195
submitted 6 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago

New York’s 26th Congressional District on April 30, 2024.

I was just going to do the first one, but that had 60k voters and Dems won it 2 to 1...

They barely cracked 10% turnout...

Not even getting into how the name "Kennedy" fucks up search results with the word "poll" in 2024

But there just wasn't time between the state party saying the candidate, and when the state party held the special election for a poll. And I'm not sure how anyone would be surprised.

So let's look at the second instead.

I googled "NY3 polling" and immediately got this

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/house/2024/new-york/3/

Most polls had Souzzio up 4, Souzzio won by 7.

But, I'm really not sure why you want to explicitly and only look at Special elections, elections that occur "off season" with short campaigns and unpredictable turnout because nothing else is on the ballot.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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%.)

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -5 points 6 months ago

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/

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -5 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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.

this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
195 points (88.2% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2077 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS