News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by jimbobimbo on Tuesday November 10, 2020 @09:31PM (#25054918)
Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by dragonwriter on Tuesday November 10, 2020 @09:51PM (#25055022)
This is based on exit polls.

Exit polls only interview people who vote in person, which may be generally be useful, but in this election are an enormously systematically biased slice of the electorate.

You really can't base any generalizations beyond the in-person voting segment based on them.

Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by rayiner on Tuesday November 10, 2020 @10:41PM (#25055273)
At least with the NYT exit polls, they included phone interviews to account for mail in voters. Here is a more systematic post-election analysis, based on a huge survey (100,000+ respondents), from Fox/Associated Press/U Chicago: https://www.foxnews.com/elections/2020/general-results/voter...

This one shows significantly lower Black vote for Trump than the Essence article (12% of men, 6% of women) but an even higher Latino vote (39% of men, 32% of women). Both sets of data show Trump losing support from white men slightly. (Which is consistent with pre-election polling.)

Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by AnthonyMouse on Tuesday November 10, 2020 @10:21PM (#25055161)
> This is based on exit polls.

Are there some other measurements based on something else, or is it something we now can never know as a result of mail in ballots having no polling and an expected different statistical distribution?

Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by tptacek on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @12:28AM (#25055748)
Exits aren't great in the best circumstances, but early unweighted exits are widely believed to be almost completely useless.
Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by irrational on Tuesday November 10, 2020 @11:01PM (#25055382)
I suggest looking at states like Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah, etc. that only do mail in voting and see how they measure what used to be measured by exit polls.
Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by dragonwriter on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @03:33AM (#25056589)
> Are there some other measurements based on something else

For 2016 and 2018, Pew had validated voter datasets, based on people in their American Trends Panel who were matched against voter databases and thus known to have voted. Assuming they do the same thing (or some other reputable firm does something similar, or ideally both) for 2020, that would probably be the best data source.

Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by tptacek on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @12:28AM (#25055743)
The votes haven't even been fully counted (NY has barely started with their mail-ins), so the exits aren't weighted yet. There are, so far as I know, no valid takes to be made from current exit data.
Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by joijoiwejrr on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @08:26AM (#25058155)
I posted this elsewhere in the thread but even without exit polls we can make some reasonably solid conclusions from geographical voting data: https://sweep.thedispatch.com/p/the-sweep-dont-trust-the-exi...

At this point it seems pretty clear that Trump made big gains among Latinos compared to 2016; with other demographics the jury is still out (I think.)

Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by tptacek on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @01:24PM (#25061136)
You don't need exits to know that; there were sharp swings towards Trump in majority-Latino south Texas counties.
Re:One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong by awerawerawrjhui on Thursday November 12, 2020 @04:08AM (#25067935)
Um... that's exactly what the post you're replying to says?