would have the more accurate polls. People will wager their money if they think they will make money

Granted, some will put a bit on a longshot, but most people want a sure thing.

I don't think that follows. According to your logic, people who regularly bet at the track should win far more than they a random stranger on the street does. Is there any evidence of that?

Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 12:19 PM (xCA6C)

40 WTF is the Pennsylvania early voting data Tweet saying?

Posted by: Johnny Stupid at October 11, 2024 12:19 PM (xtKM4)

41 Is Trump going to win? It depends on a whole lot more than voting.

For example, vote counting...

Posted by: Moron Analyst at October 11, 2024 12:19 PM (JCZqz)

42 Polls are like a roller coaster ride. 🎢
Posted by: redridinghood at October 11, 2024

***
To be avoided at all costs?
Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere

Rickety and subject to failure at any point?

Posted by: Hour of the Wolf at October 11, 2024 12:19 PM (VNX3d)

43 Kamala twerking on a poll after Jan 2025...

Posted by: Anna Puma at October 11, 2024 12:19 PM (SoKxa)

44 A poll is nothing more than sticking your finger in the proverbial statistical air and trying to get a sense of which way the wind is blowing.

I've never trusted Poles.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at October 11, 2024 12:19 PM (XV/Pl)

45 There is correlation but causation and prediction is beyond such a model.
Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 12:18 PM (bt/Nj)

Oh, you have to kill the dream with knowledge, as usual.

Posted by: Deplorable Ian Galt at October 11, 2024 12:20 PM (ufFY8)

46 40 WTF is the Pennsylvania early voting data Tweet saying?
Posted by: Johnny Stupid at October 11, 2024 12:19 PM (xtKM4)

======

Read through it, and it comes to the conclusion that if certain things fold out (like return rates of ballots and partisan breakouts for election day voting) Trump is going to win Pennsylvania easily.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:20 PM (GBKbO)

47 Polls are like a roller coaster ride. 🎢
Posted by: redridinghood at October 11, 2024

***
To be avoided at all costs?
Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere
*
Rickety and subject to failure at any point?
Posted by: Hour of the Wolf at October 11, 2024

***
Nauseating and frightening?

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 12:20 PM (J2vNu)

48 And very very frightening, Galileo!

Posted by: Anna Puma at October 11, 2024 12:21 PM (SoKxa)

49 47 Polls are like a roller coaster ride. 🎢
Posted by: redridinghood at October 11, 2024

***
To be avoided at all costs?
Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere
*
Rickety and subject to failure at any point?
Posted by: Hour of the Wolf at October 11, 2024

***
Nauseating and frightening?
Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 12:20 PM (J2vNu)

======

Best with live velociraptors on the loose!

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:21 PM (GBKbO)

50 TJM, thanks. I read the initial part but I don't have a Twitter account and apparently cannot read the entire thing.

Posted by: Johnny Stupid at October 11, 2024 12:21 PM (xtKM4)

51
the polling industry admits, in public, that they don't know how to counteract the issues.

============

A South African firm called BrandsEye predicted Pennsylvania for trump in 2016 when no one would have believed it and the New York Times had Hilary at 99% chance of winning. They analyzed social media. Making 10,000 phone calls doesn't seem like the way.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia's phone at October 11, 2024 12:21 PM (bQ0Es)

52 I used to work for a market research company a long time ago. The business was to call people to do surveys. We would do political polling during election times. The first hurdle for the interviewer is to convince the person you called you're not a telemarketer trying to sell something. The second hurdle is to convince the person to do it. A lot of the polling is push polling, trying to convince the person to have a favorable or even unfavorable position for a candidate. There are the usual questions of who you intend to vote for and how favorable you are to candidates, but then there are questions that ask about policy positions. After given those questions you're asked again whom you intend to vote and favorability. They're checking to see if you change your answer or not.

Posted by: Hadsil at October 11, 2024 12:22 PM (dBI7o)

53
I followed a daily tracking poll in 2016 run by the LA Times that accurately predicted the results. You could actually see the ups and downs in the race. When Hillary took a dive on September 11 she dropped the lead and never recovered. I think in the end they predicted a Trump +2. It probably was only slightly off.

I know nothing of their methodology or number of respondents but damn it was good. I don't think they've done a poll like that since.

Posted by: Divide by Zero at October 11, 2024 12:22 PM (RKVpM)

54 Honest numbers by themselves don’t lie, but pollsters do obscene things to numbers, transforming them into monsters. Like Fronkenstein.

Posted by: Eromero at October 11, 2024 12:22 PM (o2ZRX)

55 Well...

Polls vs. chicken bones
Polls vs. tea leaves
Polls vs. animal entrails
Polls vs. tarot cards
Polls vs. which way the wind blows

Not sure there's a clear winner here.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at October 11, 2024 12:22 PM (Q4IgG)

56 I've never trusted Poles.
Posted by: Thomas Bender at October 11, 2024 12:19 PM (XV/Pl)

Solidarnosc.

Posted by: Vlado Kaczmerski at October 11, 2024 12:22 PM (ufFY8)

57 Been said many times that pollsters shot themselves in the foot in 2016

Posted by: Skip at October 11, 2024 12:22 PM (fwDg9)

58 I would think the online betting markets would have the more accurate polls. People will wager their money if they think they will make money

Granted, some will put a bit on a longshot, but most people want a sure thing.

I don't think that follows. According to your logic, people who regularly bet at the track should win far more than they a random stranger on the street does. Is there any evidence of that?
Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 12:19 PM (xCA6C)
____

I agree with your point but the track example isn't a good one. Experienced race bettors do in fact do much better than casual gamblers. It takes a lot of work and usually some inside info from the stables, but you can actually make a living at it. My uncle (in law) did. He was uneducated and not particularly bright. But he knew the race game and put in the time and effort.

Posted by: Doctor Elric the Blade at October 11, 2024 12:23 PM (iFTx/)

59 57 Been said many times that pollsters shot themselves in the foot in 2016
Posted by: Skip at October 11, 2024 12:22 PM (fwDg9)

======

Roughly 40% of all presidential polls from July to October in 2020 were showing Biden with double digit leads.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:23 PM (GBKbO)

60 Somewhat related but the internet reviews of companies have to be looked at with the knowledge people with complaints respond more than people who were satisfied with the service.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:23 PM (D6PGr)

61 Trump voters must beat the cheat.

Vote early to avoid election day breakdowns in conservative areas.

Posted by: actually inside the beltway at October 11, 2024 12:23 PM (pLaQB)

62 I haven't read it all yet, but did you mention that the smaller the response rate, the larger the chance that you're only polling a self-selected group which is unrepresentative of the larger electorate?

Posted by: Archimedes
=======
You can get sample bias aka response bias that way and yes it can be a problem.

Way back in the day, I used to survey folks in grad school for Uncle Sugar (Agri and Census). There was a list survey which theoretically had a list of all known farms (or people in the Census) in an area. Then a 'frame' study was used by selecting randomly geographic areas about 640 ac (a bit less in urban areas for Census) and a complete evaluation as best could be done of every farm in that acreage, ownership, and production, or in the case of Census, asking everyone within that geographic area for their information. If they did not respond, you estimated their response via observation and via secondary sources (most farmers have crop loans, etc. via fed sources), in the Census, you have various databases, public and private to consult. Those frames are used to estimate the error rate in the list survey including non response bias and adjusted for the whole.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 12:23 PM (bt/Nj)

63 There was a series of hilarious Peanuts comic strips where Lucy talked Linus into running for school president. At one point Linus says: I don’t believe in polls. Lucy, his de facto campaign manager says she’s done surveys and he’s wrapped up the eyelash vote, the whiplash vote etc etc and he’s ahead 87-12 with 1% undecided. Linus reflects briefly on this news and says; I believe in polls!

I’m kinda the same. I know they’re mostly scams but as I see Trump trending up recently is does give me some comfort.

BTW… Linus had his election in the bag but lost when he decided to speak about the Great Pumpkin in his last campaign speech….unfortunate October surprise

Posted by: LinusVanPelt at October 11, 2024 12:24 PM (+kWhq)

64 I agree with your point but the track example isn't a good one. Experienced race bettors do in fact do much better than casual gamblers. It takes a lot of work and usually some inside info from the stables, but you can actually make a living at it. My uncle (in law) did. He was uneducated and not particularly bright. But he knew the race game and put in the time and effort.

I'm not a race track aficionado, as if that wasn't obvious.

Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 12:25 PM (xCA6C)

65
I don't think they've done a poll like that since.
Posted by: Divide by Zero

=============

The USC- something poll. I lived by thst one.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia's phone at October 11, 2024 12:25 PM (bQ0Es)

66 The definitive explanation of polling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

Posted by: Eeyore at October 11, 2024 12:25 PM (1bNHn)

67 I know nothing of their methodology or number of respondents but damn it was good. I don't think they've done a poll like that since.
Posted by: Divide by Zero at October 11, 2024 12:22 PM (RKVpM)
---------

Our poll was too accurate so we're getting out of the polling business!

Posted by: WisRich at October 11, 2024 12:25 PM (G0vdT)

68 Polls Are For Strippers... but strippers are fun... unless your wife finds out.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at October 11, 2024 12:25 PM (IUd0M)

69 I think it's true that most people don't pay attention until late.

You know those man on the street things where people don't know who the vice president is? Those are voters.

Politically engaged people have ZERO understanding of how they think or what their experience of the world is.

The only reason I know is because I was once one of them and haven't forgotten what it's like. It was a long time ago but I was once low information. I barely knew who the candidates were until the debates. Late debates.

If you want to know how political decisions are made watch how the Democrats operate. People who decide elections make late decisions otherwise it would be called the March Surprise.

Bill Clinton played the sax on Arsenio, probably before the summer of 1992, just to get to a place where he would be known by fools. We may not know everything but we do know some things. And one thing you can count on is that at least a significant number of people know far less than we do about everything and don't "decide" until late in the election season.

If it was just about Party ID there would be no need for polling or even an election.

Posted by: ... at October 11, 2024 12:26 PM (hmOfI)

70 Imagine if you will an elderly American President just before Halloween talks about how the Great Pumpkin Kamala will save Democracy.

Posted by: Anna Puma at October 11, 2024 12:26 PM (SoKxa)

71 Are these magical "internal polls" any better?

Supposedly Harris' "internal polling" showed she was in deep trouble. Does "internal polling" somehow avoid some of the herd mentality? Or do they avoid the "narrative setting" tendency?

Posted by: illiniwek at October 11, 2024 12:26 PM (Cus5s)

72 I don't get it.

Posted by: kings at October 11, 2024 12:26 PM (HUKUP)

73 I know nothing of their methodology or number of respondents but damn it was good. I don't think they've done a poll like that since.
Posted by: Divide by Zero

Massive tracking polls of a constant sample over time (rather than random one shot efforts) is incredibly expensive. Private polling by candidates (or research funds via grants) is normally the only way those polls are ever done. LAT was a one off--useful for methodology study but media does not want to spend the money anymore to conduct such polls especially if they favor deplorables.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 12:26 PM (bt/Nj)

74 Lots of math. Oy!

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at October 11, 2024 12:26 PM (wkHXn)

75 A one percent move in a major asset, say gold, is huge.

Compare how a 1% move in polling is considered small and normal.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at October 11, 2024 12:26 PM (K50Np)

76 Knowing how to read a racing form definitely increases your chances to cash than just making bets because you like the name of the horse.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:27 PM (D6PGr)

77
Read through it, and it comes to the conclusion that if certain things fold out (like return rates of ballots and partisan breakouts for election day voting) Trump is going to win Pennsylvania easily.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:20 PM

I suspect Trump will win Pennsylvania easily but - even with my history of success with math and computers - I would have little clue how to accurately poll the state. Maybe by the history of Philadelphia voting in the past, but Trump is making strong inroads with AA males.

