Nick, like you, I sincerely hope Harris wins. I think she will, and if she does if will be because Trump has finally disgusted enough women that they vote for Kamala. I share your concerns about what Trump might try to do. However, he is not in power as he was in 2020/21. If it is clear that Harris has won, the Administration should be ready to shut down Trump. Quickly and decisively.
It’s squeaky bum time, Harris must win!! I fancy visiting Chicago next year but I won’t go if trump is president just as I wouldn’t dare visit putins russia but what’s weird if I said that to my ‘daily telegraph’ reading dad, he’d be like ‘what do you mean?’ It’s a denial of sorts
Well at least you were right about the fake polling, but it was the wrong direction. It's a sad day here for so many people. I appreciate your insights and commentary. But - will this be a nail in the coffin of illiberal progressivism? Hmm. Trying to find a silver lining I guess. The Democratic party certainly needs to do some soul searching.
There'll now be a huge uproar over Ann Selzer's Iowa poll in the Des Moines Register. It gives Harris a 47 to 44% lead in this dark red state.
However, there is one huge difference between this poll and the junk 'red wave' polls corrupting the polling averages (58 right-wing polls were released in just the last seven days, with a total of 125 since August). Selzer is the most respected pollster in the US. She recruits Iowan canvassers across the state to do the detailed legwork required for accurate polling and has a deep understanding (through more than fifteen years of Iowa-focused surveys) of the state's demographics and politics. Where others, like Silver, use their gut instincts (AKA internal biases) to shape their data, Selzer tries her hardest to get large representative samples and then, like a good scientist, does not use guesswork to play with that data. She is not right all the time, but her track record is unmatched.
So here's a little present for doom-scrolling Democrats. Read what her poll says. Now imagine that happening in every state across the nation. Women will win this election. It really is that simple:
Whatever happens, US pollsters and news editors need to go away, sit in a dark corner then have good long think about what they've done. Not including the Des Moines Register, of course.
Really useful that you describe the polling method. If that were done more that would deflate the use of these predictions. A danger is that the MSM overreact to some staged terroristic intimidation at a polling station and scare Dems away from more polling stations. Use of the MSM is part of the terrorist method, systematically spreading threat and political influence without the potential for a military victory taking territory.
It's a distinct possibility. Voting this year is going to be only half the battle, I fear.
One of the reasons Selzer has such a good track record, is that she concentrates on Iowa and has the advantage of polling the caucuses too. There is a lot of trust in her across the state which opens doors that would usually be slammed in the face of a pollster. When she conducts polls outside Iowa, Selzer appears to select carefully which job she chooses, looking for those where polling can be done effectively.
In contrast, the vast majority of US election polls are near garbage or utter junk. It's not the pollsters' fault directly. Just another example of the data truism called GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. They are not given the money or time needed to collect good representative samples. The US has so many different ethnic, class, educational, and cultural divisions that it's hopeless to profile those effectively when only one in a thousand people you contact agree to be polled. The pollsters end up manipulating tiny subsets like only fifty African-Americans respondents to extrapolate statewide or even national trends in that group. Large scale latitudinal studies like Yale's investigation of US youth are phenomenally expensive and time-consuming. However, they do provide a much more accurate picture (and have been very revealing about this year's election). If the MSN concentrated their efforts on less frequent but better polling, then their results would be more trustworthy. But that just won't produce headlines quick enough and it appears that's all they care about.
If opinion polling is anything like market research then it's no better than reading tea leaves. I've been on dozens of paid focus groups for all sorts of big brands over the years. The people who recruit panellists do not give a flying f*** whether you really meet the brief, they just want to fill seats. Some of the surveys are so badly designed you have to give nonsensical answers (e.g. two or more contradictory multiple choice responses) in order to submit the forms. As a small business owner, there's no way I'd ever pay these firms for research.
Quantum physics describes how observing an experiment influences the outcome. And so like poor Schrodinger's cat the winner of the USA election is now both victorious and defeated. The result won't be known until the ballot boxes are opened. The vanishingly small number of people who are polled are affected by the same phenomenan and their answers are influenced by the fact of being asked. But the tens of millions who are not asked will decide the outcome.
Nick, like you, I sincerely hope Harris wins. I think she will, and if she does if will be because Trump has finally disgusted enough women that they vote for Kamala. I share your concerns about what Trump might try to do. However, he is not in power as he was in 2020/21. If it is clear that Harris has won, the Administration should be ready to shut down Trump. Quickly and decisively.
