They are primarily focusing on the main swing states for president, but Florida does matter a good amount in terms of the senate though. It's a rarer somewhat close pickup opportunity. With Montana not looking as great lately we'll likely need to flip either Texas senate or Florida senate to keep the senate control. Or there's the close race in Nebraska where Indepdent Osborn could give us a 49-49-1 senate if neither flip and we lose Montana
My response was more so to the "you don't get to 'wish'" part. It could go the same way, it could not. It's not consistent year to year. Assuming it is when long term data does not support that, isn't helpful
Over the long term, there is no meaningful partisan statistical bias in polling. All the polls in our data set combine for a weighted average statistical bias of 0.3 points toward Democrats. Individual election cycles can have more significant biases — and, importantly, it usually runs in the same direction for every office — but there is no pattern from year to year
No where am I claiming that Harris definitely will necessarily be underestimated, I am saying it is possible. Or perhaps even just underestimated by less. Dismissing the possibility out of hand by N=1 is what I am responding to
An alternative reality is saying that polling error is uncertain? I didn't declare anything about it's direction or even that it couldn't be the same as it was earlier
This is something plenty of election modeling people say all the time
Over the long term, there is no meaningful partisan statistical bias in polling. All the polls in our data set combine for a weighted average statistical bias of 0.3 points toward Democrats. Individual election cycles can have more significant biases — and, importantly, it usually runs in the same direction for every office — but there is no pattern from year to year
The reason there’s no long-running polling bias is because pollsters try to correct for their mistakes. That means there’s always the risk of undercorrecting (which apparently happened this time) or overcorrecting (see the 2017 U.K. general election, where pollsters did all sorts of dodgy things in an effort to not underestimate Conservatives … and wound up underestimating the Labour Party instead)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-werent-great-but-thats-pretty-normal/
That's not how your earlier comments are phrased. The earlier comments declare that this is a given structural bias and that it will always exist. How is entirely ignoring the 2012 election any more real than saying we can't be sure?
Look if you thought the polling bias in the previous election always determined the next one, you would've thought Hillary was in for a big landslide because dems were systematically underestimated in 2012 including in florida. Obviously it did not go the same way. It's not limited to 2012 either
Pollster make adjustments every cycle. In this case, many have made some quite large ones. How much that effects the results isn't fully knowable until only after the election happens
Biden was 4 points ahead in FL in 2020
? In this very comment section you were mentioning polling average earlier that showed it as ~2.5%
Assuming the error is the same direction as 2020 is not a given. Pollsters have made changes to their model that intentionally put more weight on areas likely to have trump supporters. Amid other changes
Not saying she will necessarily win florida, but assuming the worst case all the time is not always accurate either
Polling error has historically moved in inconsistent direction. Data goes back further than 2020. In 2012, Democrats were underestimated in florida by ~2 points. Romney was up 1.5% in Florida poll average vs Obama winning Florida by 0.9%
Assuming it certain to go that way is not a given either. My point is that you cannot be certain about it
That's assuming the polling error goes the same way. That's not a given at all especially as many pollsters have made methodology changes such as some doing much heavier rural sampling
Polling error has gone both directions in the past. Dems were underestimated by polls in 2012 for instance
We're not talking about national polling, however
Keep in mind that ~R+3 is itself close and withing the margin of error of a lot of polls. Many of the swing states have had near D+3 margins in the average at one point
I encourage you to take some of the election anxiety and turn it into productive action. That could look like canvasing (door knocking) to phone banking, text banking, letter writing and more. Those all have been shown to increase voter turnout. If nothing else, it at least reduce some of the anxiety
That's actually not the full quote. The full quote show he was not talking about any of those issues at all. He was concerned with the allies being "liberal" and "communist"
https://xcancel.com/Highway_30/status/1596353423464611841