Seat of the pants says Trump, but he has to beat the cheat.

Posted by: Divide by Zero at October 11, 2024 12:27 PM (RKVpM)

78 AOS axiom applies to Polling here too guys

"Everything is fake, and gay"

It is an industry, and part of the great con job perpetrated on America. "Public opinion" is used as a munition to influence public discourse and legislation, and generally mind-fuck the populace.

Posted by: Common Tater at October 11, 2024 12:27 PM (kQmKE)

79 Supposedly Harris' "internal polling" showed she was in deep trouble
-------

Her internal polling has to be deep or she won't feel a thing.

Posted by: ... at October 11, 2024 12:27 PM (hmOfI)

80 71 Are these magical "internal polls" any better?

Supposedly Harris' "internal polling" showed she was in deep trouble. Does "internal polling" somehow avoid some of the herd mentality? Or do they avoid the "narrative setting" tendency?
Posted by: illiniwek
==========
Much larger samples and using the frame/list technique to correct errors. Private polling also relies upon some tricks like oversampling demographics of interest along with trend analysis using tracking polling augmented by focus groups, on the ground info like ballot returns and voter registration figures, and so on.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 12:28 PM (bt/Nj)

81 Did the pollster lose their car keys?

Posted by: Anna Puma at October 11, 2024 12:28 PM (SoKxa)

82 Polls vs. animal entrails
Posted by: Martini Farmer

Animal entrails are an offal way to make predictions.

Posted by: SFGoth at October 11, 2024 12:28 PM (KAi1n)

83 I don't get it.
Posted by: kings

Written by a guy who liked Prometheus so I'm not sure your supposed to?

Posted by: Nigel West Dickens at October 11, 2024 12:29 PM (Y8lzz)

84 You know you're getting old when you worry that stripper might get hurt if she falls off the pole from that high.

Posted by: DaveA at October 11, 2024 12:29 PM (FhXTo)

85 I never get polled.
I wonder why, since I always vote in every election.

Posted by: redridinghood at October 11, 2024 12:29 PM (NpAcC)

86 Shorter the James madison:

In 2016 they believed their polling. Then reality struck and they realized they were huffing their own farts... then in 2020 we got shocked. Polling worked sort of when people people had one phone line and still participated in the process honestly. That ship has sailed. Even if they wanted to do an honest poll, I suspect getting a true honest sample is nearly impossible. I used to participate in polls. Decades ago. Fcuk em.
Posted by: Bitter facts dispensed freely at October 11, 2024 11:13 AM

Posted by: Bitter facts dispensed freely at October 11, 2024 12:29 PM (3N1x9)

87 Romney was up by 4%-5% in FL in the public polls and even more in his internal polls. He lost FL by 4%.

If you believe in polls just a little bit then the Dems definitely cheated.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:29 PM (D6PGr)

88 >>>Nope because once you get into the nitty gritty of their methods, you realize how much is smoke and mirrors.

Statistics is useful for one thing. Hard, measurable objective fact. One thing you learn about error propagation is that pretty much everytime you handle something (instrumentation, data collection, and results derivation), you are adding or at the very least, propagating, error.

At the very base, public polling is unreliable, because people have no incentive to answer truthfully. In addition, think about how worthy are the answers of the people who have the time to bother sitting through polling questions. Then think about the "undecideds."

It's classic GIGO from the start, and all the methods they use to massage the data, to fit the raw data to models, etc. are just introducing more error.

As said, "Some models are useful."

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 12:30 PM (i24o9)

89 Polls are useful as they become more focused and specific. For example, lets say they do a poll in PA on abortion....let's make the question:

"Do you think Trump wants to federally ban abortion?"

The legitimacy of the question means nothing. It would be impossible to federally ban abortion. But, let's say 75% of the response from the poll implies that this is a concern of PA voters. Well then, guess what commercials deluge the PA market as they approach the election.

Polls aren't useful on a general basis. But, on a specific basis they can create a road.

Posted by: Orson at October 11, 2024 12:30 PM (dIske)

90 I think Dave in FL did an explainer a while ago on how polls are commissioned and how the internals work. I don't remember the details as it involved math. I don't do math.

But the picking and choosing of the demographics, the percentages, and their physical locations seemed to play a pretty significant part as much as the actual questions posed to the ones being polled.

Even the phrasing of the questions can tilt the poll one way or the other.

IIRC

Posted by: Martini Farmer at October 11, 2024 12:30 PM (Q4IgG)

91 Democrats should divine the future using Hillary's entrails.

Posted by: Anna Puma at October 11, 2024 12:30 PM (SoKxa)

92 "industrial engineering "

Or as we call it "imagery engineering"

Posted by: Mechanical Engineer at October 11, 2024 12:30 PM (RqMDa)

93 15 Excellent analysis, have you tried your hands at movie reviews?

I bet you'd be good at that.
Posted by: Thomas Bender at October
-------------------

Yes, it reads that way. His movie ratings would certainly be more accurate than Quinnipac's.

Posted by: Braenyard at October 11, 2024 12:31 PM (wSFOB)

94 We know people are dumb. We know they don't pay attention. We know they don't understand issues. And we know they are ignorant.

But then we can't put all of that together with our understanding of voting and polling.

Posted by: ... at October 11, 2024 12:31 PM (hmOfI)

95 I always go to the polls with a fist full of singles.

And an erection.

Posted by: Dr. Bone at October 11, 2024 12:31 PM (gE9PJ)

96 87 Romney was up by 4%-5% in FL in the public polls and even more in his internal polls. He lost FL by 4%.

If you believe in polls just a little bit then the Dems definitely cheated.
Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:29 PM (D6PGr)

=======

I firmly believe that 2012 was stolen.

FL makes no sense.

And the other states were still just doing their normal cheat thing like Detroit saying that there are 1000 ballots in a box with 10 while Philadelphia does...*gestures to all of Philadelphia*.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:31 PM (GBKbO)

97 The funniest stripper pole routine I’ve ever seen was Doug Heffernan demonstrating how it’s supposed to be done for his wife Carrie because she was REALLY bad at it…..Doug is a heavy fella but he could work the pole

Posted by: LinusVanPelt at October 11, 2024 12:31 PM (+kWhq)

98 Posted by: Bitter facts dispensed freely at October 11, 2024 12:29 PM (3N1x9)

Shorter Bitter: You can't poll fraud.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 12:31 PM (i24o9)

99 Polls are for strippers.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison

Exactly! https://tinyurl.com/yj5a6paf

Ironically, this buxom blonde in revealing black leather is too shy to work the pole publicly, but she has one in her house for her man's enjoyment (no, Walz, that doesn't mean the man is the one dancing on it!)

Posted by: Admiral Ackbar at October 11, 2024 12:31 PM (JCZqz)

100 78 AOS axiom applies to Polling here too guys

"Everything is fake, and gay"

It is an industry, and part of the great con job perpetrated on America. "Public opinion" is used as a munition to influence public discourse and legislation, and generally mind-fuck the populace.
Posted by: Common Tater
=======
Over the long run, it doesn't work. That is why the Biden/media cycle by cycle approach to all the scandals in the end falls down. Basically, even when you control all the media, if it does not agree with the reality that average people see, it simply destroys the media and candidate credibility.

What the Dems and media are left with is an audience, by and large, composed of their partisans which is NOT the majority of people in the US.

Gallup probably has it right +/- 33-35 percent. Leftists, mebbe about 20-25 percent of the US pop.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 12:32 PM (bt/Nj)

101 Seems like polls are just tools to steer the herd.

Posted by: DaisyB at October 11, 2024 12:32 PM (AbL8c)

102 Posted by: LinusVanPelt at October 11, 2024 12:31 PM (+kWhq)

The guy is a hell of an athlete in real life.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:32 PM (D6PGr)

103 The pollsters aren't selling accurate information, they're selling emotional security blankets to the political bases, and people keep paying them to do this.

Posted by: Grumpy and Recalcitrant at October 11, 2024 12:32 PM (O7YUW)

104 You know those man on the street things where people don't know who the vice president is? Those are voters.
Posted by: ... at October 11, 2024 12:26 PM (hmOfI)

This is why I have a problem with the "Get Out The Vote" campaigns. Seriously, if you're not motivated enough to vote you're probably not informed enough to make an intelligent choice. I'd prefer it if the low-info voters stayed home.

Posted by: Bacon Jeff at October 11, 2024 12:32 PM (VGRuw)

105 Doug is a heavy fella but he could work the pole
Posted by: LinusVanPelt

#Me too

Posted by: Brian Stelter at October 11, 2024 12:32 PM (JCZqz)

106 Like a cattle prod?

Kvetchin Gretchen probably has one

Posted by: Anna Puma at October 11, 2024 12:32 PM (SoKxa)

107
whig, seriously. All markets are biased since all participants in all markets are biased. All polls are biased for the same reason. The main benefit a betting market has is that it attracts an interested and involved participant, and not someone who answers the phone to a pollster because he he was expecting a call about his aunt in the hospital.

I am looking for something better, not perfect. Perfect markets don't exist, since preferences and utility are "ordinal not cardinal" and there is no ideal market law, even by proxy.

Posted by: Kindltot at October 11, 2024 12:33 PM (D7oie)

108 92 "industrial engineering "

Or as we call it "imagery engineering"
Posted by: Mechanical Engineer at October 11, 2024 12:30 PM (RqMDa)

=======

My dad's been telling me, for a few years, the two biggest things he's been working on outside of his university work.

The first is walking into NASA and telling them that they're measuring stuff wrong followed by years of research to prove himself right over the self-regard of entrenched bureaucrats.

The other is walking into Rolls-Royce and explaining to them how to design a good mixture experiment to get their jet engines to stop...melting.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:33 PM (GBKbO)

109 The thing about polls is...

They're ultimately useless because there's this thing called the election that decides what happens.

As TJM likes to say, there's zero incentive for them to get it right when narrative shaping is the only thing that matters.

Posted by: The Central Scrutinizer at October 11, 2024 12:34 PM (KbCG3)

110 That Jerker 2 "movie" ... wow, just wow. I've never seen so many rats abandoning a sinking ship faster than that catastrophe. Gotta love the planted news stories alone the lines of "Yea, Mr Big Honcho So-And-So was involved with the production and his fingerprints are all over it, but every piece of genius advice he gave to that retarded megalomaniac idiot Todd Phillips was rejected out of hand."

Posted by: Doctor Elric the Blade at October 11, 2024 12:34 PM (iFTx/)

111 Thx TJM. Polling is made further more difficult to trust what with push polls and suppression polls, as well as heavily shaded polls . Even would be " honest" polls have to consider the impact of these type of polls. Makes a lot of it a crap shoot

Posted by: Smell the Glove at October 11, 2024 12:34 PM (UJ9QF)

112 The thing that is suggestive, but not dispositive, it that the dems are freaking. They are not confident. The opposite. Trump is going to get a lot of votes. They know that. They don't know if people will come out for a drunken, washed up knob gobbler. Walz is a weirdo. Vance is a nice guy who talks a pretty good game. They got problems.

Posted by: Bitter facts dispensed freely at October 11, 2024 12:34 PM (3N1x9)

113 >>>https://tinyurl.com/yj5a6paf

I'm thinking this is one of the Admiral's traps. Do not click.

Posted by: Dr. Bone at October 11, 2024 12:35 PM (gE9PJ)

114 Posted by: Kindltot at October 11, 2024 12:33 PM (D7oie)

The betting market also adjusts the spread and odds based on the amounts that have been bet.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:35 PM (D6PGr)

115 Joker 2 was the Concord of movies.

Posted by: Anna Puma at October 11, 2024 12:35 PM (SoKxa)

116 "Hi, I'm from a polling firm, do you support Kamala Harris for president, or are you an irredeemable racist who should be destroyed personally and financially? Keep in mind, we can do that."

