This is my beef with some of you scoffing at the polls

[Matty]

You guys are essentially arguing that polling doesn’t have predictive power if it defies some arbitrary, pre-defined baseline.

Such a view of polling completely nullifies its very intent: the measure of the views of a sample of people and their shifts.

This has profound implications even in survey science outside politics. If a snack company took regular surveys monthly on their products and, for the first time ever, started to notice that a given snack began to decline in popularity, would the company ignore the survey, or see what’s going on? Under the logic of many on this board, the company should ignore the survey, because it defied the old results.

Using your logic (i.e a poll is faulty if it produces a result below a certain baseline), the polls in 1980, 1992, 2000, 2008, etc were all faulty because they showed shifts in certain groups that were a large shift from the previous election cycles.

The very story of American politics, and frankly, the story of  any opinion on anything, is a story of shifts. Indeed, Mr. Biden would not be president if college whites had not shifted by an astonishing degree since the early 2000s. Companies would not rise and fall without shifts in consumer behavior.


Organizations, firms, and presidential campaigns spend large amounts of money on polling and survey data, not to pop-poo the data when it comes in, but to take it seriously and respond to it.

Polling is either capable of capturing shifts in behavior or it isn’t. To argue that polling is unreliable if it captures shifts is to argue against the usefulness of polling itself.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Polls this far out have little predictive value. If Biden was up by ten in Georgia I too would cast doubt on that.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

My gripe is the same people downplaying the polls here were worshipping them 4 years ago. If you came to Atlas in June 2020, when NYT/Siena had Biden+14 and him up double digits in MI/PA/WI all the red avatars were worshipping them. "Polls are so much better this time, Trump is indeed finished", It was an absolute sh*thow last election cycle and those of us who doubted the polls were mocked for it. Now when Biden is trailing behind (even just narrowly) they are starting to bring out the nuance and hand waving. And I agree with that to an extent, but where was that in 2020? Let's not kid ourselves, if the polls showed Biden up 5 in the national average and him leading in every swing state, Atlas would be taking them at face value like they did four years ago. And this isn't just Atlas, it applies to Twitter, and other pundits.

Sure the polls aren't a great indicator and not worth a lot of attention. But why wasn't this being said in 2020? Why only now when Biden is down?

[Dan the Roman]

Polls this far out have little predictive value. If Biden was up by ten in Georgia I too would cast doubt on that.

This has become a mantra. They have little value at any point if the sampling issues are real. If they have value despite the sampling errors, they have value in terms of establishing floors and ceilings or the lake therof for two fairly well defined candidates.

Now if you said horse race polls there might be more to it.

However Presidential approval numbers have enormous predictive value at this point. The only reason they are being dismissed is the Trump factor. Which in turn, is why I suggest that the question with real predictive value is not the horse race numbers or even candidate favorable but job approval.

[7,052,770]

Ultimate nobody knows. Maybe the polls are wrong, maybe they're right. I think if polls didn't exist, we would all think that Biden was a strong favorite for re-election, so this dissonance is just very strange.

We can make up explanations of why the polls might be wrong all we want, and some of them seem compelling enough, but it's still just guessing until November.

[heatcharger]

It’s a left-wing blog.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Polls this far out have little predictive value. If Biden was up by ten in Georgia I too would cast doubt on that.

This has become a mantra. They have little value at any point if the sampling issues are real. If they have value despite the sampling errors, they have value in terms of establishing floors and ceilings or the lake therof for two fairly well defined candidates.

Now if you said horse race polls there might be more to it.

However Presidential approval numbers have enormous predictive value at this point. The only reason they are being dismissed is the Trump factor. Which in turn, is why I suggest that the question with real predictive value is not the horse race numbers or even candidate favorable but job approval.

They have little value this far out from the perspective of giving you a concrete view on who is going to win. The people who are going to be deciding this election probably still are disengaged. Polls? They should be weighed more and more the closer you get to the election but there's no one thing that alone tells you who is going to win.
Polls are a piece to the puzzle but far from everything. They have value but that value is severely overplayed. However interest in politics naturally leads to people wanting polls to measure things, and this encourages polls to be commissioned, and this is a positive feedback loop, mutually reinforcing on both ends. I myself lean towards more polls than less so this isn't a "problem" I would want resolved.

[cherry mandarin]

If polls didn't exist, we would all think that Biden was a strong favorite for re-election.

