Rosenberg pointed to a New York Times autopsy on the 2022 midterm elections: “The ‘Red Wave’ Washout: How Skewed Polls Fed a False Election Narrative.”
They had a pretty nice washout, compared to expectations, in 2022. I really hope it happens again.
Voted yesterday. Remember kids: vote early, vote often
Wouldn’t put it past them, but they need to keep the momentum up all the same.
For anyone anxious about the election, we can move the needle. Beyond just voting, volunteering is a great way to easy anxiety a bit and to help have an impact
Make sure to register to vote. Deadlines are fast approaching in many states
Find opportunities to volunteer for dems around you and online
Write letters to voters in swing states or in competitive downballot races
It makes sense that they would lie about polls, since they lie about everything else. I'm curious to know how much they're damaging their own numbers by lulling their morons(supporters) into a false sense of security.
They're setting the stage for the big lie part 2, now with even more violence.
Every time a poll showing Harris in the lead gets posted here, there's a conversation about how polls are there to trick you into getting complacent and staying home, and pointing to 2016 and Hillary losing due to dems not turning out. But historically, this is the far more common tactic. Skewed polls that show your side winning have a tendency to encourage your supporters, discourage your opponents, and exert a little influence on the undecided through the bandwagon effect.
As an aside, the article points out the close coordination between Elon's PAC and the Trump campaign. But, correct me if I'm wrong here, isn't that illegal? Isn't the one rule of massive limitless money being dumped into the political machine like this that you have to at least pretend like you aren't coordinating your efforts? Not that anyone would do anything about it anyway...
And as to 2016, we all seemed to have forgotten that James Comey announced that the FBI was reopening the investigation into Clinton, at this same time before the election. I thought, "My God. He just handed Trump the election on a silver platter."
PACs are essentially allowed to do whatever they want, thanks to the Citizens United ruling. Once they shift money from the PAC funds to the candidate is when you may have issues. As it stands now, these PACs are just volunteer organizations, which is horseshit.
Polls go in waves as enthusiasm goes up and down. Harris peaked after the convention, it makes sense that the numbers are starting to normalize more than a month later.
But FTA:
"I urge journalists and researchers to dive into FiveThirtyEight and see how the red wave pollsters have flooded the zone again. MT, PA, NC were initial targets but now it’s all 7 battleground states."
Fine, let's look at PA since that's the "must win" swing state:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/
Oct. 7-10
857LV
The New York Times/Siena College
Harris 49%
Trump 45%
Stein 1%
Oliver 0%
Oct. 7-10
857LV
The New York Times/Siena College
Harris 50%
Trump 47%
Oct. 7-10
857RV
The New York Times/Siena College
Harris 49%
Trump 45%
Stein 2%
Oliver 1%
Oct. 7-10
857RV
The New York Times/Siena College
Harris 50%
Trump 47%
Oct. 8-9
707LV
Redfield & Wilton Strategies
Harris 46%
Trump 48%
Oliver 1%
Stein 0%
Oct. 7-9
803LV
TIPP Insights
Harris 48%
Trump 49%
West 1%
Stein 0%
Oct. 7-9
1,079RV
TIPP Insights
Harris 49%
Trump 45%
West 1%
Stein 1%
Oct. 7-9
803LV
TIPP Insights
Harris 48%
Trump 49%
Oct. 7-9
1,079RV
TIPP Insights
Harris 49%
Trump 45%
Oct. 6-9
800LV
Fabrizio, Lee & Associates/McLaughlin & Associates
Harris 48%
Trump 49%
Oct. 7-8
800LV
InsiderAdvantage
Harris 47%
Trump 49%
Oct. 5-8
1,000LV
Emerson College
Harris 49%
Trump 50%
Sept. 28-Oct. 8
600RV
Fabrizio, Lee & Associates/GBAO
Harris 46%
Trump 47%
Sept. 28-Oct. 8
600RV
Fabrizio, Lee & Associates/GBAO
Harris 45%
Trump 46%
Stein 2%
Oliver 1%
West 0%
Kennedy 0%
Oct. 5-7
450LV
Research Co.
Harris 50%
Trump 49%
Oct. 3-7
1,412LV
Quinnipiac University
Harris 49%
Trump 47%
Oct. 3-7
1,412LV
Quinnipiac University
Harris 49%
Trump 46%
Stein 1%
Oliver 1%
Oct. 2-7
1,037LV
Hunt Research
Harris 47%
Trump 47%
Stein 1%
Oliver 1%
Oct. 2-7
1,037LV
Hunt Research
Harris 47%
Trump 48%
Sept. 27-Oct. 2
5,686LV
Redfield & Wilton Strategies
Harris 48%
Trump 47%
Oliver 1%
Stein 0%
Sept. 24-Oct. 2
1,000RV
YouGov/Center for Working Class Politics
Harris 47%
Trump 45%
Sept. 24-Oct. 2
500LV
OnMessage
Harris 46%
Trump 46%
(Whew! That's a lot of formatting! Swinging back after Googling each company)
OK, so the argument is, "Red Wave pollsters" are flooding 538 with pro-Trump polls.