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at October 11, 2024 12:35 PM (WPL6O)

117 I always assume that the reported Margin of Error is correct for the population which was sampled. I do NOT assume that the sampled population is representative of anything beyond itself.

Posted by: LCMS Rulz! at October 11, 2024 12:35 PM (bufu1)

118 It's classic GIGO from the start, and all the methods they use to massage the data, to fit the raw data to models, etc. are just introducing more error.

As said, "Some models are useful."
Posted by: Comrade Flounder
======
You can get good information from biased sources but you have to work on it much harder. Same as in court, lawyers have to cross examine witnesses who lie, shade the truth, try to omit the truth, etc in their testimony. Nevertheless, one can build up an idea of what happened if you have enough time and patience to do so. Even now.

Dismissing all information as inaccurate is about as bad as accepting all at face value as accurate.

That is simply a mental heuristic because it is easier to say black or white quickly rather than spending time figuring out shades of gray.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 12:35 PM (bt/Nj)

119 91 Democrats should divine the future using Hillary's entrails.
Posted by: Anna Puma

Uh, well...the future looks pretty, uh...shitty?

Posted by: Modern Prognosticator at October 11, 2024 12:35 PM (JCZqz)

120 We know people are dumb. We know they don't pay attention. We know they don't understand issues. And we know they are ignorant.

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

Posted by: K at October 11, 2024 12:36 PM (xCA6C)

121 117 I always assume that the reported Margin of Error is correct for the population which was sampled. I do NOT assume that the sampled population is representative of anything beyond itself.
Posted by: LCMS Rulz! at October 11, 2024 12:35 PM (bufu1)

========

My big question is: do polling firms account for the change in margin of error when they reweight a population.

I don't know the math, but I suspect that it would have to, unless you consider it a form of normalization which...feels like bad statistics in this context.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:36 PM (GBKbO)

122 Enthusiasm seems to be on Trump's side.. I think it depends on the cheat..Have to say this has been a roller coaster...

Posted by: It's me donna at October 11, 2024 12:37 PM (IyPmt)

123 I don't even trust the betting market, since wealthy stupid people will place bets in order to influence the odds.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at October 11, 2024 12:37 PM (lTGtQ)

124 I just came here to see if you were posting about that super masculine kalamala Harris ad yet. Totally straight white dudes who are man enough to vote for a woman.

Posted by: Dan in Philly at October 11, 2024 12:37 PM (KgwaR)

125 TJM - My theory is they knew the vote fraud was coming full force, maybe just like now showing a plausible Harris upset

Posted by: Skip at October 11, 2024 12:37 PM (fwDg9)

126 I followed a daily tracking poll in 2016 run by the LA Times that accurately predicted the results. You could actually see the ups and downs in the race. When Hillary took a dive on September 11 she dropped the lead and never recovered. I think in the end they predicted a Trump +2. It probably was only slightly off.

I know nothing of their methodology or number of respondents but damn it was good. I don't think they've done a poll like that since.
Posted by: Divide by Zero at October 11, 2024 12:22 PM (RKVpM)

There Are Some Things That Man Is Not Meant to Know

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at October 11, 2024 12:37 PM (IUd0M)

127 123 I don't even trust the betting market, since wealthy stupid people will place bets in order to influence the odds.
Posted by: Thomas Paine at October 11, 2024 12:37 PM (lTGtQ)

=======

The betting markets flipped from Kamala to Trump when polls starting coming in over the past few weeks showing Trump consistently, if thinly, leading in most of the swing states.

The betting markets are really just downstream from polls.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:38 PM (GBKbO)

128 115 Joker 2 was the Concord of movies.
Posted by: Anna Puma

Not quite. Concord refunded all purchases of the game and removed it from stores. That's beyond Morbius and Joker II levels of failure.

Posted by: Moron Analyst at October 11, 2024 12:38 PM (JCZqz)

129 >>I never get polled.
___

Something never said by Kamala.

Posted by: Frasier Crane at October 11, 2024 12:38 PM (bNf8H)

130 Posted by: LinusVanPelt at October 11, 2024 12:31 PM (+kWhq)

The guy is a hell of an athlete in real life.
Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:32 PM (D6PGr)

Yup. Former football player and MMA fighter. Made his role in Here Comes the Boom pretty legitimate. I like Kevin James.

Posted by: Pug Mahon, Jailhouse Bones Parker at October 11, 2024 12:38 PM (Ad8y9)

131 The amount of registered voters in 2020 was 168 million

The total amount of votes was 158 million .

Do that math . It’s North Korean voter numbers.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:38 PM (D6PGr)

132 I don't think that follows. According to your logic, people who regularly bet at the track should win far more than they a random stranger on the street does. Is there any evidence of that?
Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 12:19 PM (xCA6C)

generally, if you get a hundred people to guess the number of jellybeans in a jar, the average of the guesses are really close to the actual number of jellybeans in a jar. I would suspect betting markets are similar. I would focus on the number of bets, especially if the site takes a fee for each bet.

Posted by: Kindltot at October 11, 2024 12:38 PM (D7oie)

133
I do discern a movement across the polls as the election approaches and it's time for the 'final exam' - polls which had any significent Harris lead a month or so ago is now even or her *only* +1 or +2.

They're sharpening their pencils because they have to.

I think Rasmussen, on their 5 day averaging is pretty accurate that Don is +2 and holding. But the 'shy' Trump poll respondent adds another +2 imho, and oversampling by them of (D)'s adds another +2.

So a blowout.

Posted by: Divide by Zero at October 11, 2024 12:38 PM (RKVpM)

134 Democrats should divine the future using Hillary's entrails.
Posted by: Anna Puma at October 11, 2024

***
Cankleomancy

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 12:38 PM (J2vNu)

135 >>>"Well, they all agree around the same point, and they're kind of right some of the times."

I think this one bothers me the most, the idea that if you average a bunch of crappy data that it somehow manages to become good data, simply through the process of averaging it.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 12:39 PM (i24o9)

136 BTW… Linus had his election in the bag but lost when he decided to speak about the Great Pumpkin in his last campaign speech….unfortunate October surprise.

Posted by: LinusVanPelt at October 11, 2024 12:24 PM (+kWhq)

-------------

The original #BadOrangeMan.

Posted by: ShainS -- Assassination is The Ultimate Form of Censorship at October 11, 2024 12:39 PM (TDdfP)

137 I think a better use of statisticians time would be spent calculating the highest number of fake votes that could be generated in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee and Atlanta.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at October 11, 2024 12:39 PM (lTGtQ)

138 133
I do discern a movement across the polls as the election approaches and it's time for the 'final exam' - polls which had any significent Harris lead a month or so ago is now even or her *only* +1 or +2.

They're sharpening their pencils because they have to.

I think Rasmussen, on their 5 day averaging is pretty accurate that Don is +2 and holding. But the 'shy' Trump poll respondent adds another +2 imho, and oversampling by them of (D)'s adds another +2.

So a blowout.
Posted by: Divide by Zero at October 11, 2024 12:38 PM (RKVpM)

======

Just recall, that the 2020 election which the polls got "right" had an RCP average off by 3.5%. And that's the curated aggregate that pushed out most of the shit polls...and included the "stupid pro-Trump" polls of Rasmussen and Trafalgar and AtlasIntel.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:39 PM (GBKbO)

139 That wasn't your point of that lede, but it is the same type of thinking.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 12:40 PM (i24o9)

140 135 I think this one bothers me the most, the idea that if you average a bunch of crappy data that it somehow manages to become good data, simply through the process of averaging it.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 12:39 PM (i24o9)

========

It drives me fucking crazy.

From the most elementary statistics point of view, it makes absolutely no fucking sense.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:40 PM (GBKbO)

141 @115

>>Joker 2 was the Concord of movies.

It's easily replaced Ishtar, which was not a bad film and really quite good, as the biggest zeitgeist bomb.

Without spoiling it too much, the retard of a director essentially told everyone who had watched and invested themselves in this character over the course of two films, that they were suckers and losers.

I mean, I just don't understand what that dude was thinking but whatever he was thinking, drugs were definitely involved.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at October 11, 2024 12:40 PM (XV/Pl)

142 Guest posting during prime time? Must be a blow out, Ace is sending the scrubs in.

Posted by: Aetius451AD work phone at October 11, 2024 12:40 PM (9N2s7)

143 Excellent post. You are forgiven for your Prometheus shenanigans. But don't press your luck..

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 12:41 PM (i24o9)

144 " if you don't vote, you don't count" Willy Stark

Posted by: Ben Had at October 11, 2024 12:41 PM (I1GXe)

145 Expectedly, this is fantastic content.

Posted by: Shenanigans at October 11, 2024 12:41 PM (pZ0Mr)

146 Over the long run, it doesn't work. That is why the Biden/media cycle by cycle approach to all the scandals in the end falls down. Basically, even when you control all the media, if it does not agree with the reality that average people see, it simply destroys the media and candidate credibility.

Yes! I was sort of musing on this the other day as a sort of corollary.

The modern politician is insulated now - for a number of reasons, none of them very good. Recall how a number of meteoric-rise politicos had their careers torpedoed in an off-script moment. Or an awkward question, or an awkward bikini-clad bimbo on a boat after you've dared the Press to find something.

Consequently, there are no "town halls". It's all Theater. Bussed in "Supporters". Scripted questions. Focus-grouped answers. Split that baby down the middle. No need to memorize facts, just emote. Repeat thought ending cliches ad nauseam ad infinitum.

Fast forward 25 years, it doesn't work any longer, because they can no longer formulate their ideas, because they don't have any. They can't defend them, because they are patently absurd and always have been.

They live in a bubble. Oops.

Posted by: Common Tater at October 11, 2024 12:41 PM (kQmKE)

147 >>>https://tinyurl.com/yj5a6paf

I'm thinking this is one of the Admiral's traps. Do not click.
Posted by: Dr. Bone

Let's just say it appears Dr. Frank-N-Furter really let xerself go.

Posted by: Moron Analyst at October 11, 2024 12:41 PM (JCZqz)

148 Harris sees her path to victory in getting "her: voters, who are regular voters, to the polls.

Trump sees his as getting voters generally ignored and don't regularly vote to the polls..

Trump's, if successful, will get a blowout.
Harris, if successful, will eek out a win.

Rasmussen, I think, has it right this year; Democrats still hate Trump like 2020.
And he still has Trump winning.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at October 11, 2024 12:41 PM (K50Np)

149 143 Excellent post. You are forgiven for your Prometheus shenanigans. But don't press your luck..
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 12:41 PM (i24o9)

========

*considers mentioning Prometheus*

*thinks better of mentioning Prometheus and does not mention Prometheus*

*does own part to keep thread Prometheus free*

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:41 PM (GBKbO)

150 Good analysis, TMJ. I've literally had 2-4 random cell numbers calling me from various states for a few weeks now. More than the usual spam. Are any pollsters? I dunno. Could be. But I don't answer a number I don't know. Even if I knew it was a pollster, I doubt I'd answer.

Posted by: Lady in Black at October 11, 2024 12:42 PM (b851s)

151 Kamala or the face hugger?

Posted by: Anna Puma at October 11, 2024 12:42 PM (SoKxa)

152 I've never trusted Poles.
Posted by: Thomas Bender at October 11, 2024 12:19 PM (XV/Pl)

well, there is on one hand Emily Ratajkowski, and on the other is Jozef Pilsudski, so you probably should choose on a case by case basis

Posted by: Kindltot at October 11, 2024 12:42 PM (D7oie)

153 Always wondered about the revered "Internals".

Sounds like a magic polling palantir used by The Select.

