A new set of Times/Siena polls, including one with The Philadelphia Inquirer, reveal an erosion of support for the president among young and nonwhite voters upset about the economy and Gaza.
But, I’m really not sure why you want to explicitly and only look at Special elections
It’s fair. My point in looking at that, is to overall test the assertion that polls are indicative of how people vote. It kind of seems looking at the methodology for the OP article’s poll, like if any accurate information came out of the poll about how the election would go, it would be more or less an accident (or a result of the fact that the poll and the election are both general measurements of how people feel politically overall, and not much more resolution than that.)
You could flip what you said around, and say that because the special elections are much less complex, and the polls were done much closer to the actual election than polls today about the election in November, I’d expect the polls to be much more predictive of how the election will go, than the OP article.
So, let’s analyze. As you said, it’s actually not that hard to find polls and results. I’ll follow your lead and look at 538 (for the first three, which is all the effort I feel like investing in it).
Kinda looks like the polls have some methodology problems. I raised some plausible details for some of what those problems might be, and when we check, hey objectively do it seems like there are problems with the output? We find that, hey look, there are problems. Science!
(Incidentally, that poll for Utah claimed a margin for error of 4.26 percentage points, with the use of three significant digits of claimed resolution adding an extra layer of hilarity when it turned out their final answer was off by a factor of 267%.)
Dude you can’t explore with me a question about the accuracy of polling and find out that the answer is that modern polling is objectively shit, which was my point all along even before I started even looking at the question, and then get all condescending about how I don’t know what I’m talking about. 🙂
Well, I mean, you can if you want, I guess. I’m happy with my conclusions from the day, though, you being rude about it notwithstanding.
You knew what the answers were and thats why you asked for those specific polls as a “got ya”?
Not even slightly, no. Not sure how you got from what I said. I just picked the most recent 5 elections that have happened, and invited you to find polls for them. I genuinely had no idea what the results would be (and I wouldn’t have predicted that the polling results would have been so wrong, bordering on absurd.)
Not sure how you got from me being unable to use Google and you have to teach me, to now I knew the truth all along and I just withheld it from you to trick you and so that means that all of a sudden it’s not the truth anymore. But good luck with things, in any case.
It’s fair. My point in looking at that, is to overall test the assertion that polls are indicative of how people vote. It kind of seems looking at the methodology for the OP article’s poll, like if any accurate information came out of the poll about how the election would go, it would be more or less an accident (or a result of the fact that the poll and the election are both general measurements of how people feel politically overall, and not much more resolution than that.)
You could flip what you said around, and say that because the special elections are much less complex, and the polls were done much closer to the actual election than polls today about the election in November, I’d expect the polls to be much more predictive of how the election will go, than the OP article.
So, let’s analyze. As you said, it’s actually not that hard to find polls and results. I’ll follow your lead and look at 538 (for the first three, which is all the effort I feel like investing in it).
Kinda looks like the polls have some methodology problems. I raised some plausible details for some of what those problems might be, and when we check, hey objectively do it seems like there are problems with the output? We find that, hey look, there are problems. Science!
(Incidentally, that poll for Utah claimed a margin for error of 4.26 percentage points, with the use of three significant digits of claimed resolution adding an extra layer of hilarity when it turned out their final answer was off by a factor of 267%.)
Hey, you learned how to Google for polls, it’s more than I thought, and we don’t want to push it too far your first day.
Later we can talk about what methodology means, because from how you just used it, I think you just heard someone else use it.
If you want to read ahead:
https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/2023/04/19/polling-landscape-methodology/
Dude you can’t explore with me a question about the accuracy of polling and find out that the answer is that modern polling is objectively shit, which was my point all along even before I started even looking at the question, and then get all condescending about how I don’t know what I’m talking about. 🙂
Well, I mean, you can if you want, I guess. I’m happy with my conclusions from the day, though, you being rude about it notwithstanding.
So…
You knew what the answers were and thats why you asked for those specific polls as a “got ya”?
That’s… That’s just trolling.
Literally, the definition of it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(slang)
Not sure why you’d just admit that.
But if that’s all you’re doing, I guess class is over.
Not even slightly, no. Not sure how you got from what I said. I just picked the most recent 5 elections that have happened, and invited you to find polls for them. I genuinely had no idea what the results would be (and I wouldn’t have predicted that the polling results would have been so wrong, bordering on absurd.)
Not sure how you got from me being unable to use Google and you have to teach me, to now I knew the truth all along and I just withheld it from you to trick you and so that means that all of a sudden it’s not the truth anymore. But good luck with things, in any case.