Win, lose or draw? Dancing around the May polls
I’ve promised to give you all an overview of the general election, but before we get into all that, there is something we need to discuss first: polls. There’s a poll out that says Hillary is within one point of Trump in Georgia. It’s going to be a Hillary blowout! But wait: the same guys say Trump is within the margin of error in Pennsylvania and Ohio. It’s going to be a Hillary disaster!
Quinnipiac Maypolling: The Green Party is winning!
Polls are a statistically valid small sampling of a population in order to model within an acceptable margin of error and an acceptable degree of certainty the characteristics of that (much larger) population. An individual poll can never be fully trusted. That’s why sites like RealClearPolitics, Pollster and FiveThirtyEight are so popular: they apply math-y techniques across multiple polls to smooth out the error rates among them. But what if all the polls you’re smoothing all made the same types of mistakes?
Right now, in May, I am only looking at general election polls in order to indicate broad trends. Who is trending consistently ahead? What population is trending for which candidate? What states are following recent blue/red trends? Where in all these numbers is new ground being broken? We can examine these trends, but to assign hard percentages to them and call that “reality” is a fool’s errand.
The Likely Voter
The reasons for this are many. First, it’s difficult to model what a “likely” voter is in 2016. The Republican Primary brought out a strange mix of voters. The minority turnout is difficult to predict, I’m not sure how strong the African American turnout will be versus the last two elections. Polls show that both candidates are underwater in their approval ratings, but Trump is worse off to a historically bad degree. Significantly, the type of disapproval for each is not measured, nor the strength of those feelings of disapproval. Anti-Trump or anti-Hillary? I believe we’re comparing apples to oranges there, but it’s always hard to measure who will come out to vote FOR someone they’re not particularly enamored of, and/or who will come out to vote AGAINST someone they loathe with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns.
Another reason I am less than enamored of polls right now is that polls show a bias depending on who is running them. A bias can be introduced just by the choice of methodology (e.g. by under-sampling cell phones) or by the questions themselves (for instance, by not varying the order of choices – there is small but measurable unconscious bias towards selecting the first name you hear). These biases can be accidental or deliberate, and they can be occasional or constant. What’s weird about 2016 so far is that polls I used to consider reliable have shown consistent skews in the primaries, and I don’t know if they will smooth in the general.
Something else weird about these general election polls is that they are both measuring well-known people. Usually at this time, presumptive candidates have not been fully introduced to the general election voting population, and have not been framed by their supporters or by their opponents in a narrative that would make sense to the voters. Such is not the case with Hillary, a well-known political entity. You’d also think that such is the case with the Donald, as well, except that once again we are comparing apples to oranges. Donald is a well-known ENTERTAINMENT commodity. His business record, while assumed to be well-known, has actually not been fully aired; nor has his personal life. As a politician, he has no record, not even within the context of this campaign, because he has yet to take a coherent, consistent stand on ANYTHING.
So while support in the general seems to be settling in for Trump, I believe that his numbers will continue to drop as the Clinton War Room, the DNC, and – FINALLY! – the media begin to make all his many many many shortcomings much better known.
So, again, the polls are measuring two products that some people think they like, some think they don’t like, but know one really knows for sure what Trump is, and whether any individual will actually get out of the chair, find the keys and go stand in line to vote… well, even the person you’re asking isn’t 100% sure they’re going to do that.
Another reason the polls taken right now in this cycle are particularly untrustworthy is that the candidates are in two very different stages of their campaigns. Trump has vanquished everyone earlier than the stop-Trump movement had intended, prior to its ignominious collapse. Without a focal point to coalesce around, Republican voters are starting to fall in line and respond to polls in a business as usual manner. Hillary has had to continue her primary longer than anticipated due to Bernie Sanders still doing his thing. As such, within the context of the Democratic primary, a lot of anti-Hillary sentiment has yet to settle out.
In just a regular Red vs Blue year, there are a lot that can go wrong with general election polls in mid-May. There are even more things that can go wrong with them this year. So read them in context, with a very discerning eye and a healthy dose of skepticism. And remember that the people trumpeting one poll over another are doing so for very selfish reasons; examine those, as well, but most especially remember this:
The media is in the business of making money and have invested a huge amount in election coverage. It is in their best interest to make something look like much more of a horse-race than it is.
Ach Primo, what can we say about the pollsters and media this year? So many months between now and the November election, that they are mere background noise, if that significant.
So many are comparing Donnie to the wrong historical German. He is closer to the Pied Piper of Hamelin. Donnie is a myth and he does marshal the rats like lemmings. You are so correct that pollsters often frame their questions incorrectly.