So who are these pollsters?
The New York Times/Siena College
Well known right wing rag, the New York Times. /s Siena College?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/siena-college-research-institute-bias-and-credibility/
"Overall, we rate Siena College Research Institute as Least Biased based on polling that minimally favors the right. We also rate them as Very-High Factual pollsters based on a 2.7-star rating in predictive polling and a perfect 3.0-star rating with the New York Times/Siena Poll."
Redfield & Wilton Strategies - Founded in London in 2020, seems to have issues.
TIPP Insights - Quite a lot here from TIPP:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tipp-insights-bias/
"Overall, we rate TIPP Insights Right Biased based on editorial positions that favor a conservative=libertarian perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency with ownership and the use of poor sources, which fail fact checks and promote pseudoscience."
So, yes, you could argue they are a red wave pollster, but of the 4 polls posted, Harris leads in 2 and Trump leads in 2. In the Trump polls, he leads by 1, in the Harris polls, she leads by 4. Not what you'd expect for a red wave polling company.
Fabrizio, Lee & Associates/McLaughlin & Ass. Fabrizio pops up twice here working with other companies.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fabrizio-lee-associates-bias-and-credibility/
"Overall, we rate Fabrizio, Lee & Associates as Right-Center Biased based on polling, which is least biased, while clientele and news reporting are right-biased. We also rate them as Mostly Factual pollsters based on a 1.7-star rating in predictive polling."
OTOH - McLaughlin & Ass.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/465278-meet-trumps-most-trusted-pollsters/
"Meet Trump’s most trusted pollsters"
InsiderAdvantage
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/insideradvantage-bias-and-credibility/
"Overall, we rate InsiderAdvantage as Least Biased based on polling that minimally favors the left. We also rate them as High Factual pollsters based on a 2.0-star rating in predictive polling."
Emerson College
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/emerson-college-polling-bias-and-credibility/
"Overall, we rate Emerson College Polling as Least Biased based on polling that minimally favors the left. We also rate them as High Factual pollsters based on a 2.9-star rating in predictive polling."
Fabrizio, Lee & Associates/GBAO
Fabrizio pops up twice here working with other companies.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fabrizio-lee-associates-bias-and-credibility/
"Overall, we rate Fabrizio, Lee & Associates as Right-Center Biased based on polling, which is least biased, while clientele and news reporting are right-biased. We also rate them as Mostly Factual pollsters based on a 1.7-star rating in predictive polling."
GBAO?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gbao-strategies-bias-and-credibility/
"Overall, we rate the GBAO Strategies as Left-Center Biased based on news stories and polling that moderately favors the left. We also rate them as Mixed Factual pollsters based on a 1.2-star rating in predictive polling."
Research Co.
This (intentionally?) hard to Google name is ranked #52 on 538 with a score of 2.4 out of three. MBFC lists them as "reliable" based on that score from 538, but they have no MBFC listing of their own.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
But I don't see any obvious red flags like with some of the others above.
Quinnipiac University
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quinnipiac-poll-bias-and-credibility/
"Overall, we rate Quinnipiac Poll as Least Biased based on polling that minimally favors the left. We also rate them as High Factual pollsters based on a 2.9-star rating in predictive polling."
Hunt Research
Another hard to research company. Not even ranked on 538's listing of pollsters, so why is it even here?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
YouGov/Center for Working Class Politics
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/yougov-media-bias
"About YouGov's Bias Rating
YouGov is a reference source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating™ of Center."
Not seeing anything on the Center for Working Class Politics, but I feel safe in saying any org with "Working Class" in the name is not right leaning.
OnMessage
#238 out of 282 ranked pollsters on 238 with a score of 1.1 / 3. So regardless of bias, I think they can be safely disregarded.
So what's your conclusion?
I gave it quick scan and referenced based on your summaries ( thanks for that btw).
To me this all seems very much "in place" for polling data, as in, noisy, but pointing in the same direction.
I always use 5% as my rule of thumb to give the Pubs as a handicap. If a Dem is leading by 5% or more, they are actually leading.
@jordanlund@lemmy.world Any update?