Posted by: DaisyB at October 11, 2024 12:43 PM (AbL8c)

154 The amount of registered voters in 2020 was 168 million

The total amount of votes was 158 million .

Do that math . It’s North Korean voter numbers.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:38 PM (D6PGr)

-------------

Yep. Our AZ County, Yavapai, always leads the state in voter turnout of registered voters -- around 78% recently IIRC.

Posted by: ShainS -- Assassination is The Ultimate Form of Censorship at October 11, 2024 12:43 PM (TDdfP)

155 TMJ?

Temporal Mandibular Joint disorder?

Posted by: Aetius451AD work phone at October 11, 2024 12:43 PM (9N2s7)

156 Seems like polls are just tools to steer the herd.
Posted by: DaisyB at October 11, 2024

***
"Movin', movin', movin',
Though the streams are swollen,
Keep them dogies rollin'!
Rawhide!"

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 12:43 PM (J2vNu)

157 Speaking of statistics, I don’t care about the law of large numbers. If I walk by a roulette wheel and the board shows black came up 7 or 8 times in a row, I’m stopping and putting down a bet on Red.

Yeah I know. that’s exactly why the casinos put up the boards.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:43 PM (D6PGr)

158 Consequently, there are no "town halls". It's all Theater. Bussed in "Supporters". Scripted questions. Focus-grouped answers. Split that baby down the middle. No need to memorize facts, just emote. Repeat thought ending cliches ad nauseam ad infinitum.

Willowed:
214 Hahahaha. Kamala couldn't open a lemonade stand without help.

BREAKING: Univision accidentally broadcast proof that Kamala used a teleprompter at her town hall

Watch them panic when they realized they were showing the prompter live on-air

https://tinyurl.com/yc742zs9

Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 12:43 PM (xCA6C)

159 @152

>>well, there is on one hand Emily Ratajkowski,

As hot as she is, she's a complete waclk job, one would be wise to steer clear of that one.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at October 11, 2024 12:44 PM (XV/Pl)

160 TMJ?

--

Oh crap, that was me! LOL Sorry TJM.

Posted by: Lady in Black at October 11, 2024 12:44 PM (b851s)

161 Thank You TJM.
I've viewed polling on elections about the same way I view climate change predictions by enviros.

Posted by: JROD at October 11, 2024 12:44 PM (IlL6s)

162 43 Kamala twerking on a poll after Jan 2025...
Posted by: Anna Puma at October 11, 2024 12:19 PM (SoKxa)
_______
Eeyore projectile vomiting on Oct 11, 2024.

Posted by: Eeyore at October 11, 2024 12:44 PM (1bNHn)

163 Poll weighting may have started with good intentions but maybe earlier than 2016 has been an excuse for knowingly publishing false poll results.

Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at October 11, 2024 12:44 PM (/lPRQ)

164
I met George E. P. Box at a Gordon Research Conference on Applied Chemometric Methods (or something close to that) that was held on the campus of Salve Regina University in Newport, Rhode Island sometime around 2000 or so. This school is nestled among all the cliff top mansions of the Gilded Age swells like the Vanderbilts.

He was there with his new, and considerably younger, wife. She and the missus ventured out and about together while we researchers droned on about applying multivariate statistics to manufacturing processes and the like. It was an interesting time in the field, but not interesting enough, apparently, because that was the last GRC dedicated to that field of study (I had been to two others like it prior to that one). Good times, now gone.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at October 11, 2024 12:44 PM (R7rjj)

165 I would think the online betting markets would have the more accurate polls. People will wager their money if they think they will make money

Granted, some will put a bit on a longshot, but most people want a sure thing.
Posted by: Kindltot at October 11, 2024 12:12 PM (D7oie)
==
They can be manipulated with large bets placed almost like a campaign donation - they don't expect to win necessarily, but they hope it supports the narrative.

Posted by: Black JEM at October 11, 2024 12:44 PM (9j0Kf)

166 I'm mostly happy that whig hasn't corrected me about anything.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:44 PM (GBKbO)

167 Trump did better in votes his 2nd election, Barky didn't

Posted by: Skip at October 11, 2024 12:45 PM (fwDg9)

168 157 Speaking of statistics, I don’t care about the law of large numbers. If I walk by a roulette wheel and the board shows black came up 7 or 8 times in a row, I’m stopping and putting down a bet on Red.

Yeah I know. that’s exactly why the casinos put up the boards.
Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:43 PM (D6PGr)

Fun day to find out my wife posts at Ace of Spades!

Posted by: The Central Scrutinizer at October 11, 2024 12:45 PM (KbCG3)

169 Passing the Whig bar is an achievement indeed.

Good job, TJM

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, Vote but also buy ammo at October 11, 2024 12:45 PM (xcxpd)

170 >>>Even the phrasing of the questions can tilt the poll one way or the other.

IIRC
Posted by: Martini Farmer
--------------------

Push Polls, never.

Posted by: Braenyard at October 11, 2024 12:45 PM (wSFOB)

171 Doubting models is basted, uh... I mean based in Whyte Supremaseez and an act of violence against marginalized communities of color.

Posted by: Obese Calvin Klein Underwear Model at October 11, 2024 12:46 PM (Ybyk2)

172 Before I read the post...is there math in it?

Posted by: Cannibal Bob 'I can fill a book with what I don't know' at October 11, 2024 12:46 PM (QlX+9)

173 I've never trusted Poles.
Posted by: Thomas Bender

Missed opportunity to use a Stalin sock.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at October 11, 2024 12:46 PM (lTGtQ)

174 I met George E. P. Box at a Gordon Research Conference on Applied Chemometric Methods (or something close to that) that was held on the campus of Salve Regina University in Newport, Rhode Island sometime around 2000 or so.

You might well have met my wife there, or at least heard her give a talk.

Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 12:46 PM (xCA6C)

175 Hey, I was promised strippers in the headline. I see no strippers here.

*kicks rock*

Posted by: Zombie Robbo the Llama Butcher at October 11, 2024 12:47 PM (LxER7)

176 Another point about Jerker 2 and why it bombed so nuclearly compared to the billion-dollar first movie:

I think the first movie made far more money than people actually liked it. Who liked the first movie? Pretty much nobody. But for some reason, it tapped into the zeitgeist and loads of people paid to see it. But I think the vast majority came away thinking "I didn't like that" with zero appetite for seeing a sequel.

So it isn't just that the sequel is bombing because its anal leakage, but also that the original's box office was drastically inflated for reasons having little to do with how people felt about the movie.

I thought it was well-made and acted, but it was so relentlessly depressing and bleak it should have come with suicide warnings. It was also way too long and boring as fuck. I had ZERO interest in seeing a sequel.

Posted by: Doctor Elric the Blade at October 11, 2024 12:47 PM (iFTx/)

177 Passing the Whig bar is an achievement indeed.

Good job, TJM
==
Seconded.

Posted by: Bitter facts dispensed freely at October 11, 2024 12:47 PM (3N1x9)

178 I suspect Trump will win Pennsylvania easily but - even with my history of success with math and computers - I would have little clue how to accurately poll the state.

Poll one person in each county and then count the one from Philly as four.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at October 11, 2024 12:48 PM (IUd0M)

179 Another point about Jerker 2 and why it bombed so nuclearly compared to the billion-dollar first movie:

I think the first movie made far more money than people actually liked it. Who liked the first movie? Pretty much nobody. But for some reason, it tapped into the zeitgeist and loads of people paid to see it. But I think the vast majority came away thinking "I didn't like that" with zero appetite for seeing a sequel.

I couldn't get through 15 minutes of it (the first one).

Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 12:48 PM (xCA6C)

180 Somewhere around 2004 I got a call from a pollster on a landline. "Hi! I'm from akalkafroo20 and we're conducting a poll about blah blah..."

I started drilling down "Who are you?" "Who do you work for?" because the name was unintelligible. "Where are you at" was also vague, so I pressed further. "You know, what state are you in right now?"

Etc. If they talk about "this call may be recorded" I always very quietly point out that I too, am recording for quality control purposes. They usually start pinging and end the call immediately. LOL

Another gal I thought she was going to have a stroke, I informed that I am happy to participate but it will cost $90 a minute, how do you want to pay today?

Complete strangers who sell your personal data are not the ones to confess your deepest secrets to for any price. What the actual fuck is wrong with people?

Posted by: Common Tater at October 11, 2024 12:48 PM (kQmKE)

181 Dismissing all information as inaccurate is about as bad as accepting all at face value as accurate.

That is simply a mental heuristic because it is easier to say black or white quickly rather than spending time figuring out shades of gray.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 12:35 PM (bt/Nj)

I conceded some models are useful.

I don't dismiss all information. But at some point, the uselessness of the end result casts doubt on everything upstream and discourages spending that time on it.

It may have been "accurate" at the start. They've destroyed the reliability of it, rendering it with the same utility as if it were inaccurate, same as with Fuhrman's bloody glove evidence.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 12:48 PM (i24o9)

182 Hey, I was promised strippers in the headline. I see no strippers here.

*kicks rock*

Posted by: Zombie Robbo the Llama Butcher at October 11, 2024 12:47 PM (LxER7)

Thats a COB trick. It's really unfair because morons cant resist it.

Posted by: Cannibal Bob 'I can fill a book with what I don't know' at October 11, 2024 12:48 PM (QlX+9)

183 Is the Whig bar where the barristers go to drink?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at October 11, 2024 12:49 PM (63Dwl)

184 I think this one bothers me the most, the idea that if you average a bunch of crappy data that it somehow manages to become good data, simply through the process of averaging it.
---
Because of Nate Silver.
No one did that before him.
But he claimed he had a secret weighting formula that made his average of polls more accurate.

He did have a secret formula: Actual internal polls from Obama.

But too late, it's now "known" that Special Formula Averaging yields accurate more results.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at October 11, 2024 12:49 PM (K50Np)

185
BREAKING: Univision accidentally broadcast proof that Kamala used a teleprompter at her town hall

Watch them panic when they realized they were showing the prompter live on-air

https://tinyurl.com/yc742zs9
Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024

***
Was that the incident where the teleprompter "suddenly" stopped working, and KH began to flounder?

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 12:49 PM (J2vNu)

186 172 Before I read the post...is there math in it?
Posted by: Cannibal Bob 'I can fill a book with what I don't know' at October 11, 2024 12:46 PM (QlX+9)

=======

Yes.

Simple addition and subtraction.

For my sins, here is the rare return of the Afternoon Arterton:

https://is.gd/qB63Fq

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:49 PM (GBKbO)

187 This is simple: if the public-facing polls weren't lying to manipulate voters, the Party would not conduct expensive internal polls. They'd just pick up some faggoty newspaper and read some gay little article for free.

It's pretty obvious what's going on there.

Posted by: Ol' "Killer Lips" Franklin at October 11, 2024 12:49 PM (awTae)

188 RCP betting site odds are updated every day, sometimes several TIMES a day. So these odds are always an up-to-the-minute snapshot of what actual bettors are doing-- tens of thousands of them, at 6 or 7 different bookmakers.

Today, RCP betting sites aggregate is Trump +9.2. On August 19th, it was Harris +6, IIRC.

These. Are. NOT. polls.

Posted by: mnw at October 11, 2024 12:49 PM (NLIak)

189 It makes me sick they spent so much to make a sequel to the crappy Joker movie but never made a Dredd sequel. Another example that being rich doesn’t necessarily mean you’re smart. ( Mark Cuban being the best example )

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:49 PM (D6PGr)

190 I'm convinced the "betting markets" are another money-laundering scam that are easily manipulated for nefarious purposes. Sports betting is at the top of this list. It's a sleazy, scummy, scammy, fecal industry that makes money off of people's misery and addictions.
Posted by: Doctor Elric the Blade at October 11, 2024 12:17 PM (iFTx/)

Its absolutely disgusting. I hate that that filth is sponsoring every sport. It's non stop. Plus you have the commentators pushing betting lines and "fantasy" games before, during, and after games plus their social media feeds. I wish they would prohibit that like they do cigarette advertising. It's easier for kids, especially boys to gamble on their phones than buy smokes.

