One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by bryanlarsen on Tuesday November 10, 2020 @03:59PM (#25051828)

There aren't many people with $100 million income. Most billionaires don't have income that high -- there is a much higher wealth disparity than there is income disparity.

So while I'd rather the media reported the median income than the median income, it's the number we have and hopefully it's a useful approximation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by dragonwriter on Tuesday November 10, 2020 @04:09PM (#25051941)

> There aren't many people with $100 million income

Sure, but there's also a couple with over an order of magnitude more.

> So while I'd rather the media reported the median income than the median income, it's the number we have and hopefully it's a useful approximation.

It's not a useful approximation of anything, and we have a lot more detailed information that “average income of voters of one side vs. the other" on the relationship between income and voting / party preference. And it tells a more complicated story (e.g., in 2016, Clinton won significantly among those with income of $150K+ and under $30K, was nearly even among those with $100-150K and $50-75K, lost significantly among those with $74-100K and $30-50K.)

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/30/a-voter-dat...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by masonic on Tuesday November 10, 2020 @11:35PM (#25055517)

  Sure, but there's also a couple with over an order of magnitude more.

Who has an income of more than $1 billion a year?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by amanaplanacanal on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @06:09AM (#25057379)

There are people whose wealth on paper grow that much. Maybe they are counting that as income?

[ Parent | on HN ]