Let's hope they finally arrest him for sedition
And a goodly swathe of his enablers!
We have a long and anxious week ahead. But I am hopeful.
But I am cheered by the thought of something I first came across in a James Baldwin book, slightly amended:
God gave Biden the rainbow sign,
No more water, the fire next time.
It’s squeaky bum time, Harris must win!! I fancy visiting Chicago next year but I won’t go if trump is president just as I wouldn’t dare visit putins russia but what’s weird if I said that to my ‘daily telegraph’ reading dad, he’d be like ‘what do you mean?’ It’s a denial of sorts
Most important election of my lifetime!
Nick, you're still awesome, but this piece won't age well, and neither will your talk with Ben Cohen. Tried to tell ya . . .
Fair comment
Well at least you were right about the fake polling, but it was the wrong direction. It's a sad day here for so many people. I appreciate your insights and commentary. But - will this be a nail in the coffin of illiberal progressivism? Hmm. Trying to find a silver lining I guess. The Democratic party certainly needs to do some soul searching.
There'll now be a huge uproar over Ann Selzer's Iowa poll in the Des Moines Register. It gives Harris a 47 to 44% lead in this dark red state.
However, there is one huge difference between this poll and the junk 'red wave' polls corrupting the polling averages (58 right-wing polls were released in just the last seven days, with a total of 125 since August). Selzer is the most respected pollster in the US. She recruits Iowan canvassers across the state to do the detailed legwork required for accurate polling and has a deep understanding (through more than fifteen years of Iowa-focused surveys) of the state's demographics and politics. Where others, like Silver, use their gut instincts (AKA internal biases) to shape their data, Selzer tries her hardest to get large representative samples and then, like a good scientist, does not use guesswork to play with that data. She is not right all the time, but her track record is unmatched.
So here's a little present for doom-scrolling Democrats. Read what her poll says. Now imagine that happening in every state across the nation. Women will win this election. It really is that simple:
https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/.
There already is uproar Martin. The BBC are covering it as a need story!
Whatever happens, US pollsters and news editors need to go away, sit in a dark corner then have good long think about what they've done. Not including the Des Moines Register, of course.
Really useful that you describe the polling method. If that were done more that would deflate the use of these predictions. A danger is that the MSM overreact to some staged terroristic intimidation at a polling station and scare Dems away from more polling stations. Use of the MSM is part of the terrorist method, systematically spreading threat and political influence without the potential for a military victory taking territory.
It's a distinct possibility. Voting this year is going to be only half the battle, I fear.
One of the reasons Selzer has such a good track record, is that she concentrates on Iowa and has the advantage of polling the caucuses too. There is a lot of trust in her across the state which opens doors that would usually be slammed in the face of a pollster. When she conducts polls outside Iowa, Selzer appears to select carefully which job she chooses, looking for those where polling can be done effectively.
In contrast, the vast majority of US election polls are near garbage or utter junk. It's not the pollsters' fault directly. Just another example of the data truism called GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. They are not given the money or time needed to collect good representative samples. The US has so many different ethnic, class, educational, and cultural divisions that it's hopeless to profile those effectively when only one in a thousand people you contact agree to be polled. The pollsters end up manipulating tiny subsets like only fifty African-Americans respondents to extrapolate statewide or even national trends in that group. Large scale latitudinal studies like Yale's investigation of US youth are phenomenally expensive and time-consuming. However, they do provide a much more accurate picture (and have been very revealing about this year's election). If the MSN concentrated their efforts on less frequent but better polling, then their results would be more trustworthy. But that just won't produce headlines quick enough and it appears that's all they care about.
I have this awful feeling about this election and the Supreme Court.....
If opinion polling is anything like market research then it's no better than reading tea leaves. I've been on dozens of paid focus groups for all sorts of big brands over the years. The people who recruit panellists do not give a flying f*** whether you really meet the brief, they just want to fill seats. Some of the surveys are so badly designed you have to give nonsensical answers (e.g. two or more contradictory multiple choice responses) in order to submit the forms. As a small business owner, there's no way I'd ever pay these firms for research.
Quantum physics describes how observing an experiment influences the outcome. And so like poor Schrodinger's cat the winner of the USA election is now both victorious and defeated. The result won't be known until the ballot boxes are opened. The vanishingly small number of people who are polled are affected by the same phenomenan and their answers are influenced by the fact of being asked. But the tens of millions who are not asked will decide the outcome.