Posted by: Mishdog at October 11, 2024 12:49 PM (8gIOr)

191 They can be manipulated with large bets placed almost like a campaign donation
-------

No, nobody would ever do something like that. I shan't believe it. I shannot!

Posted by: Common Tater at October 11, 2024 12:50 PM (kQmKE)

192 188 Today, RCP betting sites aggregate is Trump +9.2. On August 19th, it was Harris +6, IIRC.

These. Are. NOT. polls.
Posted by: mnw at October 11, 2024 12:49 PM (NLIak)

=======

They're second-order effects from polls. They're not separate in the least. They're joined at the hip.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:50 PM (GBKbO)

193 Was that the incident where the teleprompter "suddenly" stopped working, and KH began to flounder?

I don't think so. In the case you describe, the teleprompter apparently stopped working, but it was not deliberate. In this case, when they realized they were showing the TP, they cut it.

Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 12:50 PM (xCA6C)

194 I believe that polling, at least public polling, is paid for in order to set the narrative for the result - and the result is based on the amount of fraud a certain party has promised to deliver.

The pollsters underestimated the Trump support in 2016, and therefore the cheat was not intensive enough and underperformed the expected outcome.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at October 11, 2024 12:50 PM (lTGtQ)

195
With my experience in creating data based software I could easily concoct a data base of voters who I would poll, with at least ten fields of data about sex, age, race, voting history, income level, education level, etc which I could then use to determine exactly *who* to poll to achieve the result I wanted.

I know they *can* do it, and I'd bet they *do* do it.

Until the 'final exam' approaches on November 5th and their reputation is on the line.

Posted by: Divide by Zero at October 11, 2024 12:51 PM (RKVpM)

196 Here's the reality,

There is no demographic that the Coconut is improving over the Pedo. Zero.

It all comes down to turnout and the cheat, hence the call from MAGA voters to make our turnout TO BIG TO RIG

Posted by: The Unvaxed and Unmasked Ranger - Esteemed Trump-Ho and Searcher of Wagshambas at October 11, 2024 12:51 PM (M7vhK)

197 For my sins, here is the rare return of the Afternoon Arterton:

https://is.gd/qB63Fq

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:49 PM (GBKbO)

Damn it TJM. I'm so easy. You are completely forgiven.

Posted by: Cannibal Bob 'I can fill a book with what I don't know' at October 11, 2024 12:51 PM (QlX+9)

198 Was that the incident where the teleprompter "suddenly" stopped working, and KH began to flounder?

I don't think so. In the case you describe, the teleprompter apparently stopped working, but it was not deliberate. In this case, when they realized they were showing the TP, they cut it.
Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024

***
In either case, then, I expect KH suddenly began sounding like the puppet she is.

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 12:52 PM (J2vNu)

199 Here's what I want to know about polling. Is it pronounced kwa-NIP-ee-ack or kwin-ah-PEE-ack?

Posted by: Oddbob at October 11, 2024 12:52 PM (KXVg4)

200 Two reasons for optimism (yes, I said that):

1. We're having our house painted. Every guy doing the work is for Trump, and at least half admit not voting last time. This time they want to voter early, in person, as Bongino advises.

2. Last time everyone thought all of us were nuts when we predicted the steal. This time, they all know it's coming, so we may beat it.

Posted by: Eeyore at October 11, 2024 12:52 PM (1bNHn)

201 I've never trusted Poles.
Posted by: Thomas Bender at October 11, 2024 12:19 PM (XV/Pl)

well, there is on one hand Emily Ratajkowski, and on the other is Jozef Pilsudski, so you probably should choose on a case by case basis
Posted by: Kindltot at October 11, 2024 12:42 PM (D7oie)
______

I've met ER. She's a fixture in the Manhattan social and high-end club scene. Meh. She's much shorter than you think and doesn't have good skin. Caked-on makeup. Rocking body but seemed heavily enhanced. I also understand from the scene -- but can't confirm -- that's she deep in the Red Zone of the hot-crazy matrix. Like Amber Heard-level nuts.

Posted by: Doctor Elric the Blade at October 11, 2024 12:52 PM (iFTx/)

202
Surprising to see my neighbors, who are more catholic than the pope, and Biden supporters have not 1, but 4 Trump signs on their fence now. I about fell over. There is a strange feeling in the air that Trump is gaining traction.

Posted by: Frank Barone at October 11, 2024 12:53 PM (+oR7L)

203 You want a sign of things that's not polling? This is...fascinating, especially since the brag that it's the first ever against a 3rd party candidate comes from...the head of the DNC:

Jaime Harrison
@harrisonjaime
·
3h
Today the DNC is releasing its first-ever ad focused on third-party candidates.

Trump “likes” that Jill Stein is in this race—because Jill Stein can’t win, but she can help Trump win.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:53 PM (GBKbO)

204 In either case, then, I expect KH suddenly began sounding like the puppet she is.

In the first case, she absolutely froze, and then started babbling like a dementia patient. In the Telemundo case, the video cuts as soon as the TP does, so it's hard to tell.

Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 12:53 PM (xCA6C)

205 @176

>>I thought it was well-made and acted, but it was so relentlessly depressing and bleak it should have come with suicide warnings. It was also way too long and boring as fuck. I had ZERO interest in seeing a sequel.

Essentially, it's like a Kubrick film, you can recognize the genius, enjoy, I use that word lightly as nobody can ever really enjoy a Kubrick film, the experience and never need watch it ever again.

Having said that, there were SOOOOO many avenues to explore with a sequel, but unfortunately, Todd Phillips is just a wanker, poseur and jocksniffer.

He'll be doing community theater for the rest of his career as that is the extent to how big a bomb this film is.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at October 11, 2024 12:53 PM (XV/Pl)

206 ...walking into NASA and telling them that they're measuring stuff wrong followed by years of research to prove himself right over the self-regard of entrenched bureaucrats.

If I were a betting man, I'd wager NASA is still measuring things wrong and in the same manner as before.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at October 11, 2024 12:54 PM (IUd0M)

207 My only warning is If Trump wins the Left and MSM will double their efforts to destroy the country.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:54 PM (D6PGr)

208 202
Surprising to see my neighbors, who are more catholic than the pope, and Biden supporters have not 1, but 4 Trump signs on their fence now. I about fell over. There is a strange feeling in the air that Trump is gaining traction.
Posted by: Frank Barone at October 11, 2024 12:53 PM (+oR7L)

=======

Catholics have been 50/50, leaning Republican for a while. 2020 was something of an outlier getting it, right at 50/50

Catholics
2016: 52-44
2020: 49-50
2024: 52-45

(the last number is a crosstab poll result so...whatever, but a return to 2016 numbers seems reasonable. I dunno.)

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:54 PM (GBKbO)

209 Two reasons for optimism (yes, I said that):

1. We're having our house painted. Every guy doing the work is for Trump, and at least half admit not voting last time. This time they want to voter early, in person, as Bongino advises.

2. Last time everyone thought all of us were nuts when we predicted the steal. This time, they all know it's coming, so we may beat it.

Posted by: Eeyore

When will you change your nic?

Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 12:54 PM (xCA6C)

210 My only warning is If Trump wins the Left and MSM will double their efforts to destroy the country.

*************

So............ same as any other day of the week?

Posted by: The Unvaxed and Unmasked Ranger - Esteemed Trump-Ho and Searcher of Wagshambas at October 11, 2024 12:55 PM (M7vhK)

211 "The individual comes face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind has not come to a realisation of the evil which has been introduced into our midst." J. E. Hoover, Director F.B.I.

I think he was talking about communist subversion in the 1950s and 1960s in government, but he might as well have been talking about electoral politics, polling, manipulation of opinion. Now you know what all those "think tanks" and Institutes for Social Research have been up to.

"The Evil Plan To Fuck Up America" draws too much attention, even on left wing college campus, so they got clean for Gene.

Posted by: Common Tater at October 11, 2024 12:55 PM (kQmKE)

212 You want a sign of things that's not polling? This is...fascinating, especially since the brag that it's the first ever against a 3rd party candidate comes from...the head of the DNC:

Jaime Harrison
@harrisonjaime
·
3h
Today the DNC is releasing its first-ever ad focused on third-party candidates.

Trump “likes” that Jill Stein is in this race—because Jill Stein can’t win, but she can help Trump win.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:53 PM (GBKbO)
_________

Ignore what they say. Watch what they do.

Posted by: Doctor Elric the Blade at October 11, 2024 12:55 PM (iFTx/)

213 My only warning is If Trump wins the Left and MSM will double their efforts to destroy the country.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:54 PM (D6PGr)

Defense. Water. Food. First aid. Time is running out.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 12:55 PM (i24o9)

214 Last time everyone thought all of us were nuts when we predicted the steal. This time, they all know it's coming, so we may beat it.
===
I want to believe this. It feels right. The whackos will never change their minds, they are captured. The reglr people who don't vote much, are gonna vote. They see the difference a good president can make. It tangible on a personal level. They still have to overcome the cheat.

Posted by: Bitter facts dispensed freely at October 11, 2024 12:55 PM (3N1x9)

215 My only warning is If Trump wins the Left and MSM will double their efforts to destroy the country.

They will, but they would be better advised to spend their time figuring out how to avoid getting reamed by Trump. The ground is shifting under them, and they have not adapted.

Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 12:56 PM (xCA6C)

216 214 Last time everyone thought all of us were nuts when we predicted the steal. This time, they all know it's coming, so we may beat it.
===
I want to believe this. It feels right. The whackos will never change their minds, they are captured. The reglr people who don't vote much, are gonna vote. They see the difference a good president can make. It tangible on a personal level. They still have to overcome the cheat.
Posted by: Bitter facts dispensed freely at October 11, 2024 12:55 PM (3N1x9)

=======

There are signs that VA is in play. These signs have nothing to do with polling.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:56 PM (GBKbO)

217 Temporal Mandibular Joint disorder?
Posted by: Aetius451AD work phone at October 11, 2024 12:43 PM (9N2s7)

Or "Why I Used to Have to Eat Sandwiches With My Index Finger Slotted In My Right Ear So Chewing Wasn't Painful and Didn't Make Odd Popping Noises"

Posted by: Kindltot at October 11, 2024 12:56 PM (D7oie)

218 One of the best presidents at using polls was (love him or hate him) Bill Clinton. I think it was primarily due to James Carville who understands that you find an issue to poll on that transcends the Venn Diagram. In other words, there is cross over between a solid representation on the Left (the base) and a good chunk of the independents and moderates.

Once that issue was found (through polling), all resources would go to making that their wedge issue and the focus of most of their advertising.

Recently, Carville showed up in a Zoom call with Democrats and he stormed out after making an expletive laden rant that they didn't understand what the hell they were doing. I think this is primarily due to the current Left's insistence on ramming their own non-watered down agenda down our throats. Carville understand how to use polls. The people he berated only rely on their own opinions and goals without consideration as to how to get there.

Posted by: Orson at October 11, 2024 12:56 PM (dIske)

219 Regarding the Univision teleprompter ,"They" are claiming it was the hosts introduction in Spanish and it was on a timer to go off...