What? I would’ve guessed the opposite, since no one seems to be pleased with Biden’s job performance (or his age) right now.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Lol give it a rest Vaccinated Bear we know who you are, you said Biden has a 41 Approval rating the natl polls have Biden up 4 but the state by state polls have Biden down 12 in NV that's not common sense

Do you know how many Ds on this forum there are way more Ds on the forum than Rs

[BlueSwan]

You guys are essentially arguing that polling doesn’t have predictive power if it defies some arbitrary, pre-defined baseline.

Such a view of polling completely nullifies its very intent: the measure of the views of a sample of people and their shifts.

This has profound implications even in survey science outside politics. If a snack company took regular surveys monthly on their products and, for the first time ever, started to notice that a given snack began to decline in popularity, would the company ignore the survey, or see what’s going on? Under the logic of many on this board, the company should ignore the survey, because it defied the old results.

Using your logic (i.e a poll is faulty if it produces a result below a certain baseline), the polls in 1980, 1992, 2000, 2008, etc were all faulty because they showed shifts in certain groups that were a large shift from the previous election cycles.

The very story of American politics, and frankly, the story of  any opinion on anything, is a story of shifts. Indeed, Mr. Biden would not be president if college whites had not shifted by an astonishing degree since the early 2000s. Companies would not rise and fall without shifts in consumer behavior.


Organizations, firms, and presidential campaigns spend large amounts of money on polling and survey data, not to pop-poo the data when it comes in, but to take it seriously and respond to it.

Polling is either capable of capturing shifts in behavior or it isn’t. To argue that polling is unreliable if it captures shifts is to argue against the usefulness of polling itself.

Well, I agree. But I do think it is mostly a loud group of naysayers. I think only very few are saying that the polls do not reflect the current mood of the country. There's a group who is saying that polls this far out has little predictive value. And then there are people like me and an increasingly large group of red avatars who recognize that not only is Trump currently ahead, he is also the favourite to win in november when you take all factors into account. Infact, I have long said that Trump is the overwhelming favourite to win.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You guys are essentially arguing that polling doesn’t have predictive power if it defies some arbitrary, pre-defined baseline.

Such a view of polling completely nullifies its very intent: the measure of the views of a sample of people and their shifts.

This has profound implications even in survey science outside politics. If a snack company took regular surveys monthly on their products and, for the first time ever, started to notice that a given snack began to decline in popularity, would the company ignore the survey, or see what’s going on? Under the logic of many on this board, the company should ignore the survey, because it defied the old results.

Using your logic (i.e a poll is faulty if it produces a result below a certain baseline), the polls in 1980, 1992, 2000, 2008, etc were all faulty because they showed shifts in certain groups that were a large shift from the previous election cycles.

The very story of American politics, and frankly, the story of  any opinion on anything, is a story of shifts. Indeed, Mr. Biden would not be president if college whites had not shifted by an astonishing degree since the early 2000s. Companies would not rise and fall without shifts in consumer behavior.


Organizations, firms, and presidential campaigns spend large amounts of money on polling and survey data, not to pop-poo the data when it comes in, but to take it seriously and respond to it.

Polling is either capable of capturing shifts in behavior or it isn’t. To argue that polling is unreliable if it captures shifts is to argue against the usefulness of polling itself.

Well, I agree. But I do think it is mostly a loud group of naysayers. I think only very few are saying that the polls do not reflect the current mood of the country. There's a group who is saying that polls this far out has little predictive value. And then there are people like me and an increasingly large group of red avatars who recognize that not only is Trump currently ahead, he is also the favourite to win in november when you take all factors into account. Infact, I have long said that Trump is the overwhelming favourite to win.

It's kind of moot to say something "reflects the current mood of the country" when a portion of the country really isn't yet in the "Ok for real who I vote for?" stage, who could be reasonably expected to vote. After all, why didn't Dewey win?
Turnout should drop but it's pretty unlikely to drop this much. In particular, black turnout collapsing this much is unlikely.

[Crumpets]

If polls didn't exist, we would all think that Biden was a strong favorite for re-election.

What? I would’ve guessed the opposite, since no one seems to be pleased with Biden’s job performance (or his age) right now.

Are you basing that on polls or personal experience? I would definitely think the election was likely Biden if not for polls and just going on things like the economy, special elections, primaries, and Trump's trial + lackluster campaign compared to his previous runs.

