Polls are unreliable a year before an election.

[bluewater]

When Hillary trounced Trump: Polls are unreliable a year before an election. So why are Dems watching?
by Julia Terruso

Hillary Clinton had a commanding lead over Donald Trump. John McCain and Barack Obama were in a virtual dead heat. President George H.W. Bush was crushing Bill Clinton. So polls said in 2015, 2007, and early 1992 — months and months before the respective presidential elections.

Democrats desperate to beat President Donald Trump this time around have been focused on one word looking toward 2020: electability. And polls should provide a kind of guidepost. But if history is any indication, polling more than a year away from a general election is terribly unreliable.

“They’re virtually useless,” said Sarah Niebler, an assistant professor of public opinion and campaign behavior at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa. So far from the presidential election, “the polls you see that match up Trump vs. Biden or Trump vs. Warren or whoever, those have zero explanatory power. They make political scientists crazy when polls are held up to say, this is the person who can win."

Polls are a public opinion snapshot, but they are far from reliably predictive more than a year before ballots are cast. Primary horse-race polls tend to be somewhat more reliable, with some notable exceptions: Jeb Bush and Ben Carson were at different times favorites in the Republican primary campaign of 2016 until they weren’t; Herman Cain led the pack of Republicans vying for the 2012 primary in October 2011 polls.

“You have to understand, most people are not paying attention, and a lot of what we’re picking up is name recognition only,” said Krista Jenkins, professor of politics at Fairleigh Dickinson University in North Jersey and director of the FDU poll.

But winning seems especially important to Democrats this year. Selecting a candidate who can beat Trump, Democratic voters say, is a priority over issues, policies, ideology, or nominating a woman or racial minority, according to recent surveys. “Democrats want an electable candidate,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. “And then, when you talk to them about what they think that is, it’s basically what the media has been saying about their chances.… That’s a key part of Joe Biden’s support right now. A large number of voters are saying, ‘I keep hearing that he’s electable.’ In many ways, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. They’re concerned about electability, but we’re not in a position to judge that yet.”

Despite their relative unpredictability, polls are sought out by voters seeking signals on whom to support. Candidates who poll well have historically been shown to get more media attention, and the reverse is true: The more media attention a candidate gets, the more likely the poll numbers are to rise.

https://www.inquirer.com/news/how-reliable-are-polls-general-election-president-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-20190726.html

[qazplm135]

1. It's obvious

It's also obvious that a front-runner and their supporters will tout it nevertheless...which is what is happening.

The next three or so debates will move things along.

Maybe Biden does well and consolidates.
Maybe Warren continues to gain while Biden falls back more.
Maybe Harris rises up.
Maybe somehow Bernie rises up (least likely IMO)

We do not know yet what's going to happen.

[wyldwolf]

2. Polls are quite reliable a year before an election.

I know your google machines stays in overdrive as you do your meticulous polling research, but polls this far out are very reliable:

1. They're a snapshot of what the electorate is currently feeling
2. They're drivers to make lagging candidates change their strategy.

Early polling is quite consequential. They don't always predict the last person standing, but they have. Of course, that isn't what they're for.

[Bradshaw3]

30. Totally wrong when it comes to Democrats

Between JFK and HRC, only ONE leader in the early polls (Mondale in '84) who wasn't an incumbent POTUS or Vice POTUS went on to win the Democrtatic nomination. That includes Bill Clinton, McGovern, Carter. So one out of five tells us, if anything, that early polls are wrong when it comes to determining the nominee.

[wyldwolf]

37. but totally true in general

And, apparently, quite often. According to 538, the modern age of polling began in '72.

[Bradshaw3]

54. 538 says you are wrong

The headline:
"Should We Take These Early General Election Polls Seriously? $#!% No!"

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/should-we-take-these-early-general-election-polls-seriously-no/

And the 538 article quotes polls going back to FDR.

[wyldwolf]

56. 538 says I'm correct

I said the modern election polling era began in 1972...

we’re just going to look at what the polls say for competitive presidential primaries for both parties, starting with early primary polls from 1972, which is widely thought of as the start of the modern primary era.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-more-than-40-years-of-early-primary-polls-tell-us-about-2020-part-1/

-----------------------

The headline:
"Should We Take These Early General Election Polls Seriously? $#!% No!"

And the 538 article quotes polls going back to FDR.

I've been conversing with the OP for weeks about polling in general and primary polling specifically. I understand you may not have noticed, but that isn't my problem. I also realize that THIS TIME the op posted about general election polls, but again, this is a long-running discussion of the OP's jihad against polling because she doesn't like Joe Biden is leading.