Posted by: It's me donna at October 11, 2024 12:56 PM (IyPmt)

220 It’s going to be 50/50 plus or minus 5%

Posted by: MAGA_Ken at October 11, 2024 12:57 PM (GC3wC)

221 > My only warning is If Trump wins the Left and MSM will double their efforts to destroy the country.
-------
If Trump "wins" the election's going to be decided in a courtroom, not the ballot box. And the level of violence that follows will depend wholly on how that is adjudicated.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at October 11, 2024 12:57 PM (Q4IgG)

222 Early voting begins here next Friday. I plan to hit the courthouse on the way home from work that day, or be one of the very first in on Saturday; or stop Monday afternoon at the latest.

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 12:57 PM (J2vNu)

223 I feel like deep in the bowels of the DNC's lair, they are debating two options:

1. Do everything we can to steal this one

2. let Trump have this one, blame the economy on him, hamstring him at every turn, slow walk and block all of his actions, and get him out of the way for good

Still betting on option 1, but option 2 may be...rising in the polss

Posted by: brak at October 11, 2024 12:57 PM (NGHTx)

224 220 It’s going to be 50/50 plus or minus 5%
Posted by: MAGA_Ken at October 11, 2024 12:57 PM (GC3wC)

=======

Pretty much.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:57 PM (GBKbO)

225 Surprising to see my neighbors, who are more catholic than the pope...

Big deal. So are my neighbors. And Biden's Dog's neighbors for that matter.

Posted by: Oddbob at October 11, 2024 12:57 PM (KXVg4)

226 122 Enthusiasm seems to be on Trump's side.. I think it depends on the cheat..Have to say this has been a roller coaster...
Posted by: It's me donna
----------------------

Public opinion vs media reports and casual talk on the ground feels very much like the Reagan election. It was very tense but not angry tense.

Posted by: Braenyard at October 11, 2024 12:58 PM (wSFOB)

227 Polls shmolls, I look at the turnout at the candidate events. Trump by 20 million.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at October 11, 2024 12:58 PM (/U5Yz)

228 Lot o' big words. We aint but humble pirates.

Posted by: Cicero Kaboom! Kid exudes Happy Happy Joy Joy at October 11, 2024 12:58 PM (hirWM)

229 My expectations for the race are two-fold.

I expect Trump to win, unless there is blatant cheating that everyone can see. I just cannot see a candidate who is doing much worse than 2020 or 2016 outperforming.

And, I believe that if he is declared the winner, the democrats will refuse to certify, and it will go to court.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at October 11, 2024 12:58 PM (lTGtQ)

230 228 Lot o' big words. We aint but humble pirates.
Posted by: Cicero Kaboom! Kid exudes Happy Happy Joy Joy at October 11, 2024 12:58 PM (hirWM)

=======

I disincline to acquiesce to your request.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 12:59 PM (GBKbO)

231 For a humorous aside, here is an actual Harris ad, which I believe is entitled "Kamala Harris thinks you are gay"

http://tiny.cc/vrypzz

Posted by: Huck Follywood at October 11, 2024 12:59 PM (VBOpo)

232 191

That's utter nonsense.

Betting on the election isn't permitted at U.S. sports books. So, RCP is aggregating bets placed abroad, largely in the UK.

If conspiracy theorists want to believe these betting sites abroad are all rigged to help Harris win, then go for it. Right now, they've shifted dramatically toward Trump. How that helps Harris, I can't imagine-- but I'm sure it's a deepstate 4th dimension chess game of some sort.

You "shan't believe" whatever the hell you want. (Remember, Hillary had all her enemies murdered too-- Arkancide! The CIA and FBI at Fort Marcy Park with the candlestick.)

Posted by: mnw at October 11, 2024 12:59 PM (NLIak)

233 It’s going to be 50/50 plus or minus 5%
Posted by: MAGA_Ken at October 11, 2024 12:57 PM (GC3wC)

What magic black box are you working with here?

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 12:59 PM (i24o9)

234 "Relentless" is a good description of first Joker. "Shit" fits #2 nicely.

Posted by: Tech Sgt. Chen at October 11, 2024 12:59 PM (Z8Yh2)

235 Statistics is a systematic method for getting the wrong conclusion with 95 percent confidence.

Posted by: Buzz Adrenaline at October 11, 2024 01:00 PM (JRP2U)

236 whig, seriously. All markets are biased since all participants in all markets are biased. All polls are biased for the same reason. The main benefit a betting market has is that it attracts an interested and involved participant, and not someone who answers the phone to a pollster because he he was expecting a call about his aunt in the hospital.

I am looking for something better, not perfect. Perfect markets don't exist, since preferences and utility are "ordinal not cardinal" and there is no ideal market law, even by proxy.
Posted by: Kindltot
======
Kindltot, you are taking a derivative of reality from a derivative aka polling and media stories of actuality of real votes. So a proxy of a proxy. At least in a traditional betting market, it is more connected via observational data to the object it is betting upon--aka horse racing. Political betting markets are not independent events but conjoined with media/polling/attitudes of the bettors and both are downstream from actual voting behavior.

Theoretically the causal shift runs something like shift in voting attitudes of actual voters leads to shifts in polling and news coverage which leads to shifts in betting markets.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 01:00 PM (bt/Nj)

237 222 Early voting begins here next Friday. I plan to hit the courthouse on the way home from work that day, or be one of the very first in on Saturday; or stop Monday afternoon at the latest.
Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 12:57 PM (J2vNu)

Got my mail in ballot yesterday here in Clownifornia.

Of course, the DOJ and a Judge are busy releasing Evidence on charges against Trump, and SAYING they have to do it before the election... Evidence he can't question or refute... evidence that will blatantly mess up the Jury pool...

but hey... it's Trump! Normal rulez are out the window.

Posted by: Romeo13 at October 11, 2024 01:01 PM (QAkQ3)

238 It never occurred to me that watching a hare-lip running around acting like a comic book lunatic would be entertaining, but Hollywood can't sink much lower than it already is, part deux.

Posted by: Dr. Bone at October 11, 2024 01:01 PM (gE9PJ)

239 For a humorous aside, here is an actual Harris ad, which I believe is entitled "Kamala Harris thinks you are gay"

You can see what they're going for, but the only message that comes across is "men hate us and won't vote for us".

Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 01:01 PM (xCA6C)

240 For a humorous aside, here is an actual Harris ad, which I believe is entitled "Kamala Harris thinks you are gay"

http://tiny.cc/vrypzz
Posted by: Huck Follywood at October 11, 2024

***
Is that . . . a *real* KH campaign ad?

If so, I see why Carville believes they don't know what the hell they are doing.

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 01:01 PM (J2vNu)

241 The most fundamental flaw accepting that a response-thru-completion rate of 6-7% (those were Pew's 2018 numbers; it was 9% about 5 years earlier; they may have stopped disclosing this because it's embarrassing) is representative of the entire population involved. Not that long ago, the response rate was 36%.

I would suggest that conservatives have more people who are less likely to respond to polls but WILL vote, but that's really beside the point.

The fundamental flaw in modern polling is that there is simply no way you can credibly claim that the 6-7% willing to go through the survey process have the same or nearly the same opinions, outlooks, and preferences as the 91% who don't or won't.

Posted by: Litany Of Lies at October 11, 2024 01:02 PM (HYJFD)

242 "All models are wrong. Some models are useful."

And! And! And, modeling is not the sum total of science. Conflating the two is an exercise in propaganda.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at October 11, 2024 01:02 PM (IG4Id)

243 There are a lot of moving parts.

1. Polling is expensive. They don't do it any longer, not for public consumption. Fuggedaboutit.
2. A "close" election is good for ratings in the media.
3. Elections have been queered in many jurisdictions, it would be at least helpful, if not strictly necessary, that the results sort of track with predictions.
4. Public "opinion" in a Our Precious Democracy world is a very very important thing. The majority needs to be isolated psychologically, and told they are some weird extremist for believing in totally non-controversial topics, and some sort of monster for not signing on to depravity and self-destructive behaviours.

Polling is part and parcel to gaslighting, make no mistake. Billions and Billions of dollars are deployed to manipulate people's opinions. Or what they thought was their opinion, anyhow.

Posted by: Common Tater at October 11, 2024 01:02 PM (kQmKE)

244 My expectations for the race are two-fold.

I expect Trump to win, unless there is blatant cheating that everyone can see. I just cannot see a candidate who is doing much worse than 2020 or 2016 outperforming.

And, I believe that if he is declared the winner, the democrats will refuse to certify, and it will go to court.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at October 11, 2024 12:58 PM (lTGtQ)

I think you are right on.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 01:02 PM (i24o9)

245 So Frank Luntz and his 10, post-debate voters aren't indicative of anything? And here I thought he was the final word...

Posted by: Lex at October 11, 2024 01:03 PM (fMN7A)

246 Wolfus if it suits you to go early that is fine, to me it matter not if you go tomorrow or election day your 1 vote should get there.
Nothing magical about voting early

Posted by: Skip at October 11, 2024 01:03 PM (fwDg9)

247 I just came here to see if you were posting about that super masculine kalamala Harris ad yet. Totally straight white dudes who are man enough to vote for a woman.
Posted by: Dan in Philly at October 11, 2024 12:37 PM (KgwaR)

I'm both man enough to vote for a women and smart enough to know that Harris isn't that woman.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at October 11, 2024 01:03 PM (IUd0M)

248 I would also like to note that I wrote this yesterday morning in the midst of Trump's second best polling "surge" in his 9 years in politics.

I'm not dismissing bad polls for Trump.

I'm dismissing public polling as a broken industry.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 01:04 PM (GBKbO)

249 245 So Frank Luntz and his 10, post-debate voters aren't indicative of anything? And here I thought he was the final word...
Posted by: Lex at October 11, 2024 01:03 PM (fMN7A)

=======

Frank Luntz thought "turning the page" was the single greatest debate line in presidential debate history and that it was going to completely change the race.

Frank Luntz is genuinely a stupid person.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 01:04 PM (GBKbO)

250 I just came here to see if you were posting about that super masculine kalamala Harris ad yet. Totally straight white dudes who are man enough to vote for a woman.
Posted by: Dan in Philly at October 11, 2024 12:37 PM (KgwaR)

I'm both man enough to vote for a women and smart enough to know that Harris isn't that woman.

I'd vote for my wife in a heartbeat, but then she's actually highly accomplished and capable, things that Kamala manifestly is not.

Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 01:05 PM (xCA6C)

251 And, I believe that if he is declared the winner, the democrats will refuse to certify, and it will go to court.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at October 11, 2024 12:58 PM (lTGtQ)

I think you are right on.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 01:02 PM (i24o9)

This will be settled in court. Suddenly, blue states will find that they have standing.

50/50 on whether or not there's an inauguration in January of 2025.

Posted by: The Central Scrutinizer at October 11, 2024 01:05 PM (KbCG3)

252 "Is that . . . a *real* KH campaign ad?"

My guess -They're professional actors, so whatever they feel about Kamala privately, they will say the lines they are paid to say.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at October 11, 2024 01:05 PM (MQJVv)

253
Frank Luntz is genuinely a stupid person.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 01:04 PM (GBKbO)

And creepy

Posted by: It's me donna at October 11, 2024 01:05 PM (IyPmt)

254 Everyone here knows my politics. I have NEVER responded to a poll, nor will I ever.

Posted by: tubal at October 11, 2024 01:05 PM (dbTpL)

255 Wolfus if it suits you to go early that is fine, to me it matter not if you go tomorrow or election day your 1 vote should get there.
Nothing magical about voting early
Posted by: Skip at October 11, 2024

***
Maybe not. But Rs historically, I think, have been reluctant to vote early. Not me -- I hate long lines, so I'll do whatever I must to avoid that.

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 01:05 PM (J2vNu)

256 12 I would think the online betting markets would have the more accurate polls. People will wager their money if they think they will make money

Granted, some will put a bit on a longshot, but most people want a sure thing.
Posted by: Kindltot at October 11, 2024 12:12 PM

--

Something puzzles me: How do you win money by correctly wagering on a front-runner in a two-horse race?