[GAinDC]

My gripe is the same people downplaying the polls here were worshipping them 4 years ago. If you came to Atlas in June 2020, when NYT/Siena had Biden+14 and him up double digits in MI/PA/WI all the red avatars were worshipping them. "Polls are so much better this time, Trump is indeed finished", It was an absolute sh*thow last election cycle and those of us who doubted the polls were mocked for it. Now when Biden is trailing behind (even just narrowly) they are starting to bring out the nuance and hand waving. And I agree with that to an extent, but where was that in 2020? Let's not kid ourselves, if the polls showed Biden up 5 in the national average and him leading in every swing state, Atlas would be taking them at face value like they did four years ago. And this isn't just Atlas, it applies to Twitter, and other pundits.

Sure the polls aren't a great indicator and not worth a lot of attention. But why wasn't this being said in 2020? Why only now when Biden is down?

Sure, there’s bias at work when people decide whether to believe a poll.

I’ll admit I was one of those people who bought into the Biden landslide idea in 2020 and the red wave in 2022 based on polling. I learned my lesson, so why wouldn’t I be more skeptical of polls this time around?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

My gripe is the same people downplaying the polls here were worshipping them 4 years ago. If you came to Atlas in June 2020, when NYT/Siena had Biden+14 and him up double digits in MI/PA/WI all the red avatars were worshipping them. "Polls are so much better this time, Trump is indeed finished", It was an absolute sh*thow last election cycle and those of us who doubted the polls were mocked for it. Now when Biden is trailing behind (even just narrowly) they are starting to bring out the nuance and hand waving. And I agree with that to an extent, but where was that in 2020? Let's not kid ourselves, if the polls showed Biden up 5 in the national average and him leading in every swing state, Atlas would be taking them at face value like they did four years ago. And this isn't just Atlas, it applies to Twitter, and other pundits.

Sure the polls aren't a great indicator and not worth a lot of attention. But why wasn't this being said in 2020? Why only now when Biden is down?

Sure, there’s bias at work when people decide whether to believe a poll.

I’ll admit I was one of those people who bought into the Biden landslide idea in 2020 and the red wave in 2022 based on polling. I learned my lesson, so why wouldn’t I be more skeptical of polls this time around?

In 2016 I expected a D landslide. In 2018 I expected fewer incumbents to lose than who actually did. In 2020 I assumed Biden would outperform polling by a few points. In all three cases I was off in some way.
The lesson I took from 2020 was that this nation was too polarized for a landslide election. In 2022 I never believed in a red wave and my prediction for Congressional topline numbers was pretty much identical to the results when everything was counted.
I see no evidence the country is significantly less polarized than in 2020 or 2022. I have since taken to assume very little net change from 2020 in most of the country. Regardless of what the polls say. Now we're past Labor Day I'm willing to consider taking into account polling, however the actual evidence we'd see mass drops in turnout or relatively huge scale of voter fleeing from Biden has to contend with special elections being great for Democrats.
Literally the only indicator pushing for Trump winning by high single digits or anything more than a practical tie is polls. As far as I'm aware anyhow. And polls aren't so singularly important as to carry such s case by themselves. And the thought Trump might actually be competitive among Black males is still unproven at best.
Biden's position isn't amazing but it's hardly awful. And Biden has a history of being underestimated as well.

[GAinDC]

Great points above!

Also, a lot of polling this cycle has been good for Biden but is picked apart by blue avatars, so it cuts both ways. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No one is saying polls should not exist but Trump isn't up 12 in NV if he is leading in NPVI by 4, it can very well be a wave Eday still

I am still counting on TX we need Daines seat, Tillis seat, Collins seat and Cornyn seat in 26

Pollsters know that without NV Biden is short of 270 if he doesn't win NE 2 that's why they are polling ridiculous numbers in NV and AZ so Biden is stuck at 269, and Biden loses if he is stuck at 269

Your beef is with Atlas not with individual pollsters at least there are more Ds on this site than Rs, there aren't that many OSR he is a hack on tax cuts for the rich

[Inmate Trump]

It annoys me when people say polls are wrong or outliers but when a poll shows their candidate up it’s a good poll.

No, the polls are likely accurate. The truth is, it’s way far out still. This time in 1988, Michael Dukakis was leading by double digits but he lost in a landslide. This time in 92, Ross Perot was going to be president according to the polls. This time in 2008, McCain and Obama were tied and McCain actually led some polls. Kerry was leading in 04. Bush was far outpacing Gore this time in 2000 but won by a small handful of votes in Florida. Not to mention Hillary in 2016.