[Bradshaw3]

68. Changing the subject doesn't change the fact you were wrong

What I was referring to was your claim that early polls are an indicator of what will happen in the general. They aren't as the article showed with polling data and analysis. Trying to make a point about when modern polling began is a deflection and doesn't deter from the fact 538 said you were wrong. You've provided no links or data to show otherwise. Whether you are arguing with someone over a period of time has nothing do with the facts, either. That is your problem. And pointing out facts about polling data isn't a jihad, just because Biden supporters don't like those facts.

[wyldwolf]

69. I didn't change the subject

Nor was I talking to you. You want to
Participate, fine, but stay don’t get upset
when people don’t follow you down side roads.

[Bradshaw3]

71. Please follow your own advice and don't deflect

You have responded to my posts several times so obviously you were talking to me. You brought up 538 and I used an analysis and facts from 538 to show you were wrong. You went down a side road talking about 1972 (for some reason choosing that as a deflection even though it still shows you are wrong when using that as a starting point). So you try another side road by claiming I was upset when I was nothing of the kind. You are the one who admits you get into long-running disputes with another poster so obviously you really need to follow your own advice.

[wyldwolf]

72. You've written so much to have said so little

I’ve repeatedly stayed on task, both with the OP specifically and the the OP’s history in general. You don’t know that history
and I’m not obligated to catch you up.

[Bradshaw3]

74. Projection and personal attacks

Not surprising because you have produced nothing in the way of supporting your contention, and not responded to the facts and analysis I provided that, once again, prove your contention was wrong. So, all you have left is unfounded personal attacks that, obviously, apply to yourself, and deflection from your "point" about the early polls that is factually wrong.

Your obsession with another poster is, as I wrote, your problem and has no relevance to anything I posted. It also speaks volumes why you continue to carry on here despite having been shown to be factually wrong. Your thinking I do or should care about it is, to the say the least, amusing.

[wyldwolf]

75. Again a lot of words very little substance

[Bradshaw3]

78. You described your "contributions" perfectly

You obviously have an obsession problem on here with posters, as you have admitted. I can't help you with it but others might.

[wyldwolf]

79. oh, the Pee Wee Herman gambit. Brilliant.

Doesn't change the fact you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

[Bradshaw3]

80. I have tried facts to counter your personal attacks and failure to admit you were wrong

It hasn't worked. You obviously don't care about facts, have absolutley NOTHING of value to bring to any discussion and have a kind of wierd obsession with other posters that really cries out for help of some kind. It was somewhat amusing for awhile but now your responses are just pathetic. So you go on ignore and I won't read any more of your pointless "responses." Sorry, you'll have to find another poster to obsess over when your baseless claims are exposed as false.

[wyldwolf]

81. your interjection into a conversation that doesn't involve you does not equal facts.

You go on ignore

OH NO!!!!!

[DrToast]

70. Exactly! It's a straw man to say polls this far out don't predict election results

Duh! That’s not what they’re trying to do!

[SouthernProgressive]

3. This is actually an anti-intellectual piece.

Horrible read.

[wyldwolf]

4. The OP keeps hammering her belief polls are meaningless this far out... but...

That isn't true. Taking away primary elections with incumbents, Reagan always led in '79-'80, Walter Mondale always led in '83-'84, George H.W. Bush always led in '87-'88, Bob Dole always led in '95-'96, Al Gore AND GW Bush always led in 2000, Romney always led in '12, Clinton always led in '16.


At best, the OP's title should be "aren't always reliable" or "are often reliable."

[SouthernProgressive]

7. It's even more than that. The impact today is huge.

Without the polls would Booker be hammering Biden like he is? Without the polls would Biden be controlling events as much as he is? Without the polls would Harris have gone after Biden?

Every candidate except for those showing no movement in polls uses them publicly. Those without movement study them and use them behind the scene.

I think the op doesn't understand statistics and the important role they play in politics.

When it comes to polling the general, those have great meaning as well. The author even hits on a meaning and then acts as if it's insignificant. Strange way to go about things.

[crazytown]

27. Walter Mondale always led in '83-'84?

Reagan led from August '83. John Glenn, not Mondale did best in the hypothetical matchups in the first half of '83, and was leading. Mondale went on to stitch up institutional support, and doomed the Democratic Party to disaster.

[wyldwolf]

28. In the year leading up the primaries, yes

The 1984 Democratic primary field

Candidates’ polling averages in the first half and second half of the year before the presidential primaries. This marked the only time between 1972 and 1996 that the Democrats nominated someone who led in the raw polling average a year before the primary.

[crazytown]

29. Mondale did Not lead Reagan in 1984.

did you mean to say Reagan led Mondale?

[wyldwolf]

31. I didn't say he did.

I'm speaking to the OP's constant drumbeat that polling is "never accurate/unreliable/something different depending on the day" drumbeat to explain away Biden's lead.

[crazytown]

32. Quote

"Reagan always led in '79-'80, Walter Mondale always led in '83-'84, George H.W. Bush always led in '87-'88 ..."

[wyldwolf]

34. Quote

"Reagan always led in '79-'80,

And he did. No other Republican in the primaries ever led.


Walter Mondale always led in '83-'84,

And he did. No other Democrat in the primaries ever led.

George H.W. Bush always led in '87-'88 ..."

No other Republican in the primaries ever led.

[crazytown]

35. You were replying to an OP about the reliability of polls for the GE

this far out, not whether a primary frontrunner maintains their lead. The contrary case to that of course is Clinton v Obama (when you and I had some interesting exchanges here ... I was lamprey, and rather impressed that the wolf was a big game hunter)

[wyldwolf]

38. I was more replying to the OP about her constant drumbeat about polls in general

Most on this thread know her posting history. Until Warren leads in the polls, she'll consider polls unworthy.

[crazytown]

40. Right ... got it.

Warren has a long way to go, but a bit like Obama '07, has invested in the ground game & intel. The operation in Nevada is particularly impressive. Apologies for being strident, but Walter Mondale's campaign is a sore point for me.

[wyldwolf]

41. She's my #2

[crazytown]

42. Like you, Harris was my #2

but she started disappointing me long before the Debate, and afterwards I wrote her off.

[crazytown]

43. Harris

I am surprised she cannot defend her Medicare policy. She stonewalls, and stumbles around the abolition of private insurance. Buttigieg is crystal clear on health. So is Beto. She's my #4, Biden is #2.

[wyldwolf]

44. she's not ready for primetime...

... unless points are awarded for talking over people.

[crazytown]

48. 70 is the new 47

[Celerity]

10. Almost every quoted and/or referenced source is a university professor, so nope, it is very, very

far from being anti-intellectual, and also has a large amount of hyperlinked academic papers as well.



Sarah Niebler, an assistant professor of public opinion and campaign behavior at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa.

Krista Jenkins, professor of politics at Fairleigh Dickinson University in North Jersey and director of the FDU poll.

Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute.

John Raymond Zaller, political scientist and professor specializing in public opinion at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Jennifer Cryer is a PhD student at Stanford University in the department of political science, where her focus is on American politics and political methodology.

G. Terry Madonna, professor of public affairs and director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College.

Sarah Allen Gershon Associate Professor American Politics, Political Science Georgia State University

John T. Barber, Professor at the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences , Howard University , Washington,

Oscar H. Gandy Jr., Professor at the Annenberg School of Communication , University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, PA,

Jeremy Zilber, Professor of Politics at William and Mary

David Niven, Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Cincinnati

Regina G. Lawrence is Jesse H. Jones Centennial Chair in Communication and director of the Annette Strauss Institute for Civic Life at the University of Texas at Austin.

Thomas E. Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press, Harvard University

Erika Falk is the associate program chair for the master's degree program in communication at Johns Hopkins University and the former research director of the Washington office of the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

Kim L. Fridkin Kahn, Professor of Political Science, Arizona State University

Edie N. Goldenberg, Professor of Public Policy; Professor of Political Science at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan

Jon Alexander Krosnick, professor of Political Science, Communication, and Psychology, and director of the Political Psychology Research Group at Stanford University.

[SouthernProgressive]

11. Anti-intellectual and not sources as well as you think.

I love it when attaching links simply makes people think something is sourced well.

[Celerity]

14. not buying it, you just do not like what the article is implying you you resort to frivolous attacks

Part of fully reading any article is to read the links and citations, the same as reading any academic paper.

[SouthernProgressive]

18. There is more merit in my response than in the article.

Statistics can be scary for some.

[Celerity]

20. you sound scared

[SouthernProgressive]

21. Big time. I live in fear.

[Celerity]

22. me too

[SouthernProgressive]

23. .

Thank you for ending on a positive. I greatly appreciate and respect that.

[Celerity]

25. I am trying to always be nice on here, at least in the end, and I am tired of all the infighting

I am also really getting freaked out about the possibility of Rump being 'cheated' back into 4 more years and as it stands, I see Biden as probably the only way to ring up a big enough margin to prevent a close count being flipped.

I SO hope he does well in the debates. If he somehow collapses in the nomination primary campaign, I see no one who will be at his level of separation versus the orange bloat as he is now.

