The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
2020 Presidential Election Polling Performance by State
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The following map and table show the degree to which Trump and Biden outperformed the RCP polling averages at the state level:

State Trump (Biden) over
West Virginia 21.8
Wyoming 15.7
New York 14.3
South Dakota 13.2
Kentucky 10.4
Oklahoma 9.6
Tennessee 9.3
Missouri 8.6
Utah 8.0
Montana 8.0
Arkansas 7.9
Ohio 7.2
Iowa 6.2
Wisconsin 6.0
Alabama 6.0
Kansas 5.9
Alaska 5.6
South Carolina 5.3
Washington 4.9
Indiana 4.8
Texas 4.5
Florida 4.2
Maine 3.4
New Mexico 2.0
Virginia 1.5
Mississippi 1.5
Michigan 1.4
North Carolina 1.1
New Hampshire 0.9
Massachusetts 0.9
Hawaii 0.6
Arizona 0.6
Delaware 0.3
Pennsylvania 0.0 (!)
Nevada (0.3)
New Jersey (0.4)
Louisiana (0.4)
California (0.7)
Georgia (1.3)
Connecticut (2.1)
Minnesota (2.9)
Maryland (3.6)
Colorado (4.0)
Oregon (4.4)
Vermont (11.6)

The perception that polling overestimated Biden’s support is largely correct. Trump outperformed the polls in 33 states; Biden in just 11 states. In five states Trump did so by a double-digit margin; Biden in only one. The polling in Pennsylvania was–if the reported results are to be believed–spot on. No recognized polling was conducted in five states.

In 22 of the 33 states Trump outperformed the polling averages, he did so by an amount beyond the standard margin of error; Biden in but two of his eleven. In nearly half the states, then, the polling systematically underestimated Trump’s support by a magnitude too great to be handwaved away as a result of randomness. The methodological approach the polling outfits took are fatally flawed or the Biden advantage was a feature rather than a bug designed to energize Biden voters and demoralize Trump voters before election day. Either way, the industry has some explaining to do.

 
Hide 41 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. … the Biden advantage was a feature rather than a bug designed to energize Biden voters and demoralize Trump voters…

    That’s it, and the redder a state is on that map, the more lying or gaming of the polls was done.

    • Replies: @utu
    @Buzz Mohawk

    In 2016 Trump outperformed polls by 5% in red states and by 2% in swing states. In the blue states that Trump lost the polls were accurate.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

  2. Trump barnstormed Pennsylvania in a massive way, holding well over a dozen mega-rallies there including eight in the final week.

    That this made no difference to his performance there seems to beggar belief.

    Meanwhile he outperformed in Ohio by 7, in New York by 16 and West Virginia by 21? These are all states that border PA.

    Enthusiasm for Trump in PA was off the charts — I saw it — he was able to do one mega rally after another to extremely massive crowds every time, amid the pandemic.

    And yet none of these shows up in the polls.

    He held no rallies in New York and WV and yet his mega-rallies in PA near those states had a big effect. But in PA itself, nothing….

    What?

    To me this is fishy as hell.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Supply and Demand
    @DanHessinMD

    Rallies don’t generate new voters. China’s ownership of Dominion does. That said, I hope MAGApedes continue to live in their Newsmax virtual reality. It’s hilarious! Maybe their Messiah will ‘try again’ in 2024. I’ll be laughing from the Middle Kingdom.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

    , @TomSchmidt
    @DanHessinMD

    I suspect PA for this reason alone. Trump won NY outside the city, and NY outside the city is psychographically the same as PA. But there was no doubt that Biden was going to win NY, and so I don't think there was any cheating here at the higher level.

    New Hampshire is another anomaly. Republicans swept the state house and senate, but Trump performed less well. That might be explained by the vote in MA, where Trump underperformed 2016. Vermont and MA both have liberal Republican governors, so NH squeezed between them might reflect a ticket-splitting desire for responsible government but not Trump. Recall that Dixville Notch voted unanimously for Biden, and I doubt there was any cheating there; yet Dixville Notch is in an otherwise strongly Republican area.

    Replies: @no jack london

  3. In short, with Trump’s unbelievable push in Pennsylvania at the end and given the huge enthusiasm there, Pennsylvania should have been ground zero of Trump’s outperformance.

    Instead…. nothing?

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
  4. It is certainly a strange result. With WV on one end of the scale and VT the other, you’d think the poor prediction was a problem of overcompensating somehow for extremes, but that doesn’t fit the rest of the states. If they were trying to misrepresent Trump, why did he underperform some places like GA? How weird is it that PA is ground zero for the fraud issues and also perfectly predicted by the polling?

    Certainly, many things smell fishy, but I don’t see the court challenges going anywhere. I hope that if Trump loses in the EC he won’t make a show of resisting leaving. Certainly, that would only hurt him and us.

    • Replies: @Catdog
    @Chrisnonymous

    "Certainly, many things smell fishy, but I don’t see the court challenges going anywhere. I hope that if Trump loses in the EC he won’t make a show of resisting leaving. Certainly, that would only hurt him and us."

    How do you figure? If the election really was stolen, then normal electoral politics is no longer an option.

  5. @Buzz Mohawk

    ... the Biden advantage was a feature rather than a bug designed to energize Biden voters and demoralize Trump voters...
     
    That's it, and the redder a state is on that map, the more lying or gaming of the polls was done.

    Replies: @utu

    In 2016 Trump outperformed polls by 5% in red states and by 2% in swing states. In the blue states that Trump lost the polls were accurate.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @utu

    Maybe he stole votes via Dominion then?

  6. This is icing on the cake. Got family in both Ohio and Pennsylvania and not one in either state saw Sleepy Joe as any more than a joke with a nasty slut covering his back. Who’d vote for that?

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Franz

    Sometimes a nasty slut is just what the doctor ordered. You'll notice that Kamala's bald husband didn't make kids with her. He made his kids with the previous wife, and Kamala is his late-life youth-renewing brown bed warmer.

    https://static1.momsimage.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/[email protected]@douglasemhoff-.jpg

    Typical post-modern California relationships like this are probably the driving force behind the proliferation of "stepmom pr0n". Just go on one of the purveying websites, do a search, and you'll see that the image above on the right looks like the set-up for 100s or 1000s of modern blue films. The valley takes its cues from the surrounding culture.

    I think this is not incidental to Harris' political prospects. It probably didn't change the election this time, but if Harris can improve her speechifying, the culture is being primed to see her as charismatic/attractive.

