New answers tagged

5

The main issue was that there was a disconnect between the media and what the polls said. Overall the polls predicted a close race within their margins of error. As it happened several key states flipped within that margin of error between poll numbers and actual results. Usually that margin of error is stipulated at 3% by most (decent) polls. The media ...


4

Although an asterisk usually indicates that a poll is conducted by - or on behalf of - a partisan source, in the case of the RealClearPolitics tracker, this denotes that the polling includes figures for third-party candidates which have been truncated to provide the head-to-head two-party figure. For example, looking at the most recent Trump vs. Biden ...


4

At this stage in the 2016 cycle, the RealClearPolitics polling average gave Clinton a lead of 5.4 points over Trump nationally. This compares to a Biden lead of 7.9 today. You would be right to say that it is not a certainty that Biden would win. Modelling done by FiveThirtyEight currently give Biden an 87% chance of winning the election, and Trump a 12% ...


34

Your assumption: When Trump was impeached, the big issue was that he wanted to get dirt on his political opponent. He wanted dirt on Joe Biden's son and how he worked with an oil company and wanted to accuse Biden of nepotism. That's really not why Trump got impeached. First of all, everybody collects dirt on their political rivals - nothing illegal about ...


9

The primary point of controversy involving Hunter Biden was not about nepotism in the usual sense of the word. Instead, it might be more accurate to describe it as a question of influence peddling, and the appearance of conflict of interest.


52

Trump arguably won the 2016 election because of James Comey's last-minute, pre-election assertion that he might reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton. That had dramatic fallout in social media, and Clinton never effectively addressed it before the election; in my estimation it cost her enough votes to shift the tide. Hunter Biden and Burisma is "...


0

I read somewhere years ago that when Pat Robertson was running for Republican nomination in 1988, his campaign quietly told his Evangelical supporters in Iowa to lie to opinion pollsters about who they were voting for, so that it would seem like a big shock when he polled so well on election night, and would thus seem to have momentum. This worked. I'm ...


4

There are a lot of assumptions baked into this behavior and it may not always achieve the intended effect. Firstly, a single person doing this is unlikely to skew the polling result. Most respectable pollsters strive to get a large and randomized group of participants precisely to diminish outliers cases like these. Unless you organize a massive coordinated ...


3

Fear of criticism of racial motivation Yes, and this phenomenon even has name. The theory of The Bradley effect proposes that some white voters who intend to vote for the white candidate would nonetheless tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for the non-white candidate. Fear of possible revenge Also, don't discount the simple fact that ...


2

It's harder to measure change in opinion, since that would require us to compare studies from before and after, or to find a study that was conducted over a longer period where respondents were questioned multiple times. Instead, I will present two studies which take a snapshot of public opinion in April 2020. A study on public opinion in early April Early ...


0

First point: most polls aim for a margin of error of around 3%, so rising or falling by that amount is indeterminate: it might reflect a real change, or might merely be a statistical artifact (i.e., a random fluctuation of the distribution of the sample chosen, not of the underlying population). But giving the statistics the benefit of the doubt, it's worth ...


7

Fluctuations in polls are difficult to analyse, especially when polls just report a headline figure, rather than drilling down into specific topics, and it can be hard to tell whether an increase is significant or not. However, there does appear to be some evidence to suggest that this rise in approval you have observed is in part related to an improved view ...


4

In addition to what Joe W said, it's possible that it's not just poor sample selection. Online polling, especially on Twitter, is extremely easy to sabotage. Many votes are likely cast by bots or people with multiple accounts. In addition, neither bots nor people with multiple accounts are likely to post comments. It's not just selection bias, but ...


5

This is just a random twitter poll where anyone can vote regardless of being able to vote regardless of their actual voting status for the election. There is nothing that stops anyone from voting especially bots and the voters are all self selected which means the votes are not reliable. The other poll you mentioned has procedures in place to make sure they ...


2

High Ratings of Stalin are due to state Propaganda set by the Russian Federation by which he's seen as someone who defeated National Socialism and Fascism as he defeated Adolf Hitler in World War II. He's thereby seen as someone who secured Russian sovereignty and Security of Russia's civilians. He's not only seen as someone who had militaristic successes ...


Top 50 recent answers are included