Brand new A rated poll

[Thekaspervote]

12. Agree! The op has posted several similar pieces. They usually have this spin unless it's the

Candidate of their choice.

I have to say dear bluwater, I’m going to go right on by your posts since it’s becoming so obvious. Not saying you are mean or nasty, not at all. We all have favorites, even those who chose undecided. The spin is tiring

[Vegas Roller]

66. tiring and obvious +100000 nt

[treestar]

5. What is the proof that those polled are not paying attention?

That question would have to be polled too.

[highplainsdem]

13. That question has been asked in a number of polls and the voters say they're paying attention.

This article is really condescending toward voters.

[Drunken Irishman]

6. Head-to-head polls against an incumbent this far out are actually pretty reliable...

Or have been in the last few presidential elections. There are some extreme exceptions to this, like with Ronald Reagan in 1983, as the US was coming out of a pretty significant recession, and even 1991, when Bush was riding high based on the success of the Gulf War - but since? It's been pretty stable and this is because the dynamics of a race generally do not change between now and election time. Beyond a recession (which will devastate Trump) or a war (which could boost his popularity), the numbers start to set, even a year out.

Case in point:

In Sept., 1995, Clinton led Dole by two nationally. It was not a significant lead, but by the end of 1995, in December, his lead would balloon to double-digits. Even the last polls were basically a year out from the election and they proved pretty reliable.

In a Zogby International Poll conducted between Aug. 16-19, 2003, Bush beat Kerry 50-41.

Between July 4 and August 30, 2011, Obama led Romney in ten national polls, while Romney led Obama in just two - and they were tied in three.

These last three elections prove one thing: the incumbent was leading at this point in the campaign. Some by a wide margin (Obama and Bush) and another by a narrower margin (Clinton), though his numbers would improve greatly by the end of the year.

FWIW, Reagan led Mondale by ten at the end of 1983.

So, really, the only campaign where there was significant shift a year out was 1992. Bush absolutely started that campaign with a comfortable lead (he led by double-digits through May of 1992) and then faded. But there's not a lot of examples of incumbents being down like Trump right now who've come back to win. Every incumbent who won reelection was leading at this point sans H.W. Bush.

[bluewater]

8. unreliable [ˌənrəˈlīəb(ə)l] ADJECTIVE not able to be relied upon.

"Hillary Clinton had a commanding lead over Donald Trump. John McCain and Barack Obama were in a virtual dead heat. President George H.W. Bush was crushing Bill Clinton. So polls said in 2015, 2007, and early 1992 — months and months before the respective presidential elections."

Posting SOME early General Election polls that were right while ignoring A SIMILAR number of early General Election polls that were so wrong seems to be ignoring what the word UNRELIABLE actually means, don't you think?


Again, the definition of UNRELIABE is :

unreliable
[ˌənrəˈlīəbəl]

ADJECTIVE
not able to be relied upon.

[Drunken Irishman]

9. Do you know the definition of incumbent?

Since you seem to be posting definitions - look that up, familiarize yourself with it, and then re-read my post.

Hillary Clinton was not an incumbent.
Donald Trump was not an incumbent in 2016.
John McCain was not an incumbent.
Barack Obama was not an incumbent in 2016.

Those were all open elections, where there was no incumbent running for another term. This is not the same as those elections. None of us want to admit it but the reality is, Trump won in 2016 and therefore is an incumbent president running for reelection.

[bluewater]

15. As in Jimmy Carter was an Incumbent? and George H. W. Bush was an incumbent?

Jimmy Carter (incumbent) was leading Ronald Reagan. And lost.

And you glossed over: President George H.W. Bush (incumbent) was crushing Bill Clinton. And lost.

And when George W. Bush (incumbent) was trailing Al Gore? But won.

And you even gloss over the examples you provided:

"There are some extreme exceptions to this, like with Ronald Reagan in 1983, as the US was coming out of a pretty significant recession, and even 1991, when Bush was riding high based on the success of the Gulf War..."

[Drunken Irishman]

19. I spoke of Bush. Didn't gloss over him at all.

Gore was not an incumbent president.

But it's interesting to make your point, you have to go all the way back to 1980.

Fact is, of the last five incumbent presidents, four were leading a year out and won reelection. Trump is the first incumbent in decades who is losing a year out.

[bluewater]

24. Honestly, Thank you for the discussion.

Bush was the incumbent losing in the polls to Gore, who ultimately lost.
Wasn't your point that early polls in Presidential races that had incumbents were reliable? That was offered as a counter example.

And "going back to 1980" is what you have to do since presidential elections only occur every 4 years and some of those have no incumbents right? I mean, we would not want to cherry pick examples, right?