    I think people are dishonest with themselves about the importance of sexual magnetism in politics. It's what took Sarah Palin from a nobody to a contender, it's hampered Pelosi and Stein and promoted AOC beyond her level of political incompetence, it helped Justice Barrett get through unscathed, and it probably made Laura Loomer look like a viable candidate when she never was.

    Replies: @Franz, @D. K.

    , @Jay Fink
    @Franz

    People tend to know others that are similar to themselves. My cousin, a successful lawyer in NYC, has never met a person that voted for Trump in either election, except for myself.

  7. @DanHessinMD
    Trump barnstormed Pennsylvania in a massive way, holding well over a dozen mega-rallies there including eight in the final week.

    That this made no difference to his performance there seems to beggar belief.

    Meanwhile he outperformed in Ohio by 7, in New York by 16 and West Virginia by 21? These are all states that border PA.

    Enthusiasm for Trump in PA was off the charts -- I saw it -- he was able to do one mega rally after another to extremely massive crowds every time, amid the pandemic.

    And yet none of these shows up in the polls.

    He held no rallies in New York and WV and yet his mega-rallies in PA near those states had a big effect. But in PA itself, nothing....

    What?

    To me this is fishy as hell.

    Replies: @Supply and Demand, @TomSchmidt

    Rallies don’t generate new voters. China’s ownership of Dominion does. That said, I hope MAGApedes continue to live in their Newsmax virtual reality. It’s hilarious! Maybe their Messiah will ‘try again’ in 2024. I’ll be laughing from the Middle Kingdom.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @Supply and Demand

    Maybe their Messiah will ‘try again’ in 2024.

    I think the 22nd Amendment forbids that. Besides, who would vote for a 78yo candidate?

  8. Mr. Epigone, could you do a blogger a favor? There is probably a search feature that I don’t know how to use yet, but could you point me out to any of your bar graphs from polls that show different racial/ethnic/age/party support for Libertarian principles in general, or some specific ones? You have made so many that I’m pretty sure you had to have had a few of those.

    I’m thinking of this for a R.I.P. post about Walter Williams. Thanks in advance, A.E.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Forgive the lateness of this response, I'm behind on comments. Here are a few links:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/libertarianism-by-state/
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/female-college-students-prefer/
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/the-fringe/
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/capitalist-whites-socialist-blacks/
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/ron-paul-thick-blue-line/

  9. @Franz
    This is icing on the cake. Got family in both Ohio and Pennsylvania and not one in either state saw Sleepy Joe as any more than a joke with a nasty slut covering his back. Who'd vote for that?

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Jay Fink

    Sometimes a nasty slut is just what the doctor ordered. You’ll notice that Kamala’s bald husband didn’t make kids with her. He made his kids with the previous wife, and Kamala is his late-life youth-renewing brown bed warmer.

    Typical post-modern California relationships like this are probably the driving force behind the proliferation of “stepmom pr0n”. Just go on one of the purveying websites, do a search, and you’ll see that the image above on the right looks like the set-up for 100s or 1000s of modern blue films. The valley takes its cues from the surrounding culture.

    I think this is not incidental to Harris’ political prospects. It probably didn’t change the election this time, but if Harris can improve her speechifying, the culture is being primed to see her as charismatic/attractive.

    I think people are dishonest with themselves about the importance of sexual magnetism in politics. It’s what took Sarah Palin from a nobody to a contender, it’s hampered Pelosi and Stein and promoted AOC beyond her level of political incompetence, it helped Justice Barrett get through unscathed, and it probably made Laura Loomer look like a viable candidate when she never was.

    • Replies: @Franz
    @Chrisnonymous


    I think people are dishonest with themselves about the importance of sexual magnetism in politics.
     
    I think that's true.

    Most people who wrote enough to matter about the period 1933 to the mid-40s took Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt as both effective, in a PR way, and asexual from start to finish. Eleanor could have been a nun and Franklin looked like (and was) handicapped. In both cases, perfect for them.

    I can easily see a mythology building up about Kami the Hun. A ball-breaker for the 21st century would give her cred among her core constituents, the sexually confused, while at the same time making anyone to the right of Tucker Carlson fume at the sight of her, the way Trump did the SJWs and the way FDR/Eleanor did the bankers.

    Polarization as political strategy might be all were in for. After Trump's four years as leftist doormat it might be all that's possible.
    , @D. K.
    @Chrisnonymous

    Here is the best comparison image, age-wise, that I could readily locate of Nancy Pelosi, seemingly taken from an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday morning, February 8, 1998:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2017-11-26-at-12.26.56-PM.jpg

    She was then c. 21 months older (58 years, minus 46 days) than Kamala Harris is today (56 years, plus 44 days). She also had borne her husband five children (versus none, apparently, borne by Ms. Harris to anyone). I do not personally have a fetish for women in late-middle-age; but, if you were to ask me which such woman that I think I would have wanted to date, etc., based upon their looks alone, if they both had been roughly my age, when I was in my twenties, I certainly know which one I would have found more attractive. Then again, I do have a thing for Italian woman, not Subcontinentals or Sub-Saharans....

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @Sgt. Joe Friday, @MBlanc46, @Servant of Gla'aki

  10. The polling industry is driven by the needs of its customers. The customers are the ruling class (a non partisan group) who depend on propaganda and psy-ps to influence the public. Expecting some sort of factual reporting of political opinion or preference (except when convenient to the goal of the ruling class customer) gathered in a neutral fashion is foolish. Does anyone actually believe that?

    The Powers-that-be have it all: Both big party organizations and every official in them, at least two (Green, Libertarian) minors, all of the media, all the “social media” (why do we call it that, and who made up the name?), all of corporate america, all academics and all pollsters. Oh, there is still a lot of good, clean polling going on, just not for anything political AND important. The information is used (not shared with the public) to sell the product polled. They don’t want to inform you, they want to hoodwink you.

    • Replies: @Sgt. Joe Friday
    @Brian Reilly

    Absolutely correct. Polling is a business like any other, and you give your paying customers what they want. That why you have "public opinion polls" which are designed to drive public opinion, and "internal polls" which tell the politician what the public's temperature really is. Hence you get opinion polls, for example, on immigration/amnesty that have a question that goes something like "would you favor legalizing undocumented immigrants if they (a) register with the government, (b) pay back taxes, (c) learn English, (d) promise not to break any laws and/or go on welfare, (e) and help little old ladies across the street? Public opinion would say "sure, let 'em stay."