OK, here we go, so of the 22 PA polls currently up on 538:
Not red wave: 6
The New York Times/Siena College
InsiderAdvantage
Emerson College
Quinnipiac University
YouGov/Center for Working Class Politics
Just Bad polling: 3
Redfield & Wilton Strategies
Research Co.
Hunt Research
OnMessage
Red Wave: 2
TIPP Insights - flooded the channel with 4 polls, but the polls split 50/50 with Harris showing a larger margin on her two than Trump did on his two.
Fabrizio, Lee & Associates/McLaughlin & Ass. - McLaughlin being Trump's preferred pollster.
Fabrizio, Lee & Associates/GBAO - While Fabrizio is a Red Wave pollster, GBAO is not. Both polls show Trump up so it's likely GBAO is just a beard here.
So of the 22 polls, 7 are run by clearly red biased pollsters. I wouldn't call 31.8% a "flood", it's about in line with MAGA support in the general population.
6 are run by just questionable sources, I wasn't able to determine bias other than "bad at their job" bias. Results seem evenly split, 2 Harris, 2 Trump, 2 tied.
Which leaves 9/22 run by unbiased, quality sources.
Ok, so I'm just scrolling through the most recent polls and picking out numbers based on this. I'm just going to grab the most recent numbers from Silver Bulletin. I'll grab the latest, most recent number for a given pollster, Harris & Trump only.
Not red wave: 6
The New York Times/Siena College
Harris/ Trump:
44%/ 49% (but also, I'm not sure whats going on with the repeat entries on this poll...)
InsiderAdvantage
Not in Nate Silvers database, cant find in 538's either, different name?
Emerson College
Harris/ Trump:
50.2%/ 48.6%
Fabrizio, Lee & Associates/GBAO - While Fabrizio is a Red Wave pollster, GBAO is not.
Harris/ Trump:
45%/ 50%
Quinnipiac University
Harris/ Trump:
47%/ 49%
YouGov/Center for Working Class Politics
Harris/ Trump:
51%/ 48%
Just Bad polling: 3
Redfield & Wilton Strategies
Harris/ Trump:
46%/ 48%
Research Co.
Harris/ Trump:
49%/ 45%
Hunt research:
47%/ 47%
OnMessage:
Can't find in either database.
Red Wave (2):
TIPP Insights
Harris/ Trump:
48%/ 49%
McLaughlin
Harris/ Trump:
48%/ 49%
Doing the quick stats...
Not Red Wave Polls:
Mean:
Harris: 47.44%
Trump: 48.92%
Standard Deviation:
Harris: 3.09%
Trump: 0.73%
Just Bad Polling:
Mean:
Harris: 47.33%
Trump: 46.67%
Standard Deviation:
Harris: 1.53%
Trump: 1.53%
Red Wave Polls:
Mean:
Harris: 48.0%
Trump: 49.0%
Standard Deviation:
Harris: 0.0%
Trump: 0.0%
The Red Wave polls and the Not Rave polls are in good agreement. These polls are all with each others MOE, and would fail a t-test.
Harris:
t-statistic: -0.405
p-value: 0.706
Trump:
t-statistic: -0.245
p-value: 0.818
Both p-values are significantly higher than 0.05, indicating that there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of Harris and Trump percentages.
The article is wrong. Unless it meant to say that Times/ Sienna is a "Red Wave" pollster, this an article targeted towards Blue MAGA to give them something they want to hear.
[Fuck, I'm annoyed. I did this for national, not PA.]
Annoyed so I just made a generalized analysis for everystate:
Codeshare link: https://codeshare.io/ONzAZ0
PA results:
No significant differences. 95% confidence intervals in the shaded area.
Working on the conclusion, got distracted by SNL. :)
Note that you are repeating the same polls multiple times in that listing. 538 lists the same poll multiple times based on the different results from it (likely voters vs register voters) and head to head vs full field often giving 2 to 4 results per poll. These are not separate polls. The NYT only did one poll of PA recently, don't assume those are 4 at the same time
As an aside, some of the pollsters have gotten more partisan this cycle. That recent TIPP poll there was the most egregious where a previously reputable pollster just decided to just assume that philadelphia was going to have 1/10 of the normal turnout in their likely voter screening (look at the unusually massive difference in their likely voters vs registered voters). This is despite asking how likely they were to vote and people in philadelphia respondeded with normal numbers, not anything anywhere close to 1/10th. It wasn't a mistake either, they replied saying they were the ones who did the likely voting screen and there were no errors, but didn't really offer much of an explication of why they basically assumed philadelphia wouldn't vote
It's simpler to just say they are trying to flood the zone with bullshit 🤣
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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