NYT: What’s the Matter With Polling? (JUNE 20, 2015)

[Bread and Circus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html?_r=0

What’s the Matter With Polling?

By CLIFF ZUKINJUNE 20, 2015

Continue reading the main story

OVER the past two years, election polling has had some spectacular disasters. Several organizations tracking the 2014 midterm elections did not catch the Republican wave that led to strong majorities in both houses; polls in Israel badly underestimated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strength, and pollsters in Britain predicted a close election only to see the Conservatives win easily. What’s going on here? How much can we trust the polls as we head toward the 2016 elections?

Election polling is in near crisis, and we pollsters know. Two trends are driving the increasing unreliability of election and other polling in the United States: the growth of cellphones and the decline in people willing to answer surveys. Coupled, they have made high-quality research much more expensive to do, so there is less of it. This has opened the door for less scientifically based, less well-tested techniques. To top it off, a perennial election polling problem, how to identify “likely voters,” has become even thornier.

...

We are less sure how to conduct good survey research now than we were four years ago, and much less than eight years ago. And don’t look for too much help in what the polling aggregation sites may be offering. They, too, have been falling further off the track of late. It’s not their fault. They are only as good as the raw material they have to work with.

In short, polls and pollsters are going to be less reliable. We may not even know when we’re off base. What this means for 2016 is anybody’s guess.

Cliff Zukin is a professor of public policy and political science at Rutgers University and a past president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.

(more at link)

===

What da y'all think? Any hope for Sanders? Curious minds want to know.

[Trajan]

1. Another possible scenario

Polling is accurate, and elections are stolen using fancy electronic election fraud machines ...

That could also explain the discrepancies ....

[DJ13]

3. Ohio 2004 John Kerry

Yep!

[Segami]

4. And you can steer a ship....

between those so called polling data 'discrepancies'...........

[TDale313]

7. Bingo!

I don't understand why the Democratic establishment aren't all over this issue.

[rpannier]

9. Problem with that theory is

in Britain the polls leading up to the election were wrong, but the exit polls were spot on correct
Same in 2014. The polls leading up were off, but the exit polls were pretty accurate

[Betty Karlson]

10. Can the same be said for the USA though? eom

[Fearless]

11. For the most part, actually yes.

There are exceptions of course. But as a whole yes.

[Betty Karlson]

13. But there are some issues with votes from time to time.

The election fraud in Wisconsin comes to mind, and the mathematician who was fired when she pointed out vote-flipping?

[Fearless]

14. Definitely!

[Bread and Circus]

18. TY. I was worried this thread would descend into conspiracy obscurity

[Triana]

16. I'd say this is the most likely scenario. n/t

[WillyT]

2. It's Becoming Truer And Truer... With Each Election Cycle

[-none]

5. The polls are not the problem, it is the election process and the vote counting.

We need to let various international election watchers watch our own corrupted elections.

[Kalidurga]

6. I think people are looking for a crystal ball where there is none.

And some people would rather talk polls than substance.

[antigop]

8. Hillary's Campaign Manager: "A lot of the public polling is not very reliable"'

http://time.com/3920153/bill-clinton-hillary-campaign-adviser/

Mook also dismissed recent poll numbers that suggest Hillary Clinton’s favorability numbers are slipping. According to a CNN poll published last week, 57% of Americans think the former secretary of state is not trustworthy. “A lot of the public polling is not very reliable,” Mook said. “I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to it.”

[Fearless]

12. Unless she's shown positively, in which case it's CLEARLY accurate

[LWolf]

17. Truth. nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. This election

is going to hit DWS, the DNC, CORPORATIONS, Wall St., HRH and her supporters and the Corporate Owned MSM like a ton of bricks. They won't know what hit 'em after Bernie wins.

Bernie owns the Internet and the Internet is where most people get their news and information. The Corporate Owned MSM that's busy shilling for HRH and giving Bernie a virtual blackout, are going to look like the fools they are and personally, I can't wait to witness the shock and spin.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. I don't vote based on polls, endorsements, commercials, labels, or shoe size.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson

[Blue_Adept]

20. Reliable or not, it's in both campaigns interests to have a tight race

Because when there are huge leads, that leads to complacency.

The tighter the race, the more energetic it is for those to get out and vote. So you'll usually see someone in the lead downplaying it. Those that are behind will talk about how it's not fully representative and that it's closer.

It's been that way for decades.

[Bread and Circus]

21. where's the usual suspects who love quoting polls all the time?

[99Forever]

22. At risk of repeating myself

Every "poll" posted on this forum is done by someone with an agenda. EVERY ONE OF THEM.



Polls are nothing more than a propaganda tool to bludgeon an opposing view with. (In this context.)