    OTOH, a poll that asked about the undocumented being allowed to stay that mentions the very obvious costs associated with having large numbers of poor, low IQ immigrants who are linguistically, ethnically, and maybe even religiously distant from the host population and you get a different answer.

    , @Reasonable Man
    @Brian Reilly

    Yes, absolutely. See my comment below (number 33 or a few later, depending on when it gets approved). I make the same point as you (less efficiently).

    It's sad how many people think "the system" exists to accurately inform them so they can exercise their wise judgment as voters. It's pretty naive. The system exists to draw energy FROM the people, not to serve them. The last thing the system wants is informed voters exercising their own judgment.

  11. The Transition Integrity Project knew Biden would show poorly.

    They knew it would be a contested election requiring – ahem- extraordinary media coordination.

    • Agree: botazefa
  12. 2020 Presidential Election Polling Performance by State

    Some of the rancid Republican Party politician whores in the US Senate who want to be the rancid Republican Party nominee for president in 2024 have just let US Senator(R-Utah) Mike Lee’s Asian Indian Flood The USA bill(S 386) sail through the US Senate without objecting to it and it passed by unanimous consent.

    The evil and rancid and treasonous Republican Party must be destroyed and the Republican Party donors must be taxed so hard their pips start squeaking and the Republican Party donors must be financially liquidated and forcibly exiled to sub-Saharan Africa.

    I wrote this in September of 2019 about an immigration bill(S 386) pushed by Utah senator Mike Lee and Kamala Harris that will flood the USA with Asian Indian foreigners in massive numbers:

    US Senator Kamala Harris is a politician whore for the CHEAP LABOR FACTION of the US Congress.

    Kamala Harris and Republican US Senator Mike Lee are pushing an immigration bill(S 386) that would flood the USA with massive amounts of Asian Indian foreigners and other foreigners.

    Kamala Harris and Mike Lee are well known to be politician whores for the greedy, money-grubbing scoundrels in the CHEAP LABOR FACTION of the US Congress.

    Kamala Harris wants to pour more and more mass legal immigration into the USA.

    Kamala Harris wants to reward Asian Indians with entry into the USA and green cards and more visas to flood more Asian Indians into the USA. Kamala Harris is a Mulatto and Kamala Harris is a Asian Indian. Kamala Harris is a Hindu who thinks she’s better than all the rest of us. Kamala Harris is an extremely arrogant and nasty woman.

    Kamala Harris wants to replace American technology workers and American STEM workers with Asian Indians. Kamala Harris wants to flood the USA with H-1B visa Asian Indians.

    Kamala Harris is a clear and present threat to the safety, security and sovereignty of the USA.

    Kamala Harris wants to lower wages for American workers. Kamala Harris wants to replace American workers with Asian Indian visa foreigners.

    The voters must remove CHEAP LABOR FACTION politicians like Kamala Harris and Mike Lee from the US congress.

    President Trump seems to support the anti-worker treason of Kamala Harris and Mike Lee.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/becky-against-our-boy/#comment-3457523

    Tweets from 2019:

    Recent Tweet about anti-worker, anti-sovereignty Asian Indian Flood The USA bill(S 386):

  13. @Chrisnonymous
    It is certainly a strange result. With WV on one end of the scale and VT the other, you'd think the poor prediction was a problem of overcompensating somehow for extremes, but that doesn't fit the rest of the states. If they were trying to misrepresent Trump, why did he underperform some places like GA? How weird is it that PA is ground zero for the fraud issues and also perfectly predicted by the polling?

    Certainly, many things smell fishy, but I don't see the court challenges going anywhere. I hope that if Trump loses in the EC he won't make a show of resisting leaving. Certainly, that would only hurt him and us.

    Replies: @Catdog

    “Certainly, many things smell fishy, but I don’t see the court challenges going anywhere. I hope that if Trump loses in the EC he won’t make a show of resisting leaving. Certainly, that would only hurt him and us.”

    How do you figure? If the election really was stolen, then normal electoral politics is no longer an option.

  14. @Chrisnonymous
    @Franz

    Sometimes a nasty slut is just what the doctor ordered. You'll notice that Kamala's bald husband didn't make kids with her. He made his kids with the previous wife, and Kamala is his late-life youth-renewing brown bed warmer.

    https://static1.momsimage.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/[email protected]@douglasemhoff-.jpg

    Typical post-modern California relationships like this are probably the driving force behind the proliferation of "stepmom pr0n". Just go on one of the purveying websites, do a search, and you'll see that the image above on the right looks like the set-up for 100s or 1000s of modern blue films. The valley takes its cues from the surrounding culture.

    I think this is not incidental to Harris' political prospects. It probably didn't change the election this time, but if Harris can improve her speechifying, the culture is being primed to see her as charismatic/attractive.

    I think people are dishonest with themselves about the importance of sexual magnetism in politics. It's what took Sarah Palin from a nobody to a contender, it's hampered Pelosi and Stein and promoted AOC beyond her level of political incompetence, it helped Justice Barrett get through unscathed, and it probably made Laura Loomer look like a viable candidate when she never was.

    Replies: @Franz, @D. K.

    I think people are dishonest with themselves about the importance of sexual magnetism in politics.

    I think that’s true.

    Most people who wrote enough to matter about the period 1933 to the mid-40s took Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt as both effective, in a PR way, and asexual from start to finish. Eleanor could have been a nun and Franklin looked like (and was) handicapped. In both cases, perfect for them.

    I can easily see a mythology building up about Kami the Hun. A ball-breaker for the 21st century would give her cred among her core constituents, the sexually confused, while at the same time making anyone to the right of Tucker Carlson fume at the sight of her, the way Trump did the SJWs and the way FDR/Eleanor did the bankers.

    Polarization as political strategy might be all were in for. After Trump’s four years as leftist doormat it might be all that’s possible.

  15. @Chrisnonymous
    @Franz

    Sometimes a nasty slut is just what the doctor ordered. You'll notice that Kamala's bald husband didn't make kids with her. He made his kids with the previous wife, and Kamala is his late-life youth-renewing brown bed warmer.

    https://static1.momsimage.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/[email protected]@douglasemhoff-.jpg

    Typical post-modern California relationships like this are probably the driving force behind the proliferation of "stepmom pr0n". Just go on one of the purveying websites, do a search, and you'll see that the image above on the right looks like the set-up for 100s or 1000s of modern blue films. The valley takes its cues from the surrounding culture.