Yes, apples and oranges, when comparing the negative numbers for HRC and Donnie. As you say, Donnie is “As a politician, he has no record…” Thus, as a politician, his negatives are in free float and can be expected to rise as people are treated to the full Donnie. Whereas HRC’s numbers are written in the stone of 35 years of constant caterwauling by the snacilbupeR. She has ~10% in the negatives that can be dispelled among likely Democratic voters. Among Bernie supporters like myself who have solids for contributing to that negotiable 10% in her negatives, we “get” that a 10% reason for disliking her is far outweighed by the 90+% reason to hold Donnie totally suspect.
My prediction? Watch their negatives. Call them 50-50 at this juncture, but wait for the general campaign when we should expect Hilz to settle at ~40%, while Donnie soars to a reasonable 70% or higher negative. If he is the Democratic nominee, expect Bernie to rise to ~30% in the negatives.
In that I agree with Donnie; his numbers will be huge. And, I am not sorry that that number will be a huge negative.
Let’s all vote in November!
1IMO, I think Bernie should stay in the race up to the convention barring some overwhelming reason not to. If he comes in strong, he should have more input into the platform and what the “elite leaders” can be held to when push comes to shove.
2With him giving us a bigger piece of the pie, perhaps Clinton will be more palatable to those dems, liberals, who would not vote for her today.
van59, good points. It’s also reasonable that Bernie can attract some of the disenfranchised Donnie supporters.
There’s a big difference between angry lefties and righties. We lefties know why we are angry, whereas the righties have as yet been unable to see through their rage to the scapegoating they’ve been sold by ‘Con politicians. Can’t say as how many of them can be led to reason, but if there’s a chance, Bernie is the man to penetrate their fog.
Come the surrogate v surrogate battle between July and November, the Democrats have the winning hand among the reasonable in the electorate.
3Nate Silver, who correctly predicted results for 49 out of 50 states in the previous election, incorrectly predicted Trump’s odds of success at 5% last Fall. Major egg on face.
4I am hopeful that, as Primo says, the media will finally do some serious investigative reporting on Trump’s scams and financial machinations. It may not affect his hard core morons, but the rest of the electorate may be so appalled that they stay home or vote Democratic.
BTW religious and racial attacks on Muslims and Mexicans are skyrocketing here in the home of the free. Wonder why?
Good points, and I would add that each poll weights people in their sample based on population characteristics–or is supposed to. One of my colleagues runs a poll at my University, and he tells me that Quinnapac regularly over-samples whites. It was their polls that showed Clinton and Trump neck-and-neck in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. He doesn’t buy the assertion that the race has tightened up.
5All true. One further point is that Trump’s support is early invested stalwarts. For the length of the primary process, and among Republicans he got crushed by the late deciding voters. We stand at about 18% undecided between Trump and Clinton with the motivated Sanders voters still out there.
6All the investigation of Trumps errs will only empower the would have been school yard bullies who think he will fix everything for them. They have numbers and we can count on them going to the polls. Sorry to be such a downer, but there is so much at stake.
I don’t have much faith in the American people who THINK at this point.
7Primo, this inquiry is related slightly off-topic but I’m looking to you for your erudite input. Just read on huff post where Sen. Reid publicly said he hoped Grayson loses the senate in FL supposedly because he ran some offshore hedge funds against house rules. I noticed before that Franken, dnc, even Obama were against him winning. My impression of Grayson has been favorable till this moment. Realizing I may by under, if not mis-informed, could you please let us know what you know regarding this brouhaha?
8I keep getting email ads from Alan Grayson; I guess I signed a petition he wrote or something. Latest says he’s fighting the Koch attempt to bring him down.
9van, I was aware there was a FL Senate primary and Grayson was in it but beyond that, I was not paying attention. I have shared an affinity with his politics and held an admiration for his fire, and those remain a part of me still.
But…
If all this plays out the way the optics say it’s going to play out, then he’s gonna be a little radioactive. Plenty of guys in my Illinois past who had the right kind of politics but ended up in Uncle Sam’s hoosegow.
I hope it’s false, ’cause I’ve always rooted for him.
10One of my undergrad majors was political science. Oddly enough none of the material covered polls. Well, OK. That was back in the oil lamp era. I had to wait some years before learning that Dewey was slated to win the Presidency, according to the big time newspapers that had conducted a telephone poll. Remember the headlines declaring Dewey the winner? Well, 99% of the people polled by phone were Republicans because they were the only ones around who could afford the contraptions. All the Dems without shoes outnumbered the Rethugs in the voting booth.
11Dunno about what is happening with Grayson. But given that Harry Reid is there and the way he went after the Koch brothers, this all might be some rat poison laid down by the Kochs. Sad that Harry has fallen for their bait.
12Good read, Primo,
13A lot can happen between now and November.
Get out the vote, and get the popcorn –
I’m a regular Grayson supporter, and Harry Reid is ratfcking his way out of politics.
14Lots of big words. I support Grayson too and Elizabeth warren, among others. Remember, the Koch bros are pouring money into getting THEIR guys elecgted at all levels, and they don’t like Grayson. Kochs have given up on presidential election.
15