My point is, yea the polls aren’t good for Biden right now and they’re likely accurate for the time being. But what’s accurate in May has little bearing on November.

[Umengus]

polls 6 months before the election should theoretically not be taken into account too much. But this is a rematch of 2020 and Trump has never had such a consistent lead in 2016 or 2020. I don't see what could change that between now and November

[7,052,770]

If polls didn't exist, we would all think that Biden was a strong favorite for re-election.

What? I would’ve guessed the opposite, since no one seems to be pleased with Biden’s job performance (or his age) right now.

Economic indicators are mostly good, Democrats consistently do well in off-year and special elections, his opponent is under multiple indictments, etc. There is a lot of good reason to think Biden is in good shape if the polls didn't say otherwise. That's why a lot of people have a hard time believing them.

[MillennialModerate]

My gripe is the same people downplaying the polls here were worshipping them 4 years ago. If you came to Atlas in June 2020, when NYT/Siena had Biden+14 and him up double digits in MI/PA/WI all the red avatars were worshipping them. "Polls are so much better this time, Trump is indeed finished", It was an absolute sh*thow last election cycle and those of us who doubted the polls were mocked for it. Now when Biden is trailing behind (even just narrowly) they are starting to bring out the nuance and hand waving. And I agree with that to an extent, but where was that in 2020? Let's not kid ourselves, if the polls showed Biden up 5 in the national average and him leading in every swing state, Atlas would be taking them at face value like they did four years ago. And this isn't just Atlas, it applies to Twitter, and other pundits.

Sure the polls aren't a great indicator and not worth a lot of attention. But why wasn't this being said in 2020? Why only now when Biden is down?

Because they’re in denial. Anyone who says anything remotely negative or pessimistic about the Democrats (unless 99% of the votes are in) is a “doomer” whose opinion is not to be taken seriously, they’re to be mocked, ridiculed, blocked and banned. But if someone replies “iTs a 308 mAp, bIdEn wiLl WiN” 70 times in a month to polls showing Trump ahead… then it’s just a happy go lucky quirky poster that contributed to the board.

Anyone who is reasonable and rational can see Biden is losing and it’s slipping away from him. The polarized, partisan, minimal ticket splitting nature of the country right now makes dramatic the likelihood of May to November turn arounds like we’ve seen in the past (ex: 1988) very unlikely.
The right wing voters are locked to trump. Full on brainwashed - the man could tell them to throw their parents and family pet in front of a moving train and they’d do so… it’s Hitler in the 30’s type brainwashing. To the contrary - left leaning voters are deluded in their own way - obsessed with F’ing Gaza while THIS country is in a perlious moment. And apparently there are just enough indepdents who don’t remember the chaos of the Trump years and don’t know the true cause of inflation … add it all up and the result is obvious - despite what some on here want to believe

[Rubensim]

My gripe is the same people downplaying the polls here were worshipping them 4 years ago. If you came to Atlas in June 2020, when NYT/Siena had Biden+14 and him up double digits in MI/PA/WI all the red avatars were worshipping them. "Polls are so much better this time, Trump is indeed finished", It was an absolute sh*thow last election cycle and those of us who doubted the polls were mocked for it. Now when Biden is trailing behind (even just narrowly) they are starting to bring out the nuance and hand waving. And I agree with that to an extent, but where was that in 2020? Let's not kid ourselves, if the polls showed Biden up 5 in the national average and him leading in every swing state, Atlas would be taking them at face value like they did four years ago. And this isn't just Atlas, it applies to Twitter, and other pundits.

Sure the polls aren't a great indicator and not worth a lot of attention. But why wasn't this being said in 2020? Why only now when Biden is down?

Because they’re in denial. Anyone who says anything remotely negative or pessimistic about the Democrats (unless 99% of the votes are in) is a “doomer” whose opinion is not to be taken seriously, they’re to be mocked, ridiculed, blocked and banned. But if someone replies “iTs a 308 mAp, bIdEn wiLl WiN” 70 times in a month to polls showing Trump ahead… then it’s just a happy go lucky quirky poster that contributed to the board.