    I think this is not incidental to Harris' political prospects. It probably didn't change the election this time, but if Harris can improve her speechifying, the culture is being primed to see her as charismatic/attractive.

    I think people are dishonest with themselves about the importance of sexual magnetism in politics. It's what took Sarah Palin from a nobody to a contender, it's hampered Pelosi and Stein and promoted AOC beyond her level of political incompetence, it helped Justice Barrett get through unscathed, and it probably made Laura Loomer look like a viable candidate when she never was.

    Replies: @Franz, @D. K.

    Here is the best comparison image, age-wise, that I could readily locate of Nancy Pelosi, seemingly taken from an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday morning, February 8, 1998:

    She was then c. 21 months older (58 years, minus 46 days) than Kamala Harris is today (56 years, plus 44 days). She also had borne her husband five children (versus none, apparently, borne by Ms. Harris to anyone). I do not personally have a fetish for women in late-middle-age; but, if you were to ask me which such woman that I think I would have wanted to date, etc., based upon their looks alone, if they both had been roughly my age, when I was in my twenties, I certainly know which one I would have found more attractive. Then again, I do have a thing for Italian woman, not Subcontinentals or Sub-Saharans….

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    @D. K.

    Homo detected.

    Replies: @D. K.

    , @Sgt. Joe Friday
    @D. K.

    Well, she was reasonably well preserved for a post-menopausal woman, but keep in mind that she has money and could afford high end makeup, plastic surgery, hairdos and so on. But like many affluent (and hyper vain) women she doesn't know when enough is enough. And as a result, she acquired the look that so many do, what I call the "look of perpetual surprise."

    Replies: @D. K.

    , @MBlanc46
    @D. K.

    The nice Italian girl versus mystery meat? Every time.

    Replies: @D. K.

    , @Servant of Gla'aki
    @D. K.

    I actually recall the 1987 Special Election in which Nancy Pelosi first won a seat in Congress. All the Republicans voted for her in the run-off, because her opponent (left-wing, radical gay activist Harry Britt) was worse than she was.

    At the time, she was actually quite pretty. That was 33 years ago. She didn't have the classic Feminist short hairdo back then. She wore her hair like Mary Tyler-Moore.

  16. Not really, the polling error is within the historical average, as Richard Hanania on Twitter has pointed out.

    The best explanation I’ve seen is that while pollsters took pains to tease out the shy Trump voter, they did not account for something more specific to our times – more educated people have worked from home more, and had relatively more time and boredom to answer polls than had been the case previously; less educated people had continued going to work. The former are of course more likely to vote for Biden.

    • Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    @Anatoly Karlin

    It's alright, everyone! I know you remember the pollsters all predicted a Clinton victory in 2016, but they actually got it right. They say so themselves, and why would they lie? Pollsters never lie! Well, except for those ones that "are banned by FiveThirtyEight because we know or suspect that they faked their data", but don't worry, they "are not included in the averages."

    Is this some of that Russian electoral trolling I've read so much about?

  17. @D. K.
    @Chrisnonymous

    Here is the best comparison image, age-wise, that I could readily locate of Nancy Pelosi, seemingly taken from an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday morning, February 8, 1998:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2017-11-26-at-12.26.56-PM.jpg

    She was then c. 21 months older (58 years, minus 46 days) than Kamala Harris is today (56 years, plus 44 days). She also had borne her husband five children (versus none, apparently, borne by Ms. Harris to anyone). I do not personally have a fetish for women in late-middle-age; but, if you were to ask me which such woman that I think I would have wanted to date, etc., based upon their looks alone, if they both had been roughly my age, when I was in my twenties, I certainly know which one I would have found more attractive. Then again, I do have a thing for Italian woman, not Subcontinentals or Sub-Saharans....

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @Sgt. Joe Friday, @MBlanc46, @Servant of Gla'aki

    Homo detected.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @JohnPlywood

    https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/69/3a/cb/mudshark.jpg

  18. @D. K.
    @Chrisnonymous

    Here is the best comparison image, age-wise, that I could readily locate of Nancy Pelosi, seemingly taken from an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday morning, February 8, 1998:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2017-11-26-at-12.26.56-PM.jpg

    She was then c. 21 months older (58 years, minus 46 days) than Kamala Harris is today (56 years, plus 44 days). She also had borne her husband five children (versus none, apparently, borne by Ms. Harris to anyone). I do not personally have a fetish for women in late-middle-age; but, if you were to ask me which such woman that I think I would have wanted to date, etc., based upon their looks alone, if they both had been roughly my age, when I was in my twenties, I certainly know which one I would have found more attractive. Then again, I do have a thing for Italian woman, not Subcontinentals or Sub-Saharans....

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @Sgt. Joe Friday, @MBlanc46, @Servant of Gla'aki

    Well, she was reasonably well preserved for a post-menopausal woman, but keep in mind that she has money and could afford high end makeup, plastic surgery, hairdos and so on. But like many affluent (and hyper vain) women she doesn’t know when enough is enough. And as a result, she acquired the look that so many do, what I call the “look of perpetual surprise.”

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Sgt. Joe Friday

    https://mtonews.com/.image/t_share/MTc0MTIwNzcxMjc3ODI1NDgx/kamala_botched.png

    Is this the difference between having a husband who is a mere millionaire versus having a husband who is a centimillionaire?

  19. @Franz
    This is icing on the cake. Got family in both Ohio and Pennsylvania and not one in either state saw Sleepy Joe as any more than a joke with a nasty slut covering his back. Who'd vote for that?

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Jay Fink

    People tend to know others that are similar to themselves. My cousin, a successful lawyer in NYC, has never met a person that voted for Trump in either election, except for myself.

  20. @DanHessinMD
    Trump barnstormed Pennsylvania in a massive way, holding well over a dozen mega-rallies there including eight in the final week.

    That this made no difference to his performance there seems to beggar belief.

    Meanwhile he outperformed in Ohio by 7, in New York by 16 and West Virginia by 21? These are all states that border PA.

    Enthusiasm for Trump in PA was off the charts -- I saw it -- he was able to do one mega rally after another to extremely massive crowds every time, amid the pandemic.

    And yet none of these shows up in the polls.

    He held no rallies in New York and WV and yet his mega-rallies in PA near those states had a big effect. But in PA itself, nothing....

    What?

    To me this is fishy as hell.

    Replies: @Supply and Demand, @TomSchmidt

    I suspect PA for this reason alone. Trump won NY outside the city, and NY outside the city is psychographically the same as PA. But there was no doubt that Biden was going to win NY, and so I don’t think there was any cheating here at the higher level.