Posted by: Dart Tossers and Coin Flippers Polling Group at October 11, 2024 01:05 PM (wzAuc)

257 166 I'm mostly happy that whig hasn't corrected me about anything.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison
========
You have solid background in stats and research design whether by osmosis or by coursework.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 01:06 PM (bt/Nj)

258 My guess -They're professional actors, so whatever they feel about Kamala privately, they will say the lines they are paid to say.

Bingo.

Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 01:06 PM (xCA6C)

259 When my brother was in college, the publisher of Newsweek, which was a major political source then, spoke to his class. He was asked about their polling. He said "We just make that up." He explained: We know about what the results are, and we publish that guess. We're as close as anyone else in the business, so we figure everyone is doing the same thing.

Posted by: An Observation sez China Joe not my president at October 11, 2024 01:06 PM (Da7Vv)

260 Holy shit. The little fairy on the tailgate buys Biktarvy off a deli scale.

Posted by: Ol' "Killer Lips" Franklin at October 11, 2024 01:06 PM (awTae)

261 257 166 I'm mostly happy that whig hasn't corrected me about anything.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison
========
You have solid background in stats and research design whether by osmosis or by coursework.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 01:06 PM (bt/Nj)

=======

And no studying.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 01:06 PM (GBKbO)

262 >>>I've met ER. She's a fixture in the Manhattan social and high-end club scene. Meh. She's much shorter than you think and doesn't have good skin. Caked-on makeup. Rocking body but seemed heavily enhanced. I also understand from the scene -- but can't confirm -- that's she deep in the Red Zone of the hot-crazy matrix. Like Amber Heard-level nuts.

Posted by: Doctor Elric the Blade

>The only way to cure this woman of her foibles is to fuck all of her best friends.

Posted by: Dr. Bone at October 11, 2024 01:06 PM (gE9PJ)

263 TY, TJM. I remember how those 2012 poll results were dissected and rewritten to create a Romney win. The only thing that heartens me is when they ask: were you better w Trump and the voter will answer they were, but still claim to be voting Harris. I think ppl lie. I think many will be claiming to vote Harris, but will actually vote PDT. (Hoping, anyway.) (Saw this result in a NM polling result.)

Posted by: EveR at October 11, 2024 01:06 PM (Z/h4+)

264 The only time I got polled I told them I was voting for that Hussein guy.

Posted by: fd at October 11, 2024 01:06 PM (vFG9F)

265 Trump can win, it's a long shot, it's going to be tough and tight though, tighter than a Farmer's Daughters Chastity Belt.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at October 11, 2024 01:07 PM (XV/Pl)

266 I would never vote for my wife for president.

There would be no survivors.

Posted by: Warai-otoko at October 11, 2024 01:07 PM (nxBpZ)

267 Kevin McCarthy is a slippery pol, but I saw him on Fox the other day and he said one thing that seemed right on: "There are no undecided voters now." It does boggle the mind that Kamala could be so generally disliked before becoming the nominee but then doing better in the polls after stepping in for Joe and the convention 'bump' but then falling off. Who are these people who hated her but then felt the joy but then decided against her a few weeks later? That's why I agree polls are probably garbage.

Posted by: Lex at October 11, 2024 01:07 PM (fMN7A)

268 Fcuk you the James Madison, by my brightly colored socks, and former housemates lacy underwear I vow to show the world that 15 random can accurately predict the election, when I ask the questions.

Posted by: Frank Duntz at October 11, 2024 01:07 PM (3N1x9)

269
If so, I see why Carville believes they don't know what the hell they are doing.

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 01:01 PM

The funny thing is that Car-vile is now recommending that Kamala do more interviews.

Anyone who watches her for a minute (my personal best record) realizes she is so far out of her league - not even semi-pro or sand-lot.

I try to 'follow' what that snake is up to and this one does not compute unless...

Posted by: Divide by Zero at October 11, 2024 01:07 PM (RKVpM)

270 "Is that . . . a *real* KH campaign ad?"

My guess -They're professional actors, so whatever they feel about Kamala privately, they will say the lines they are paid to say.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at October 11, 2024

***
Fen, when I say "real," I mean, did it actually come from the brain trust known as the Harris campaign. So much about it feels like a subtle parody. "I eat carburetors for breakfast"? Whaaat?

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 01:07 PM (J2vNu)

271 Frank Luntz is genuinely a stupid person.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison
======
Fun fact, Frank Luntz was kicked out of the American Association of Public Opinion Research for research misconduct. This was well before cancel culture (in the 90's) for his abuse of standards using his Luntz's Dunces tricks for TV.

His dog and pony act is below the accomplishments of a carnie shill predicting your weight or your age.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 01:09 PM (bt/Nj)

272 Theoretically the causal shift runs something like shift in voting attitudes of actual voters leads to shifts in polling and news coverage which leads to shifts in betting markets.
Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 01:00 PM (bt/Nj)

Yes, but it shifts the sample from "people who are at home during working hours" to "people who care enough to put money on it"
The question has never been if the models are incomplete and biased, just whether they are more or less valuable proxies for future behavior.
It also has the benefit of being self funding.

Posted by: Kindltot at October 11, 2024 01:09 PM (D7oie)

273 Fen, when I say "real," I mean, did it actually come from the brain trust known as the Harris campaign. So much about it feels like a subtle parody. "I eat carburetors for breakfast"? Whaaat?

We don't get it either, but the lower orders seem to like carburetors, so we give them carburetors.

Posted by: Kamala's Campaign Brain Trust at October 11, 2024 01:09 PM (xCA6C)

274 ""I eat carburetors for breakfast"? Whaaat?
Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius"

Whut? Is that for real? Nobody ever says that.

Posted by: fd at October 11, 2024 01:09 PM (vFG9F)

275 Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 01:07 PM (J2vNu)

I knew what you meant.

Considering the stupid decisions the Harris campaign has made previously, I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's a real ad.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at October 11, 2024 01:09 PM (MQJVv)

276 unsocking:

Re betting sites: Seriously, how do you win money by correctly wagering on a front-runner in a two-horse race?

Posted by: SloPitch Whiffer at October 11, 2024 01:10 PM (wzAuc)

277 7 Polls are commissioned by people and entities with an agenda and narrative they want to push. The polling outfits comply with this.
Posted by: Martini Farmer at October 11, 2024 12:11 PM (Q4IgG)

Just like "scientific studies."

Posted by: Question Authority bumper sticker at October 11, 2024 01:10 PM (Rbu5d)

278 I eat starter motors for lunch.

Posted by: fd at October 11, 2024 01:10 PM (vFG9F)

279 Polling is always right. Just tell us the answer you need for your next article or press release and we'll get it for you.

Posted by: t-bird at October 11, 2024 01:10 PM (CvZqk)

280 Once you realize that all information is bullshit you pay attention to important things like is that hawt chick giving me the fish eye? If true, you have reason to think you might get laid.

Posted by: Puddinhead at October 11, 2024 01:10 PM (/UtnQ)

281 201 I've never trusted Poles.
Posted by: Thomas Bender

Misha Cross is Polish, I believe, and you can trust her!

However, I wouldn't trust her enough to Google her from a work computer...

Posted by: That Guy at October 11, 2024 01:10 PM (WXjIX)

282 The fundamental flaw in modern polling is that there is simply no way you can credibly claim that the 6-7% willing to go through the survey process have the same or nearly the same opinions, outlooks, and preferences as the 91% who don't or won't.

Posted by: Litany Of Lies at October 11, 2024 01:02 PM (HYJFD)

That's the GIGO problem. Everything you do after that is propagating error and added new error.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 01:11 PM (i24o9)

283 Once you realize that all information is bullshit you pay attention to important things like is that hawt chick giving me the fish eye? If true, you have reason to think you might get laid.

We're counting on you thinking that.

Posted by: Female bartender in a low cut blouse at October 11, 2024 01:11 PM (xCA6C)

284 If I were a betting man, I'd wager NASA is still measuring things wrong and in the same manner as before.
Posted by: I used to have a different nic

But we're 58% more diverse than we were under Orangeman Bad!!!

Posted by: NASA DEI Advocate at October 11, 2024 01:11 PM (WXjIX)

285 231 For a humorous aside, here is an actual Harris ad, which I believe is entitled "Kamala Harris thinks you are gay"

http://tiny.cc/vrypzz
Posted by: Huck Follywood at October 11, 2024 12:59 PM (VBOpo)
______
Do they really think we want to ban Little Women?

Lefties will believe anything.

Posted by: Eeyore at October 11, 2024 01:11 PM (1bNHn)

286 We don't get it either, but the lower orders seem to like carburetors, so we give them carburetors.
Posted by: Kamala's Campaign Brain Trust at October 11, 2024 01:09 PM (xCA6C)

"It's good to be injected, but it's great to be blown."

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at October 11, 2024 01:12 PM (zbYF6)

287 For dinner I have a nice linguine made from windshield wiper blades.

Posted by: fd at October 11, 2024 01:12 PM (vFG9F)

288 Short version: Models are not Reality.

Posted by: davidt at October 11, 2024 01:12 PM (i0F8b)

289 New one: Kamala word salad

Posted by: Archimedes at October 11, 2024 01:12 PM (xCA6C)

290 282 That's the GIGO problem. Everything you do after that is propagating error and added new error.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 01:11 PM (i24o9

======

Which you then hide by massaging the data so that you get final results within the believable range of 47-53 for each data point, and absolutely nothing other than that massaging mattered to the final result.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell at October 11, 2024 01:12 PM (GBKbO)

291 183 Is the Whig bar where the barristers go to drink?
Posted by: Bertram Cabot
======
Most amusing. My former students are the lawyers and yes at least the trial lawyer types do congregate at certain bars. Appellate lawyers go home and read opinions, corporate counsel go home to the family, and so on. The few miserable ones that I taught in big law as new associates had no life and often not enough time/money to go out and buy a drink even if they were so inclined.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 01:12 PM (bt/Nj)

292 I just ordered a pair of new glasses that feature magnetic clip-on sunglasses. It is so fucking cool.

Posted by: Puddinhead at October 11, 2024 01:12 PM (/UtnQ)

293 "Uncertainty" is the polite term that pseudosciences use instead of the hard, ugly term, "error."

But that's just salesmanship.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at October 11, 2024 01:13 PM (i24o9)

294 248 fd see Legalinsurrection.com, it's from a Kamaunist commercial

Posted by: Skip at October 11, 2024 01:13 PM (fwDg9)

295 Thank you for taking the time to do this, TJM.

One of the great things about the Horde is the scope of knowledge and understanding of some people about things the rest of us know little to nothing about.

Posted by: sal, who watches way too much TCM at October 11, 2024 01:14 PM (f+FmA)

296 240 For a humorous aside, here is an actual Harris ad, which I believe is entitled "Kamala Harris thinks you are gay"

http://tiny.cc/vrypzz
Posted by: Huck Follywood at October 11, 2024

***
Is that . . . a *real* KH campaign ad?

If so, I see why Carville believes they don't know what the hell they are doing.
Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 01:01 PM (J2vNu)
______
The upside for them just now is that St Barack, Lightbringer Extraordinaire, has gotten the message out to the black men on the Down Low.

Posted by: Eeyore at October 11, 2024 01:14 PM (1bNHn)

297 232 191

That's utter nonsense.

Betting on the election isn't permitted at U.S. sports books. So, RCP is aggregating bets placed abroad, largely in the UK.
------------------------

I was at Casino during the 2020 election period and there were betting sheets on candidates.

Posted by: Braenyard at October 11, 2024 01:16 PM (wSFOB)

298 Misha Cross is Polish, I believe, and you can trust her!
However, I wouldn't trust her enough to Google her from a work computer...
Posted by: That Guy at October 11, 2024 01:10 PM (WXjIX)

well there is Nadia Kukulska, and a slew of other ladies too, but I wouldn't trust Jozef Pilsudki

https://youtu.be/en13x_ayuqc

Posted by: Kindltot at October 11, 2024 01:16 PM (D7oie)

299 That's the GIGO problem. Everything you do after that is propagating error and added new error.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder

Probability theory is misunderstood and part of that is because New Math flopped when they tried to bring on set theory, etc. back in the day before they taught basics of multiplication, addition, etc.

I am a victim of New Math in the schools and that has made me have to work a lot harder at maths and error correction than I should have had to do in college and grad school.

But, Voila, the Birthday Paradox at work, "In this case, if you survey a random group of just 23 people there is actually about a 50–50 chance that two of them will have the same birthday. This is known as the birthday paradox. Don't believe it's true? You can test it and see mathematical probability in action!"

There are similar examples especially Bayesian statistics where having partial knowledge along with probability theory can give you an approximation of the whole. Frequentivists get there a different route but we live in a probabilistic world.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 01:17 PM (bt/Nj)

300 295 Thank you for taking the time to do this, TJM.

Posted by: sal
------
Agreed, could not be emphasized enough. Thanks.

Supervising a tree crew getting rid of storm detritus right now.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 01:19 PM (bt/Nj)

301 Frank Lutz is a cockholster for people he thinks are powerful.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at October 11, 2024 01:19 PM (/U5Yz)

302 254 Everyone here knows my politics. I have NEVER responded to a poll, nor will I ever.
Posted by: tubal at October 11, 2024 01:05 PM (dbTpL)
______
Not this year, but throughout my life I have, and have had fun with them. I'll lie through my teeth. One time a young girl came to my parents' house, canvassing against a nuclear reactor. My brother and I talked to her. She wasn't pleased. Last line: "If we don't have mutations, how will we evolve as a species."

She gave up.

Posted by: Eeyore at October 11, 2024 01:19 PM (1bNHn)

303 69...Bill Clinton played the sax on Arsenio, probably before the summer of 1992, just to get to a place where he would be known by fools. ...
Posted by: ... at October 11, 2024 12:26 PM (hmOfI)

Just one of the many reasons for the Trump character assassinations and mockery from the left.

How do you NOT know the star of The Apprentice and his phrace "you're fired" ?

Posted by: Question Authority bumper sticker at October 11, 2024 01:19 PM (Rbu5d)

304 So polling is BS. Now do globull warmening models.

Posted by: An Observation sez China Joe not my president at October 11, 2024 01:20 PM (Da7Vv)

305 Joker a movie about mental illness and social isolation that could only get made because they threw a comic book mask on it because studios will greenlight any capeshit screenplay, at least then.

Ironically Joker 2 may finally help end Hollywood's obsession with capeshit

Posted by: brak at October 11, 2024 01:21 PM (NGHTx)

306 Most amusing. My former students are the lawyers and yes at least the trial lawyer types do congregate at certain bars. Appellate lawyers go home and read opinions, corporate counsel go home to the family, and so on. The few miserable ones that I taught in big law as new associates had no life and often not enough time/money to go out and buy a drink even if they were so inclined.
Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 01:12 PM (bt/Nj)

One of Dad's friends said once that he would regularly cut across the lounge at the Willamette University law school during lunch and would see all the law students watching Perry Mason reruns on the lounge TV

Posted by: Kindltot at October 11, 2024 01:21 PM (D7oie)

307
You might well have met my wife there, or at least heard her give a talk.
Posted by: Archimedes

That may be, but apart from the Boxes, the missus, and a few others with whom I had worked prior to the conference, I would come up with bupkis on other folks' names. I should search in my stuff to see if I have the GRC program or photo from that time.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at October 11, 2024 01:22 PM (R7rjj)

308 Yes, but it shifts the sample from "people who are at home during working hours" to "people who care enough to put money on it"
The question has never been if the models are incomplete and biased, just whether they are more or less valuable proxies for future behavior.
It also has the benefit of being self funding.
Posted by: Kindltot
========
Caring more about a result is not whether or not the result is valid. You are measuring something other than voting propensity.

Simply put, each assumption you build into your causal model adds 'noise' to the signal you are trying to read. Your assumption is that people who 'care' about the result are going to be more informed than the people that phone surveyors call. But, that presupposes the information that the passionate ones is correct in the first place.

There is a reason that as one approaches the derivative of derivative markets existing in finance that it rapidly spirals out of being able to actually predict results and part of that is the risk of bad assumptions under the base of such models of reality.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 01:23 PM (bt/Nj)

309
"If we don't have mutations, how will we evolve as a species."

She gave up.
Posted by: Eeyore

Timpon is a mutant. We're not making progress.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at October 11, 2024 01:24 PM (R7rjj)

310 The capeshit movie I would watch with glee would be Pinochet, The Savior.

Posted by: Puddinhead at October 11, 2024 01:24 PM (/UtnQ)

311 One of Dad's friends said once that he would regularly cut across the lounge at the Willamette University law school during lunch and would see all the law students watching Perry Mason reruns on the lounge TV
Posted by: Kindltot

They could do worse. I used vignettes of legal shows at times to demonstrate cross examination and direct examination techniques. What the legal shows (correctly as far as drama) largely eschew are the boring procedural arguments.

That is why appellate proceedings are almost never on TV or even movies and always foreshortened for comprehensibility to the watching audience.

If I don't care about a particular case, I find oral arguments often boring and tedious and watching a lawyer pore over an appellate brief of theirs or their opponent is like watching paint dry on screen.

Posted by: whig at October 11, 2024 01:27 PM (bt/Nj)

312 Try Rich Baris at the Big Data Poll of the Public Polling Project, he does a great job of educating people about polls and how to read them…

Posted by: Nan in cool AZ at October 11, 2024 01:28 PM (WdUJ8)

313 Nood Ace.

Posted by: Eeyore at October 11, 2024 01:28 PM (1bNHn)

314 Frequentivists get there a different route but we live in a probabilistic world.

The average person my age (76) knows about 4 people that have been murdered, with a standard deviation of about 1. What is the probability that somebody about my age (Hillary Clinton) would know 40 people who had been murdered, unless they were the one killing them? Here is a hint: the total number of electrons in the universe is not a large enough number for that to have happened by chance.

Posted by: An Observation sez China Joe not my president at October 11, 2024 01:28 PM (Da7Vv)

315 "All models are wrong. Some models are useful." I say this: polling, as it currently exists in the American political space, is not useful.

First, get the quote right: "Essentially, all models are wrong; however, some models are useful."

And you're also wrong about usefulness of polls. You assume their intended use is predicting election outcomes; they are not useful for that. Pollsters and news orgs use them for manipulating voter expectations and behavior. Their intended use is to change election results. They are sometimes useful there.

Posted by: Darin Zimmerman at October 11, 2024 01:28 PM (9O4zU)

316 >>>The average person my age (76) knows about 4 people that have been murdered,
---------------

Most people don't live in Chicago.

Posted by: Braenyard at October 11, 2024 01:36 PM (wSFOB)

317 This brings me to the margin for error. I seriously, seriously doubt that the posted margins for error are close to accurate. 3.5% on data that you've had to massage to get to a place where you can even begin to analyze it? Please. But, let's give in and say that everything is fine with the process and the margin of error is accurate. Do we know what that means?

-----------------------

the MOE means that 60pct or so of the data is inside that curve, if it looks like a bell curve. But is it? they don't say.

But that says nothing about if the model is wrong, or their sample has a methodological bias, overt or accidental that the 'real' population result is in there.

and also there's no surety that the polled people don't lie.

Posted by: Oldcat at October 11, 2024 02:14 PM (n7h9X)

318 And you're also wrong about usefulness of polls. You assume their intended use is predicting election outcomes; they are not useful for that. Pollsters and news orgs use them for manipulating voter expectations and behavior. Their intended use is to change election results. They are sometimes useful there.
Posted by: Darin Zimmerman at October 11, 2024 01:28 PM (9O4zU)

But in that case there is a negative need for reliability, they need to show what you want. The only factor is if the people you want to move buy the lie.

Posted by: Oldcat at October 11, 2024 02:15 PM (n7h9X)

319 yeah poll 1,00 people in California and 10 people from every other state ... call it a "national" poll and basically lie to the nation ...

Posted by: The Dark Lord at October 11, 2024 02:15 PM (DBAaD)

320 Joker a movie about mental illness and social isolation that could only get made because they threw a comic book mask on it because studios will greenlight any capeshit screenplay, at least then.

Ironically Joker 2 may finally help end Hollywood's obsession with capeshit
Posted by: brak at October 11, 2024 01:21 PM (NGHTx)

Problem is, what to they steal from next? There is no core of literature out there they haven't gutted, aside possibly Military SF which is so against their values its a non starter.

Posted by: Oldcat at October 11, 2024 02:18 PM (n7h9X)

321 Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere at October 11, 2024 01:07 PM (J2vNu)

I knew what you meant. Considering the stupid decisions the Harris campaign has made previously, I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's a real ad.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at October 11, 2024 01:09 PM (MQJVv)

That's the real scandal. Its routine to try and blacken a Candidate by attributing quotes to them. The fact that you *aren't sure* that an idiotic quote isn't false is the true problem for K Harris' minions.

Posted by: Oldcat at October 11, 2024 02:24 PM (n7h9X)

322 Speaking of statistics, I don’t care about the law of large numbers. If I walk by a roulette wheel and the board shows black came up 7 or 8 times in a row, I’m stopping and putting down a bet on Red.

Yeah I know. that’s exactly why the casinos put up the boards.
Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at October 11, 2024 12:43 PM (D6PGr)

Yup. Assuming a true wheel, there is no reason to bet that a 7 win streak means the 8th won't happen. You would be better to flip a coin before betting and use that, since you'd be matching random to random and not our biases.

Posted by: Oldcat at October 11, 2024 02:26 PM (n7h9X)

323 I think Rasmussen, on their 5 day averaging is pretty accurate that Don is +2 and holding. But the 'shy' Trump poll respondent adds another +2 imho, and oversampling by them of (D)'s adds another +2.

So a blowout.
Posted by: Divide by Zero at October 11, 2024 12:38 PM (RKVpM)

The total national margin is meaningless since we vote for president by states.

Posted by: Oldcat at October 11, 2024 02:28 PM (n7h9X)

324 Polls are tools of Information Warfare. The only poll I pay attention to is on Election Day.

Posted by: RobertM at October 11, 2024 02:38 PM (+/lOf)

325 Polls help create the image that we are a fifty fifty nation. But if you walked into a room with a hundred people, and said 'folks, you've got one of two choices. Either I give you a hundred bucks, or I shoot you in the foot with my pistol', just how many people would choose the pistol?

How many people actually want to defund the police, or open the borders, or slice off a small boy's bits because he wanted to put on a pink shirt one day, or start a nuclear war with Russia, or throw protestors in jail for four years like the Heroes of the Capital?

Americans are not generally insane. Polls are a lie is the most obvious conclusion.

Posted by: Eric2 at October 11, 2024 03:56 PM (WcjAp)

326 I know this thread is "dead". But it read pretty lively when I finally found it. Thank you so much, TJM, for the hard truth...polls are worthless these days.

Posted by: creeper at October 11, 2024 05:04 PM (M6moH)

327 "Short version: Models are not Reality."

Which is essentially Alfred Korzybski's very pre-Box (1931) observation that the map is not the territory.

Posted by: Pope John 20th at October 11, 2024 05:09 PM (gUhSx)

Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.0602 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0145 seconds, 336 records returned.
Page size 208 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.