Anyone who is reasonable and rational can see Biden is losing and it’s slipping away from him. The polarized, partisan, minimal ticket splitting nature of the country right now makes dramatic the likelihood of May to November turn arounds like we’ve seen in the past (ex: 1988) very unlikely.
The right wing voters are locked to trump. Full on brainwashed - the man could tell them to throw their parents and family pet in front of a moving train and they’d do so… it’s Hitler in the 30’s type brainwashing. To the contrary - left leaning voters are deluded in their own way - obsessed with F’ing Gaza while THIS country is in a perlious moment. And apparently there are just enough indepdents who don’t remember the chaos of the Trump years and don’t know the true cause of inflation … add it all up and the result is obvious - despite what some on here want to believe

Don't forgot that also Biden is basically trying to be a moderate with a lot of stuff but just making both sides angry at him and as you said again trump could literally tell them to murder there pets and they would without even thinking so Biden is stuck with a base that basically either hate him or will only vote for him because they don't like trump and even that seem like it now enough for most
at this point the Biden campaign is possibly the saddest re-election thing i ever seen like "SAD!" kind of thing.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

My gripe is the same people downplaying the polls here were worshipping them 4 years ago. If you came to Atlas in June 2020, when NYT/Siena had Biden+14 and him up double digits in MI/PA/WI all the red avatars were worshipping them. "

True.  We could, though, say the same thing about those who were saying the polls didn't matter in 2020 whenever a release showed Biden up.  I recall a pretty prolific Trump supporter here who said some form of "let them have their polls.  Come election day, it won't matter.  We have the numbers the polls aren't capturing."

It's exhausting in both directions.  Nobody likes to admit they have biases and double standards, but we all do. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

My gripe is the same people downplaying the polls here were worshipping them 4 years ago. If you came to Atlas in June 2020, when NYT/Siena had Biden+14 and him up double digits in MI/PA/WI all the red avatars were worshipping them. "

True.  We could, though, say the same thing about those who were saying the polls didn't matter in 2020 whenever a release showed Biden up.  I recall a pretty prolific Trump supporter here who said some form of "let them have their polls.  Come election day, it won't matter.  We have the numbers the polls aren't capturing."

It's exhausting in both directions.  Nobody likes to admit they have biases and double standards, but we all do. 

its something I don’t get either . Even if you aren’t actually down like the polls are saying , there is nothing wrong with acting like they are as doing so would make you actually try to improve your strategy and also make your base more motivated to turn out .

[DrScholl]

You guys are essentially arguing that polling doesn’t have predictive power if it defies some arbitrary, pre-defined baseline.

Such a view of polling completely nullifies its very intent: the measure of the views of a sample of people and their shifts.

This has profound implications even in survey science outside politics. If a snack company took regular surveys monthly on their products and, for the first time ever, started to notice that a given snack began to decline in popularity, would the company ignore the survey, or see what’s going on? Under the logic of many on this board, the company should ignore the survey, because it defied the old results.

Using your logic (i.e a poll is faulty if it produces a result below a certain baseline), the polls in 1980, 1992, 2000, 2008, etc were all faulty because they showed shifts in certain groups that were a large shift from the previous election cycles.

The very story of American politics, and frankly, the story of  any opinion on anything, is a story of shifts. Indeed, Mr. Biden would not be president if college whites had not shifted by an astonishing degree since the early 2000s. Companies would not rise and fall without shifts in consumer behavior.


Organizations, firms, and presidential campaigns spend large amounts of money on polling and survey data, not to pop-poo the data when it comes in, but to take it seriously and respond to it.

Polling is either capable of capturing shifts in behavior or it isn’t. To argue that polling is unreliable if it captures shifts is to argue against the usefulness of polling itself.

Translation: You are upset that there isn't an echo chamber of agreement over pro-Trump polls.

[Vern]

It annoys me when people say polls are wrong or outliers but when a poll shows their candidate up it’s a good poll.

No, the polls are likely accurate. The truth is, it’s way far out still. This time in 1988, Michael Dukakis was leading by double digits but he lost in a landslide. This time in 92, Ross Perot was going to be president according to the polls. This time in 2008, McCain and Obama were tied and McCain actually led some polls. Kerry was leading in 04. Bush was far outpacing Gore this time in 2000 but won by a small handful of votes in Florida. Not to mention Hillary in 2016.

My point is, yea the polls aren’t good for Biden right now and they’re likely accurate for the time being. But what’s accurate in May has little bearing on November.

This right here.