    New Hampshire is another anomaly. Republicans swept the state house and senate, but Trump performed less well. That might be explained by the vote in MA, where Trump underperformed 2016. Vermont and MA both have liberal Republican governors, so NH squeezed between them might reflect a ticket-splitting desire for responsible government but not Trump. Recall that Dixville Notch voted unanimously for Biden, and I doubt there was any cheating there; yet Dixville Notch is in an otherwise strongly Republican area.

    • Replies: @no jack london
    @TomSchmidt

    To D.K. comment 15. Nancy gave her husband 5 children but how many abortions did Kamala give Willie and other politically helpful lovers.

    Reference Tom Schmidt comment 19. I remember in grade school my first awareness of elections was when Ike swept Dixville Notch in 52. Oh! how the years have taken there toll!

  21. @Brian Reilly
    The polling industry is driven by the needs of its customers. The customers are the ruling class (a non partisan group) who depend on propaganda and psy-ps to influence the public. Expecting some sort of factual reporting of political opinion or preference (except when convenient to the goal of the ruling class customer) gathered in a neutral fashion is foolish. Does anyone actually believe that?

    The Powers-that-be have it all: Both big party organizations and every official in them, at least two (Green, Libertarian) minors, all of the media, all the "social media" (why do we call it that, and who made up the name?), all of corporate america, all academics and all pollsters. Oh, there is still a lot of good, clean polling going on, just not for anything political AND important. The information is used (not shared with the public) to sell the product polled. They don't want to inform you, they want to hoodwink you.

    Replies: @Sgt. Joe Friday, @Reasonable Man

    Absolutely correct. Polling is a business like any other, and you give your paying customers what they want. That why you have “public opinion polls” which are designed to drive public opinion, and “internal polls” which tell the politician what the public’s temperature really is. Hence you get opinion polls, for example, on immigration/amnesty that have a question that goes something like “would you favor legalizing undocumented immigrants if they (a) register with the government, (b) pay back taxes, (c) learn English, (d) promise not to break any laws and/or go on welfare, (e) and help little old ladies across the street? Public opinion would say “sure, let ’em stay.”

    OTOH, a poll that asked about the undocumented being allowed to stay that mentions the very obvious costs associated with having large numbers of poor, low IQ immigrants who are linguistically, ethnically, and maybe even religiously distant from the host population and you get a different answer.

  22. @Supply and Demand
    @DanHessinMD

    Rallies don’t generate new voters. China’s ownership of Dominion does. That said, I hope MAGApedes continue to live in their Newsmax virtual reality. It’s hilarious! Maybe their Messiah will ‘try again’ in 2024. I’ll be laughing from the Middle Kingdom.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

    Maybe their Messiah will ‘try again’ in 2024.

    I think the 22nd Amendment forbids that. Besides, who would vote for a 78yo candidate?

  23. @utu
    @Buzz Mohawk

    In 2016 Trump outperformed polls by 5% in red states and by 2% in swing states. In the blue states that Trump lost the polls were accurate.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

    Maybe he stole votes via Dominion then?

  24. @Sgt. Joe Friday
    @D. K.

    Well, she was reasonably well preserved for a post-menopausal woman, but keep in mind that she has money and could afford high end makeup, plastic surgery, hairdos and so on. But like many affluent (and hyper vain) women she doesn't know when enough is enough. And as a result, she acquired the look that so many do, what I call the "look of perpetual surprise."

    Replies: @D. K.

    Is this the difference between having a husband who is a mere millionaire versus having a husband who is a centimillionaire?

  25. @TomSchmidt
    @DanHessinMD

    I suspect PA for this reason alone. Trump won NY outside the city, and NY outside the city is psychographically the same as PA. But there was no doubt that Biden was going to win NY, and so I don't think there was any cheating here at the higher level.

    New Hampshire is another anomaly. Republicans swept the state house and senate, but Trump performed less well. That might be explained by the vote in MA, where Trump underperformed 2016. Vermont and MA both have liberal Republican governors, so NH squeezed between them might reflect a ticket-splitting desire for responsible government but not Trump. Recall that Dixville Notch voted unanimously for Biden, and I doubt there was any cheating there; yet Dixville Notch is in an otherwise strongly Republican area.

    Replies: @no jack london

    To D.K. comment 15. Nancy gave her husband 5 children but how many abortions did Kamala give Willie and other politically helpful lovers.

    Reference Tom Schmidt comment 19. I remember in grade school my first awareness of elections was when Ike swept Dixville Notch in 52. Oh! how the years have taken there toll!

  26. @Anatoly Karlin
    Not really, the polling error is within the historical average, as Richard Hanania on Twitter has pointed out.

    https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F3d73721e-1d74-4d14-85ef-6692fac8ad03_1232x1054.png

    The best explanation I've seen is that while pollsters took pains to tease out the shy Trump voter, they did not account for something more specific to our times - more educated people have worked from home more, and had relatively more time and boredom to answer polls than had been the case previously; less educated people had continued going to work. The former are of course more likely to vote for Biden.

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    It’s alright, everyone! I know you remember the pollsters all predicted a Clinton victory in 2016, but they actually got it right. They say so themselves, and why would they lie? Pollsters never lie! Well, except for those ones that “are banned by FiveThirtyEight because we know or suspect that they faked their data”, but don’t worry, they “are not included in the averages.”

    Is this some of that Russian electoral trolling I’ve read so much about?

    • Agree: LondonBob
  27. A serious question, for our gracious host and others – because maybe I’m just ignorant. (Well, there’s no maybe about it, but regardless…

    What yardsticks, besides the elections themselves, are used to gauge the accuracy of polls?

    Also: does anybody ever phone up poll respondents and ask them, “Hey, did you actually say what they said you did?”

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    I don't think the polls are fraudulent. I think that polls just don't work any more. Only a small minority of people respond to polls and they're such a wildly unrepresentative group that any data collected is entirely meaningless.

    But to expect a polling company to admit that polls are useless is just silly. The polling companies have to keep telling us that they just need to tweak things a bit and everything will be fine.

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    It is interesting how post-election polls are still ending up with samples that break 55%-45% in favor of Biden. It should be closer to 52%-48% but the polling outfits don't seem to care.

