politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
She polls a head. He polls a head. There are inherent problems with polling and sample bias.
But good. Grab him by the polling girl.
Look to one (or more) of the election gambling markets. Even Nate Silver says they have been consistently outperforming polling.
Well if Nate Silver says so!
He posted an essay on the topic a while back. He gets a lot of shit for getting things wrong using the same data everyone else was using and who also got things wrong; I think the second time, he really started to look into the problems with polling and, in particular, how other predictors were performing.
He was unfortunately the face of the polling failures in 2016, but he's a first class statistician. People easily forget part of the reason he was so vilified is because, until 2016, 538 was the reliable source for predictions, which speaks as much to how good he is as the subsequent failures. Something went really wrong with polling in the mid-2010s.
It became much easier to ignore pollster calls. People were dropping land lines entirely, and gained the capability of automatically ignoring unknown callers. When I was younger, if the phone rang, you answered it. Voice calls simply don't carry that kind of importance with younger generations, so the respondents to pollsters are going to skew towards older people (and probably some other demographics).
The problem with cold-call polling is that the respondents are necessarily "people who answer the phone for an unknown caller" and then "actually interact with that caller." How do you weight your polling to consider the opinions of people you cannot get responses from?
The lack of FCC enforcement has virtually made it a necessity. I get anywhere between 8-12 scam calls a day, and it'd be more if I actually answered them. I use the google call screener these days, but yeah, if I answered ever unknown call, I'd go barking mad.