But that aside, thank you for an interesting discussion.

When looking into this topic, I found that polls early in the General Election year, in January and February for example, were very often unreliable as well.

Thanks again for your very substantial and informative replies.

[Drunken Irishman]

33. My point stands...

Polls for incumbent presidents a year out have been pretty reliable - and the contrast with non-incumbent candidates really drive this home, tbh. Your examples show this. In races where there is no incumbent president running, the polls are pretty unreliable. Examples: 1988, 2000, 2008 and 2016 where the candidate who was winning a year out actually lost. The reason I'm focused on incumbent numbers is because those races are typically about the incumbent. In races where it's an open race, it's more about the candidates all around since the incumbent is not running.

[wyldwolf]

39. "Bush was the incumbent losing in the polls to Gore, the ultimate loser."

Repost of you comment without further comment.

[bluewater]

45. lol nice catch! THAT needs editting!

Thanks, I will edit that.

[wyldwolf]

46. you said it twice.

Once is a typo. Twice looks more like something you might actually believe.

[bluewater]

47. really? where is the second time? Perhaps you just misread?

[wyldwolf]

49. Post #15

[bluewater]

50. Could you please quote what you are taking issue with in post #15

[wyldwolf]

51. "And when George W. Bush (incumbent) was trailing Al Gore? But won."

[bluewater]

52. ok.......... so I said something different? lol

So I didn't "say it twice"?

I said something totally different?



But, hey, thanks for bumping the thread!

[wyldwolf]

53. you twice called George W. Bush the incumbent in his race with Al Gore

But hey! Glad to bump the thread so more can see how clueless the op is.

[bluewater]

57. so.... it was all really about me calling Bush an incumbent? Ok.....

Good golly, I was wrong, there was no incumbent in 2000!

And here silly me thought the issue was "the ultimate loser" wording, when all along it was that I called Bush as an incumbent.

TWICE!

I think I was thrown by the comment:
"Once is a typo. Twice looks more like something you might actually believe."

Thanks for catching that I referred to Bush as an incumbent in 2000, TWICE!

[wyldwolf]

58. Yes. Once is a typo. Twice reveals something you obviously believed.

Bush was an incumbent in 2000!!!

[bluewater]

59. Thanks again for bumping the thread.

Can you believe it, I actually thought Bush as an INCUMBENT in 2000!

And I said it TWICE.

In THE SAME THREAD!!1!1!!!

Thanks for catching that!

[wyldwolf]

60. So back in 2000 when you thought Bush was the incumbent

Did you vote for him or Ralph Nader?

[bluewater]

61. Pardon?

[quickesst]

16. This thread would not exist if...

.... Elizabeth Warren had Joe Biden's poll numbers. A similar thread could have been posted, but, it would not have been by a Warren supporter.

[SidDithers]

17. Yup...

Sid

[Loki Liesmith]

26. lol

[R B Garr]

36. lol

[guillaumeb]

55. Recommended. And this is, in my view, a key part of the problem:

“You have to understand, most people are not paying attention, and a lot of what we’re picking up is name recognition only,” said Krista Jenkins, professor of politics at Fairleigh Dickinson University in North Jersey and director of the FDU poll.

An electorate that generally does not pay attention is one that is unaware of the critical role politics and political choices play in all of our lives.

[mtnsnake]

62. The author is 100% correct. Not only are polls unreliable a year prior to an election

but they are often unreliable a month prior to an election as well.

The best line in that article: "Despite their relative unpredictability, polls are sought out by voters seeking signals on whom to support. Candidates who poll well have historically been shown to get more media attention, and the reverse is true: The more media attention a candidate gets, the more likely the poll numbers are to rise."

[Skya Rhen]

63. Lol

[Kahuna7]

64. Too bad the pollsters didn't account for Russian Active Measures..

the Comey letter, and voter suppression. These were all factors in Hillary's loss.

[Vegas Roller]

65. Translation

"Dear BS supporters, don't be discouraged because the poll world is all inaccurate."

Probably better than "unskewing" the polls.

[andym]

67. The polls can even be unreliable a few days before the election

as we learned in 2016. The prediction sites all had Hillary winning big, only 538 gave Trump a ~30% chance. It may be that Trump under polls his actual numbers or the Comey effect was not completely accounted for.

[StevieM]

73. 2016 is a bad example to use IMO.

That whole election revolved around James Comey, from beginning to end.

And the final Comey intervention was devastating.

[tblue37]

76. The more voters see if Warren, the better they like her. nt

[JonathanDough]

77. In other news, water is wet.

.