  28. @D. K.
    @Chrisnonymous

    Here is the best comparison image, age-wise, that I could readily locate of Nancy Pelosi, seemingly taken from an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday morning, February 8, 1998:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2017-11-26-at-12.26.56-PM.jpg

    She was then c. 21 months older (58 years, minus 46 days) than Kamala Harris is today (56 years, plus 44 days). She also had borne her husband five children (versus none, apparently, borne by Ms. Harris to anyone). I do not personally have a fetish for women in late-middle-age; but, if you were to ask me which such woman that I think I would have wanted to date, etc., based upon their looks alone, if they both had been roughly my age, when I was in my twenties, I certainly know which one I would have found more attractive. Then again, I do have a thing for Italian woman, not Subcontinentals or Sub-Saharans....

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @Sgt. Joe Friday, @MBlanc46, @Servant of Gla'aki

    The nice Italian girl versus mystery meat? Every time.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @MBlanc46

    http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?2,file=19793,filename=20080414-pelosi-jfk.jpg

  29. @JohnPlywood
    @D. K.

    Homo detected.

    Replies: @D. K.

  30. @MBlanc46
    @D. K.

    The nice Italian girl versus mystery meat? Every time.

    Replies: @D. K.

  31. @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    A serious question, for our gracious host and others - because maybe I'm just ignorant. (Well, there's no maybe about it, but regardless...

    What yardsticks, besides the elections themselves, are used to gauge the accuracy of polls?

    Also: does anybody ever phone up poll respondents and ask them, "Hey, did you actually say what they said you did?"

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    I don’t think the polls are fraudulent. I think that polls just don’t work any more. Only a small minority of people respond to polls and they’re such a wildly unrepresentative group that any data collected is entirely meaningless.

    But to expect a polling company to admit that polls are useless is just silly. The polling companies have to keep telling us that they just need to tweak things a bit and everything will be fine.

    • Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    @dfordoom


    I don’t think the polls are fraudulent.
     
    How can you tell?

    And I reiterate: 538 themselves say some of them are. See the graphic Anatoly Karlin posted upthread.

    I think that polls just don’t work any more.
     
    How do we know they ever worked, except that they matched election results - which we know can be faked?

    But to expect a polling company to admit that polls are useless is just silly.
     
    Oh, of course, and I don't expect them to. But I'm struggling to see why it isn't equally silly to have ever put any faith in them at all.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  32. Yeah, because a party home to the likes of Kevin Cramer and Mike Lee cannot possibly lose elections legitimately.

  33. Most people believe a widely-held fallacy about the polling industry–that it provides a public service to accurately inform the citizenry.

    This is of course not true. Polling companies are businesses. With paying clients. And regular citizens are NOT the paying clients.

    We’re all so narcissistic that we assume pollsters are working for us for free. They aren’t.

    Polling companies have two types of clients, political campaigns and media companies.

    Political campaigns commission polling companies to conduct sophisticated and accurate polling and to report the results SECRETLY to the campaign, the paying client. The campaigns DO care about accuracy.

    Media companies commission polling companies to conduct polls which will be used in media STORIES written by the commissioning media company. And the stories media companies write reflect their biases and their goals. And they want SPECIFIC polling results to support their stories, their biases, and their goals. And they PAY for those results.

    No polling company “works for the people.” No polling company measures itself based on how good a job they did accurately informing the voters. They measure themselves based on the satisfaction of their paying clients.

    The “internal” (accurate but secret) polling done by the campaigns showed clearly all along that Biden did NOT have a double-digit lead. Biden’s campaign manager even said as much on a leaked phone call with donors. “We do not have a huge lead. The public (media-company-commissioned) polls do not reflect reality.”

    But the media company polls showed that Biden supposedly did have a double digit lead. Was this a “mistake”? Was this the result of pollsters not understanding mobile phones or shy Trump voters? No! this was the pollsters delivering the results the media companies paid them to deliver.

    The New York Times, as an example, is biased in three ways: 1) They are pro-establishment and anti-outsider; 2) They are pro-Democrat and anti-Republican; and 3) They make more money when an election APPEARS to be a close “horse race.”

    For all three of these reasons, the New York Times in 2020 would not have wanted to pay for, and print, a poll showing a pending Trump landslide. They instead wanted polls showing Biden leading. Polls showing Biden leading, the NYT hoped, would energize Dems, support Dem fundraising, demoralize Republicans and anti-establishment populists, and make it look like a close race.

    (Why did the NYT think polls showing a Biden lead would make the race seem closer than polls showing a Biden/Trump tie? Because Biden needed something (a supposed lead in the polls) to counteract Trump’s advantages (incumbency, bully pulpit, superior campaign energy, etc.))

    If you read a contract between, say, the New York Times Company and a polling company, it will be like 60 pages long, and the New York Times will tell the polling company EXACTLY how to conduct the poll in order to give the New York Times the desired result.

    The New York Times (or whichever media company is hiring the pollster) will specify how small a sample size they want, the amount of oversampling of Democrats they want, which zipcodes they want the pollsters to use or avoid. They can get VERY precise in describing their desired methodology, so much so that they are in essence ordering up their desired poll results.

    The unspoken but nevertheless clear summary of a contract is often effectively: “We’ll pay you $50,000 to conduct a poll showing Biden ahead by 11 points with Latinos in Florida. We need that for a story we’re writing. Remember, poll 3 Democrats for every 2 Republicans and avoid Cuban zipcodes.”

    If an average citizen wanted accurate polling, he could pay for it. For $50,000, you could get a highly accurate poll, just like the “internal” polling the campaigns get.

    But it is naive in the extreme for the average citizen to expect accurate polling to be given to him for free. If the New York Times is paying, the polls will say what the New York Times wants them to say, for its political goals or just its crass ad-revenue goals.

    The industry is working exactly as designed, the clients are satisfied, and polling companies almost never lose repeat business because their media-commissioned polls proved to be inaccurate. They are DESIGNED to be inaccurate–they are meant as “scientific” detail to be used in media narrative construction.

    Does the polling industry have some explaining to do? Not at all. People have some growing up to do. If you’re not the paying client, the business isn’t trying to serve your interests.

    I agree, it’s a sad state of affairs when average citizens can’t trust the polls. But it shouldn’t be surprising. The pollsters very clearly don’t work for average citizens. They work for the organizations who pay them.

    This simple observation applies in many areas. For-profit businesses do not provide free public services. If you’re not the paying client, you can’t assume the product is designed with your needs in mind.

    One great example is medical research. Do the research labs testing pharmaceutical drugs work for “the people”? No. They work for the companies and organizations who pay them, who often happen to be the people who will benefit financially when a drug is “proven” to be safe and effective.

    Another great example is social media companies. Are they working as hard as they can to protect your privacy? No. Why would they? You aren’t paying them anything! Advertisers are, and the advertisers want your data. That’s how Facebook gets paid. Facebook SELLS them your privacy.

    It’s may be a sad state of affairs, but it’s reality. We’d all like to think that the world exists to serve us for free, bringing us great polling data, great medical research data, and great digital privacy. But it’s not true. The people working on polls, medical research, and digital privacy do it for money. Money from paying clients. Who aren’t us.

  34. @Brian Reilly
    The polling industry is driven by the needs of its customers. The customers are the ruling class (a non partisan group) who depend on propaganda and psy-ps to influence the public. Expecting some sort of factual reporting of political opinion or preference (except when convenient to the goal of the ruling class customer) gathered in a neutral fashion is foolish. Does anyone actually believe that?

    The Powers-that-be have it all: Both big party organizations and every official in them, at least two (Green, Libertarian) minors, all of the media, all the "social media" (why do we call it that, and who made up the name?), all of corporate america, all academics and all pollsters. Oh, there is still a lot of good, clean polling going on, just not for anything political AND important. The information is used (not shared with the public) to sell the product polled. They don't want to inform you, they want to hoodwink you.

    Replies: @Sgt. Joe Friday, @Reasonable Man

    Yes, absolutely. See my comment below (number 33 or a few later, depending on when it gets approved). I make the same point as you (less efficiently).

    It’s sad how many people think “the system” exists to accurately inform them so they can exercise their wise judgment as voters. It’s pretty naive. The system exists to draw energy FROM the people, not to serve them. The last thing the system wants is informed voters exercising their own judgment.

  35. @dfordoom
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    I don't think the polls are fraudulent. I think that polls just don't work any more. Only a small minority of people respond to polls and they're such a wildly unrepresentative group that any data collected is entirely meaningless.

    But to expect a polling company to admit that polls are useless is just silly. The polling companies have to keep telling us that they just need to tweak things a bit and everything will be fine.

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    I don’t think the polls are fraudulent.

    How can you tell?

    And I reiterate: 538 themselves say some of them are. See the graphic Anatoly Karlin posted upthread.

    I think that polls just don’t work any more.

    How do we know they ever worked, except that they matched election results – which we know can be faked?

    But to expect a polling company to admit that polls are useless is just silly.

    Oh, of course, and I don’t expect them to. But I’m struggling to see why it isn’t equally silly to have ever put any faith in them at all.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account



    I think that polls just don’t work any more.
     
    How do we know they ever worked, except that they matched election results – which we know can be faked?
     
    Because over the course of many years, in countries where we know elections are free and fair, poll results tracked pretty well with election results. So we can be pretty confident that polling did work at one time.

    There are many reasons polling doesn't work any longer. If you conduct polling by phone you don't get a random sample any longer. If you conduct polling online you definitely don't get a random sample. Fewer and fewer people are prepared to answer polls and surveys because people are more and more paranoid (and with good reason) that their privacy might not be protected. The very small number of people who now respond to polls is not a random sample of the population. Plus we know that the more right-wing a person is the less likely he is to respond to a poll.

    None of these problems with polling existed 30 years ago.

    Political polling was never all that accurate - the best it could do is give you a rough idea who was likely to win. But it used to be able to do that. And it could show trends.

    Polls on social attitudes were always very very dubious. And survey conducted at any time dealing with moral or sexual issues has always been essentially worthless.

    The problems today with political polling are almost certainly insoluble.

    Replies: @Reasonable Man, @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

  36. @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    @dfordoom


    I don’t think the polls are fraudulent.
     
    How can you tell?

    And I reiterate: 538 themselves say some of them are. See the graphic Anatoly Karlin posted upthread.

    I think that polls just don’t work any more.
     
    How do we know they ever worked, except that they matched election results - which we know can be faked?

    But to expect a polling company to admit that polls are useless is just silly.
     
    Oh, of course, and I don't expect them to. But I'm struggling to see why it isn't equally silly to have ever put any faith in them at all.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I think that polls just don’t work any more.

    How do we know they ever worked, except that they matched election results – which we know can be faked?

    Because over the course of many years, in countries where we know elections are free and fair, poll results tracked pretty well with election results. So we can be pretty confident that polling did work at one time.

    There are many reasons polling doesn’t work any longer. If you conduct polling by phone you don’t get a random sample any longer. If you conduct polling online you definitely don’t get a random sample. Fewer and fewer people are prepared to answer polls and surveys because people are more and more paranoid (and with good reason) that their privacy might not be protected. The very small number of people who now respond to polls is not a random sample of the population. Plus we know that the more right-wing a person is the less likely he is to respond to a poll.

    None of these problems with polling existed 30 years ago.

    Political polling was never all that accurate – the best it could do is give you a rough idea who was likely to win. But it used to be able to do that. And it could show trends.

    Polls on social attitudes were always very very dubious. And survey conducted at any time dealing with moral or sexual issues has always been essentially worthless.

    The problems today with political polling are almost certainly insoluble.

    • Replies: @Reasonable Man
    @dfordoom

    Cell phones, young people, shy Trump voters, blah blah blah. The problem is not that polling is "hard," it's that pollsters don't work for the public, they work for paying clients.

    The very same polling companies provided accurate polls to their campaign clients (who value accuracy), and inaccurate polls to their media company clients (who value polling "results" that support The Narrative).

    Joe Biden's campaign manager admitted that the polls THEY paid for showed a very tight race and that the polls shown to the public "do not reflect reality."

    If you want an accurate poll, you can commission one easily (if you have the money). If you want inaccurate polls, you can read the ones commissioned by media propagandists which are full of hilarious bias MANDATED by the contract instructions the media company gives the pollster (e.g. "must oversample Democrats in X ratio, must use very small sample size, must not poll in Cuban zipcodes, etc.)

    This whole concept that pollsters strive to provide the public with accurate predictions is hilariously naive. They work for their paying clients, not for the freeloading public. Duh.

    , @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    @dfordoom


    Because over the course of many years, in countries where we know elections are free and fair, poll results tracked pretty well with election results. So we can be pretty confident that polling did work at one time.
     
    Countries like the United States?

    You see my point: it's a circular logic, where we know the polls are accurate and the elections are clean because the votes match the polls and the polls match the votes. Scientifically, that's totally invalid.

    You may well argue that we can't achieve perfect scientific accuracy, and that's fair.

    To my mind, though: today, politicians cheat, pollsters lie, and the polls are totally unreliable; I'm seeing reasons why a clean poll would've been easier thirty years ago, but that doesn't prove that any particular poll from back then was clean; therefore, I'm not seeing any reason why polls shouldn't have always been ignored. "They were probably more-or-less reliable" is another way of saying "We have no idea how reliable they really were".
  37. @dfordoom
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account



    I think that polls just don’t work any more.
     
    How do we know they ever worked, except that they matched election results – which we know can be faked?
     
    Because over the course of many years, in countries where we know elections are free and fair, poll results tracked pretty well with election results. So we can be pretty confident that polling did work at one time.

    There are many reasons polling doesn't work any longer. If you conduct polling by phone you don't get a random sample any longer. If you conduct polling online you definitely don't get a random sample. Fewer and fewer people are prepared to answer polls and surveys because people are more and more paranoid (and with good reason) that their privacy might not be protected. The very small number of people who now respond to polls is not a random sample of the population. Plus we know that the more right-wing a person is the less likely he is to respond to a poll.

    None of these problems with polling existed 30 years ago.

    Political polling was never all that accurate - the best it could do is give you a rough idea who was likely to win. But it used to be able to do that. And it could show trends.

    Polls on social attitudes were always very very dubious. And survey conducted at any time dealing with moral or sexual issues has always been essentially worthless.

    The problems today with political polling are almost certainly insoluble.

    Replies: @Reasonable Man, @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    Cell phones, young people, shy Trump voters, blah blah blah. The problem is not that polling is “hard,” it’s that pollsters don’t work for the public, they work for paying clients.

    The very same polling companies provided accurate polls to their campaign clients (who value accuracy), and inaccurate polls to their media company clients (who value polling “results” that support The Narrative).

    Joe Biden’s campaign manager admitted that the polls THEY paid for showed a very tight race and that the polls shown to the public “do not reflect reality.”

    If you want an accurate poll, you can commission one easily (if you have the money). If you want inaccurate polls, you can read the ones commissioned by media propagandists which are full of hilarious bias MANDATED by the contract instructions the media company gives the pollster (e.g. “must oversample Democrats in X ratio, must use very small sample size, must not poll in Cuban zipcodes, etc.)

    This whole concept that pollsters strive to provide the public with accurate predictions is hilariously naive. They work for their paying clients, not for the freeloading public. Duh.

  38. @D. K.
    @Chrisnonymous

    Here is the best comparison image, age-wise, that I could readily locate of Nancy Pelosi, seemingly taken from an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday morning, February 8, 1998:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2017-11-26-at-12.26.56-PM.jpg

    She was then c. 21 months older (58 years, minus 46 days) than Kamala Harris is today (56 years, plus 44 days). She also had borne her husband five children (versus none, apparently, borne by Ms. Harris to anyone). I do not personally have a fetish for women in late-middle-age; but, if you were to ask me which such woman that I think I would have wanted to date, etc., based upon their looks alone, if they both had been roughly my age, when I was in my twenties, I certainly know which one I would have found more attractive. Then again, I do have a thing for Italian woman, not Subcontinentals or Sub-Saharans....

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @Sgt. Joe Friday, @MBlanc46, @Servant of Gla'aki

    I actually recall the 1987 Special Election in which Nancy Pelosi first won a seat in Congress. All the Republicans voted for her in the run-off, because her opponent (left-wing, radical gay activist Harry Britt) was worse than she was.

    At the time, she was actually quite pretty. That was 33 years ago. She didn’t have the classic Feminist short hairdo back then. She wore her hair like Mary Tyler-Moore.

  39. @dfordoom
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account



    I think that polls just don’t work any more.
     
    How do we know they ever worked, except that they matched election results – which we know can be faked?
     
    Because over the course of many years, in countries where we know elections are free and fair, poll results tracked pretty well with election results. So we can be pretty confident that polling did work at one time.

    There are many reasons polling doesn't work any longer. If you conduct polling by phone you don't get a random sample any longer. If you conduct polling online you definitely don't get a random sample. Fewer and fewer people are prepared to answer polls and surveys because people are more and more paranoid (and with good reason) that their privacy might not be protected. The very small number of people who now respond to polls is not a random sample of the population. Plus we know that the more right-wing a person is the less likely he is to respond to a poll.

    None of these problems with polling existed 30 years ago.

    Political polling was never all that accurate - the best it could do is give you a rough idea who was likely to win. But it used to be able to do that. And it could show trends.

    Polls on social attitudes were always very very dubious. And survey conducted at any time dealing with moral or sexual issues has always been essentially worthless.

    The problems today with political polling are almost certainly insoluble.

    Replies: @Reasonable Man, @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    Because over the course of many years, in countries where we know elections are free and fair, poll results tracked pretty well with election results. So we can be pretty confident that polling did work at one time.

    Countries like the United States?

    You see my point: it’s a circular logic, where we know the polls are accurate and the elections are clean because the votes match the polls and the polls match the votes. Scientifically, that’s totally invalid.

    You may well argue that we can’t achieve perfect scientific accuracy, and that’s fair.

    To my mind, though: today, politicians cheat, pollsters lie, and the polls are totally unreliable; I’m seeing reasons why a clean poll would’ve been easier thirty years ago, but that doesn’t prove that any particular poll from back then was clean; therefore, I’m not seeing any reason why polls shouldn’t have always been ignored. “They were probably more-or-less reliable” is another way of saying “We have no idea how reliable they really were”.

    • Agree: iffen
  40. @Achmed E. Newman
    Mr. Epigone, could you do a blogger a favor? There is probably a search feature that I don't know how to use yet, but could you point me out to any of your bar graphs from polls that show different racial/ethnic/age/party support for Libertarian principles in general, or some specific ones? You have made so many that I'm pretty sure you had to have had a few of those.

    I'm thinking of this for a R.I.P. post about Walter Williams. Thanks in advance, A.E.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  41. @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    A serious question, for our gracious host and others - because maybe I'm just ignorant. (Well, there's no maybe about it, but regardless...

    What yardsticks, besides the elections themselves, are used to gauge the accuracy of polls?

    Also: does anybody ever phone up poll respondents and ask them, "Hey, did you actually say what they said you did?"

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    It is interesting how post-election polls are still ending up with samples that break 55%-45% in favor of Biden. It should be closer to 52%-48% but the polling outfits don’t seem to care.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS