How did NPR’s pre-election poll get things so so so wrong? | Hacker News Reader

How did NPR’s pre-election poll get things so so so wrong?

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

24 pointsTomte80 comments

They didn't get it wrong - they were trying to understand if it was a better (or useful) model by carrying out an experiment by adding it to the other polling questions.

It turned out that the model developed from that question was a worse predictor, but that isn't wrong any more than carrying out an experiment that didn't match the expected results is wrong.

That they are coming back and looking at it again is good.

Note also that the people who are asking these questions (good questions, just asked wrong) come from an economic rather than polling background and getting the right wording for a question is very hard.

> It turned out that the model developed from that question was a worse predictor, but that isn't wrong any more than carrying out an experiment that didn't match the expected results is wrong.

I don't know if that's entirely true. From the article:

> Oddly enough, NPR just reported these numbers with a straight face, without saying anything about how off they seemed to be.

Which is to say, they performed an experiment. That experiment failed—which, as you say, is a totally acceptable outcome of an experiment. But when reporting their results, they don't seem to have indicated that (a) what they were reporting on was an experiment, or that (b) the results didn't seem promising, or in line with expectations. Instead, the article implied that they reported the results as if they were meaningful predictions.

Give the transcript a read - https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1134434712

---

FOUNTAIN: ... So, Barbara, we have a question for you.

CARVALHO: Uh-oh.

FOUNTAIN: Would you be willing to let us test one of these methods in one of your polls?

CARVALHO: Oh, sure.

FOUNTAIN: Really?

CARVALHO: Well, if they're - I mean, if they're appropriate, objective, you know, questions, that would be great.

GUO: So here's the exciting news. We worked with Barbara to draft two questions - one, where we ask people to predict the election and another asking them who the folks in their social circles are voting for.

FOUNTAIN: She said she would slip them into a poll Marist is doing before the midterms, run some analyses and let us know how useful they might be for the future of polling.

...

CARVALHO: When we look at who people think that their social contacts are going to vote for, we actually found among registered voters a plus-10 Republican...

GUO: That's a big difference.

CARVALHO: ...And a plus-14 among those who say that they're definitely going to vote. When we look at who they think is most likely to win the election in their district, we see among registered voters a plus-12 Republican.

FOUNTAIN: Wow.

CARVALHO: ...And a definite vote of a plus-16.

FOUNTAIN: The wisdom-of-the-crowds type questions are heavily favoring the Republicans, much more than the standard question, though Barbara is careful to mention that all of this is just preliminary, and the real test is when she puts all this data together and does some analysis. And besides, it's a little hard to figure out which questions are working better on a national poll. But...

GUO: If the election goes more toward the Republicans, is that a little bit more evidence for maybe the usefulness of these questions?

CARVALHO: Absolutely. And so what we will take a look at - and mind you, we're not ending the experiment here.

What might be wrong is 2nd order effects of other people building belief in the question.

Was it made clear in advance it was experimental?

Why would that be important?

trusted party A releases experimental questions which it turns out in hindsight were not good indicators

News agency B publicizes "party A predicts xyz and abc shock horror story the outcome will be C according to party A"

community at large sees outcome D says "party A is not trustable"

the importance here is the 2nd order effect. No amount of post-hoc party A statements "it was an experiment" will alter the change in perception of trust to party A.

> One possibility is that Republican family/friends/coworkers were more public about their political views, compared to Democratic family/friends/coworkers.

I live in the South. You learn very quickly as a Democrat to keep your mouth closed about politics. I know everyone in my life who votes R consistently, but the D's are harder to pin down.

Election polling is even harder than weather forecasting these days. At least cold fronts follow general patterns.

I live in California and it’s the same with the parties switched.

Everyone said the reverse of this when the polling failed in 2016 - that Republicans were afraid to share their political affiliation for fear of being cancelled etc

It's pretty simple. In Democratic areas you don't speak out about being Republican and in Republican areas you don't speak out about being a Democrat. I'm from the South, lived in Oregon and New York for a while, and now live in the South again so I've seen the dynamics play both ways.

Social ostracism is more vicious from Democrats but I've known of Republicans to spread outrageous rumors about Democratic voters and in places like where I grew up, if you're a man, you'll be called gay/pedo and possibly beaten (usually not jumped, but aggressively taunted with slurs until a fight ensues from what I've seen IRL) unless you're well liked for some other reason like that you're well connected, have money, or are really masculine/served in the military.

Overall I'd say it's better to be a Republican in a Democratic area than the opposite since the looming threat of physical violence is worse than people just thinking you're a bad person.

The main reason why Republicans in Democratic areas would have to worry would be if they work in a creative industry where being known as a bigot of some kind would cause people to not like to collaborate with you but even then you're relatively safe as long is you're only bigoted against one of the less protected minority groups like trans people (probably why trans people are the culture war topic du jour).

> where being known as a bigot of some kind would cause people to not like to collaborate with you but even then you're relatively safe as long is you're only bigoted against one of the less protected/liked groups like trans people

Is this some kind of underhanded smear or did you write something other than what you were thinking?

Or did I read it wrong?

The way I read what you write that Republicans are always bigoted, the question is only about how many groups they are bigoted against.

This was my reading as well. As someone who has zero (or even negative) party loyalty but has friends and loved ones all over the spectrum, it's really disappointing to see these kinds of casual assumptions.

Edit: Though maybe a more charitable reading is that whether or not the assumption is fair, you have to acknowledge that people out there do make it, and so republicans would be wise to not advertise their affiliation.

There are many people on the left who belive that since the republican platform these days includes anti gay rights, anti trans rights provisions, and provisions suppressing voting rights for African Americans, that the party is this bigoted and supporting said party is thus a bigoted choice because even if you don't intend to harm marginalized groups supporting Republicans will cause harm to marginalized groups.

By anti trans rights, do you among other things include being against doing irreversable surgeries on vulnerable teens?

> irreversable surgeries on vulnerable teens

In the latest scare about this in Nashville, TN it came out that they were doing about 5 breast reductions a year on trans men who were 16-17 years old. This is a surgery that is commonly performed on cisgender boys who have gynecomastia because, surprise, boys feel awkward about having large breasts. They were only allowed to do this after counseling between them and their parents. Trans men are given these surgeries as minors from time to time because many have a habit of binding their breasts so tightly that they damage their bodies, cracking ribs etc....

Genital surgeries are not performed.

https://apnews.com/article/health-business-tennessee-nashvil...

> On average, VUMC has provided five gender affirming surgeries to minors every year since its transgender clinic opened in 2018. All were over the age of 16 and had parental consent, and none received genital procedures.

In Florida they are attempting to ban SOCIAL transition which is just someone male being able to wear girls' clothes or someone female being able to wear boys' clothes.

https://www.them.us/story/florida-trans-youth-transition-car...

In Tennessee they are attempting to classify "female and male impersonators" alongside strippers as being unfit to be seen in public. The law is vague enough that it would give police leeway to persecute anyone who is gender non-conforming including gay and lesbian people. Anti-crossdressing laws were the main way that gay and lesbian people were harassed up through the 70's FYI and were directly related to the Stonewall uprising.

https://www.advocate.com/law/2022/11/09/bills-introduced-ten...

Even mentioning the existence of transgender adults around children is being legislated against and called "grooming" -- you can't make someone trans any more than you can make them gay so the idea is ridiculous.

When Matt Walsh, a very notable conservative catholic anti transgender activist who works under Ben Shapiro, appeared on Joe Rogan last week he was fact checked after he claimed MILLIONS of kids are being put on puberty blockers. The actual figure, as pointed out on the show, is under 5000 in the past five years. Not even a thousand a year. He recently released an anti transgender film called "What is a Woman?" which leads one to believe that his wildly inaccurate figure was an attempt to enrage Joe Rogan's audience with a lie rather than inform them with the truth. That, or he somehow spent thousands of hours pouring over the topic and still managed to get a basic statistic wrong by two orders of magnitude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2lG7Y_8bVU

Matt Walsh has also said that his goal is for transition to be banned for everyone including adults: https://archive.ph/mi8jc

This all adds up to one obvious conclusion, which is that the talking point you just shared is a scare tactic meant to turn people against supporting the tiny minority of trans people in this country and instead treat them as a danger to themselves and others. It's cruel and misinformed and it won't work in the long run because it's based on irrational hatred, lies and half truths rather than genuine concern about people's wellbeing.

Sadly humanity is susceptible to hate - it is so easy to vilify a marginalized group for cynical power grabbing

By anti trans rights I mean whipping up paranoia about surgeries not actually being done, causing threats to be sent to the hospital where my kid was staying, including a bomb threat that was taking very seriously about a week before my son was admitted for a very serious case of RSV. This is all about things, and I can't stress enough, DIDN'T FUCKING HAPPEN.

I think these claims are hard to quantify one way or another. I've been threatened with violence for not "supporting our troops" in the past. That being said I think a lot of people are keeping their political opinions to themselves out of concern about human resources retaliation.

I think, on average, well informed Democrats tend to perceive well informed Republicans as bigots because the Republican national party platform is unabashedly bigoted toward many minority communities.

Less informed Republicans are perceived in a mix of ways but it's usually a ratio of bigot and rube (for voting against their own best economic and social interests).

Republicans conversely seem to perceive well informed Democrats as ne'er do wells who want to harm their children and destroy civilization by way of sexual immorality, increased criminality and failure to protect the nation/economy while less informed Democrats are seen as immature and naive.

As somebody that lives in a conservation area of Massachusetts (but not that conservative since it's Massachusetts) lemme tell you Republican, MAGA, QANON, and oath keeper supporters have NO hesitation to broadcast their support. In my town where trump's state campaign manager lost by 17 points there were WAY more signs for him then for his opponent.

Do you live in a conservation area where lost qanon, maga, and oath keeper people are gathered to roam the countryside? Are there safaris that are available to view these rare specimen?

> The main reason why Republicans in Democratic areas would have to worry would be if they work in a creative industry where being known as a bigot of some kind would cause people to not like to collaborate with you but even then you're relatively safe as long is you're only bigoted against one of the less protected minority groups like trans people (probably why trans people are the culture war topic du jour).

It's kind of interesting how progressives come up with all this awkward phraseology (e.g. "people experiencing homelessness") to avoid labeling people in certain definitive ways, but then throw that all out the window when they want to slur people they disagree with.

Comparing the term bigot to the term homeless is apples and oranges.

It doesn't make sense to try to soften the stigma of a word like bigot. People who are bigoted enforce cruelty on others.

People who aren't able to acquire shelter for whatever reason: mental health, misfortune, disability... are not visiting cruelty on others but are themselves suffering. The reason why language around such groups changes is to try to decrease social stigma directed at those groups, because older terms may carry cultural baggage e.g. the word "homeless" may evoke imagery of a violent drug addict in the minds of some people which is counter productive to trying to advocate for the group as a whole (it's branding essentially).

Bigots could also use support in that most bigoted people are suffering from their own trauma and projecting that onto out-groups in the form of hatred, mistrust and discrimination but the act of being a bigot should continue to be branded in a negative light.

> It doesn't make sense to try to soften the stigma of a word like bigot. People who are bigoted enforce cruelty on others.

It kind of does, because otherwise you're blocking the path to redemption. Calling someone "homeless" reduces them to that thing and implies it's a permanent identity, but calling someone a "person experiencing homelessness" at least invites the possibility of seeing that experience as temporary.

Also you're talking like being a "bigot" is some kind of objective condition. However, in fact it's highly subjective and the label has been over-applied by various activists in attempts to enforce ideological conformity. If you, random internet person, call someone a bigot, I'm just going interpret it as a meaningless slur against people you disagree with, because you want it to be unacceptable to disagree with you. Any other interpretation needs far more context.

> Also you're talking like being a "bigot" is some kind of objective condition. However, in fact it's highly subjective and the label has been over-applied by various activists in attempts to enforce ideological conformity. If you, random internet person, call someone a bigot, I'm just going interpret it as a meaningless slur against people you disagree with, because you want it to be unacceptable to disagree with you. Any other interpretation needs far more context.

It's not unacceptable to disagree with me personally. It is unacceptable to hold bigoted positions against other people in our society though. It's like if we were roommates in a small apartment together with some other people and you were being a jerk to them so I called you out for being a jerk.... That's not you and I disagreeing, it's me calling you out for being a jerk to our roommates who we're trying to get along with while we all enjoy our lives in this tiny apartment to the best of our abilities.

You do make a good point though. If I wanted to maintain my relationship with said hypothetical roommate I would probably say that they are "being a jerk" rather than call them a jerk outright. So I guess I'll say that well informed Republicans are being bigots. I would love it if they stopped being bigots.

> Calling someone "homeless" reduces them to that thing and implies it's a permanent identity, but calling someone a "person experiencing homelessness" at least invites the possibility of seeing that experience as temporary.

This is an obvious form of virtue signaling. It sends a message that you care … a tiny bit, but only in a meaningless way that distracts from the truly complicated problems facing homeless people and the pathetic attempts to help them.

This whole anecdotal diatribe sounds bigoted and manufactured and presents as an underhanded slant against people from the “South”.

Not everyone said the reverse. And this is too close to "whataboutism" that is typically not in good faith. When you have some legitimately bad leaders on one side, it is hard to take it serious that folks are afraid "of being cancelled" when they are not afraid of the very real harm being threatened by their political affiliation of choice.

When I lived in Redwood City, CA I learned to keep my mouth shut that I was a conservative. If it had gotten out then my job would’ve been under threat, and maybe my own personal safety.

wonder why this is getting downvoted, cause I know people would think differently about me if I said I was conservative, they're all about diversity until you don't agree with them

Seconded. I lived in Texas and learned to keep the peace and blow with the wind. Now, I'm in PNW, I'm similarly unsure how to proceed here. I'd fail any purity test administered.

Fellow PNW’er here. Welcome!

I think it’s actually pretty easy. Look at any county voting map. Prevailing party vote tracks population density without fail. American politics has turned into “The country mouse and the city mouse”.

Besides that, there’s a general sub vibe (e.g. Dog whistle effect) that usually signals the predominant opinion in an area.

No one wants to talk politics in the real world. Now on the internet it's a very different matter.

I'd be a bit more careful to paint such a large region with such a broad brush, there's nuance within. I grew up in the PNW, but lived in Atlanta and East Cobb in my 20's from 2010-2016. I never minded being the person in the room with an opposing viewpoint (and, importantly, never felt like I couldn't/shouldn't be that person), and know plenty of people who vote D consistently.

Agreed on being careful, but I also have to ack that a broad brush works way better than you seem to be implying.

Yes, there is nuance. But, also yes, GA has a runoff happening with a candidate that is bonkers. I am not at all clear I see any nuance helping explain that one.

I’m in the inverse position, a conservative who lives in one of the most progressive counties in the country, and I work in Tech. I’m basically politically agnostic as far as anyone is concerned.

I live in the South. It's nothing like that where I live because I'm in a large city in the South. The Rs are as loud and as proud as the Ds. And then there are a ton of people who are tired of the tribalism and politic ruining friendships and just choose not to care or talk about it. There isn't any fear about it in my corner of the South - we choose those we associate with wisely.

> I live in the South. You learn very quickly as a Democrat to keep your mouth closed about politics. I know everyone in my life who votes R consistently, but the D's are harder to pin down.

That's polarization for you. In other places, it's the exact opposite.

At this point I'm not sure how good polling can be carried out, in terms of data collection methods:

Phone behavior is generationally defined, I'm not sure if the average gen Z'er talks via the phone function of...a phone. It would be much more reasonable to expect an app based communication.

Ask the captain of the SS Boaty McBoatface about polling via internet. It's all polls in an echo chamber and big targets for those that would wish to introduce bias.

Boaty McBoatface doesn't have a captain, it's a robotic autonomous underwater vehicle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface), one of three carried by the RSS Sir David Attenborough, that was initially supposed to get that name, but then... didn't.

“nobody — nobody — was predicting that the Republicans would win by 12 or 16 percentage points.”

An excess 14% thinking republicans will win doesn’t predict a 14% margin, it predicts 14% excess probability that republicans win, by some amount.

Even that I’d be skeptical over though. I think this question is basically measuring which media narrative has become predominant & by how much.

I would say they underestimated the impact of federal abortion ban had on women. I live in Wisconsin and seen it first hand. Women who are struggling financially wanting to vote Republican but they don't and they vote democrat because they have young girls at home and worried about their future and having options. It was a mistake on Republicans part to ban abortion at the federal level. Personally, I'm against abortion and I find it immoral but I also think government shouldn't interfere with women's healthcare.

Republicans never banned abortion at the federal level.

Abortion is not banned at the federal level.

You are playing with semantics. Please look into Dobbs decision.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_H....

"individual states have the authority to regulate access to abortion"

Not the same thing.

You are wrong. Being not a constitutional right doesn't mean it's banned.

It's only "playing with semantics" if that phrase is interchangeable with "actually using the correct words" which I don't think it is.

You said it's banned. It's not. That's not semantics, that's cut and dry.

This is technically correct, but don't forget that Senator Graham had attempted to introduce a federal abortion ban immediately after the Dobbs decision. The threat of a federal abortion ban being implemented by Republicans was no doubt on the minds of many women who voted against them in this election.

> I'm totally against abortion and I find it immoral

I'd recommend in the topic of abortion to not use absolutes, in this case you are also stating you are against abortions in case of rape, when a fetus is missing vital organs (brain, heart, etc.) and so on...

You are right. Wrong choice of words. Thank you.

Excellent point regarding the need to make finer distinctions on the topic.

Also worth mentioning that depending on one's reasons / world view, those distinctions may or may not be significant.

There was not a federal abortion ban. Point to me a law that says abortions are federally illegal.

What was done is a current supreme court reversed a precedent that was created by a older supreme court. Roe v Wade. This precedent should never have been created in the first place, it was a violation of powers. If we want to force states into making it legal then that must be done at a legislative level.

Imagine if the current supreme court just said "nope abortions are illegal because constitution says murder is wrong somewhere and the founders didn't like abortion.". It has just as much merit. Therefore we must ensure they don't have the power. Regardless of whether we consider the result right or wrong.

And if abortion is first on the list of women's reproductive rights to take away, what's next? Affordable access to reliable birth control is currently enjoyed by many voters in this country.

Agreed. It's sad that we are even talking about this and it's even a possibility.

The people replying to you arguing on semantics that abortion is not banned at the federal level are technically correct and conveniently omitting the fact that Senator Graham had attempted to introduce a federal abortion ban after Roe v Wade was overturned. The threat of a federal abortion ban was real, and was certainly on the mind of all the people who voted against the Republican party this election.

Yes. Thank you. I'm not very up to date with politics and what I wrote above is just my observation as a voter.

He may have introduced an abortion ban but the bill never passed and Republicans in Congress never voted for it. The poster above you said Republicans banned abortion at the federal level which is 100% wrong.

Again, this is correct but they've already shown that their intent is to ban abortion at the federal level. You're right that it's not banned right now.

> He may have introduced an abortion ban but the bill never passed and Republicans in Congress never voted for it. The poster above you said Republicans banned abortion at the federal level which is 100% wrong.

Calling that bill an "abortion ban" is misleadingly overstating it. IIRC, it didn't ban all abortions, just those after 16 weeks (after the first trimester?).

So much deception and lies.

Graham introduced a 15-week limit on abortions, not an outright ban: https://www.dailywire.com/news/sen-lindsey-graham-introduces...

15 weeks is similar to the limit in France and most European countries, which lean far more left than the U.S: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe

France only allows abortions up to 14 weeks unless doctors certify the mother's life is a risk. Graham's bill similarly "offers exceptions for rape, incest, and the protection of the life of a mother during pregnancy." And The bill also "prohibits the prosecution of women who seek abortions."

The point is: framing the proposed law as a "ban" is disingenuous because no one thinks abortion is banned in Europe, and yet this law is completely in line with European abortion policy. But dishonest framing is what the democrat party is all about, unfortunately.

The reality is that abortion gets more obviously bad for both humans involved the later the abortion occurs.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/researchers-abortionists-abo...

"That study found that a woman’s risk of death from abortion increased by 38% for each additional week of gestation. Compared to women who underwent abortions at or before eight weeks (two months), women who underwent abortions in the second trimester were found to be “significantly more likely to die of abortion-related causes.” The results showed that “[u]p to 87% of deaths in women who chose to terminate their pregnancies after 8 weeks of gestation may have been avoidable if these women had accessed abortion services before 8 weeks of gestation.”"

And from the baby's perspective:

https://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/late-term-abo...

"a lethal dose of the heart medication Digoxin is injected into the baby’s heart or into the amniotic fluid directly through the woman’s abdomen. (Potassium chloride is infrequently substituted for Digoxin.) Digoxin gives the baby a fatal heart attack."

Not exactly a peaceful or painless way to die! However, the alternative method, dismemberment, is even worse!

https://www.frc.org/dismembermentabortion

If you want to abort, you should do it quickly, both to cut down on your own risks and to limit the pain and suffering of the human whose life you are ending. I would not like to experience death by heart attack or dismemberment either, if I can avoid it. And laws that protect the health of its citizens are clearly in scope. A late-term ban protects the health of adult women. That's one of the reasons these restrictions exist in other parts of the world.

> I don't see you campaigning for liberation of women from the non-existent far-right conservatives in power in France. That's because your FUD has no real foundation. Unfortunately, this tactic works, or it wouldn't be used so often.

I’m not French lmao, I don’t care what the French are doing. It’s not my job to decide what’s right for them.

> So much deception and lies. This is par for the course with the Democrat party, unfortunately.

> I don't know how anyone could support a late-term abortion after learning how the operation is actually performed!

Who is supporting this? Are you implying that I’m supporting this? That sounds like some of that good old FUD you were talking about.

> France only allows abortions up to 14 weeks unless doctors certify the mother's life is a risk. Graham's bill similarly "offers exceptions for rape, incest, and the protection of the life of a mother during pregnancy. The bill also prohibits the prosecution of women who seek abortions."

Are France and the US suddenly the same country or something? What France does is irrelevant.

Here's an obvious idea. One way to measure the efficacy of a law is to compare it to the laws of other similar countries. If almost every country in Europe restrictions abortions by 15 weeks, maybe it should inspire some reflection as to why that may be the case. If you don't think that's relevant, then, well, you're really just being dishonest because you know it's relevant.

And let's not pretend the abortionists think otherwise. When Ireland had banned abortions, activists sent ships there to give abortion services in international waters. What happens in the rest of the world affects everyone indirectly.

> Who is supporting this? Are you implying that I’m supporting this? That sounds like some of that good old FUD you were talking about.

You implied lots of people supported it with this very statement: "was certainly on the mind of all the people who voted against the Republican party this election".

So, no. Nothing I said was FUD at all. Sorry! You lost that one.

> You implied lots of people supported it with this very statement: "was certainly on the mind of all the people who voted against the Republican party this election".

Ah. It was already clear that you weren’t arguing in good faith, but this attempt at twisting my words seals it. At the end of the day, it’s clear from the results of the election that American women and citizens in general have rejected these abortion bans, “limits” and restrictions on their personal freedoms. That is made especially clear in the states that had specific referendums on anti-abortion amendments like Kentucky where they failed overwhelmingly.

Americans do not want Republicans placing restrictions on abortion, no matter what legally irrelevant European countries do or have done. I will not be replying further, have a good day.

You: you aren't arguing in good faith, and you are twisting my words!

You in the next sentence: what you said is 100% correct. I did imply that people don't support limits on late-term abortion, and, in fact, the outcome of the midterms proves my implication!

I seriously wonder what was going through your head when you typed that up. If that's the quality of response you have to offer, then, yes, you should stop replying!

What's the policy in those countries for pregnancies due to rape or incest? Welfare of the mother? Viability of the child? Birth control?

What's the punishment for getting an "illegal" abortion?

If you want to quibble over the frothy middle ground of abortion like we did for the last 50 years, have at it. Many, many actual politicians and candidates floated some very extreme ideas about reproductive freedom.

If you were out there pushing back on everyone saying "life begins at conception" or "death penalty for women who get abortions" then we can talk.

Overturning Roe v. Wade certainly played a part, but I think it was, more generally, moderate Republican and Republican-leaning voters saying that they're not happy with the course the Republican party is on: turning back the clocks by 50 years (not only on abortion - one justice also suggested revisiting other related decisions, e.g. the legality of contraception, same-sex relations and marriage: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/24/clarence-thoma...), picking candidates by their loyalty to Trump rather than their competence and so on.

Is accurate polling a good thing?

It's not clear to me that democracy is helped by knowing what everyone else thinks.

It does not help. It basically serves several purposes:

1) forms a talking point for political speculators in media to get views and clicks

2) used by political strategists to figure out what lies they can tell voters

3) used by political pundits to scare voters into action and lull voters into inaction. “Oh no! The Republican/Democratic red/blue wave is coming!” This discourages voters of the perceived victorious party from voting and encourages voters from the perceived losing party to vote.

This just seems to be a mismatch of expectations. The Republicans won the election in that they are going to have more seats than they did before. People are saying they "lost" because they didn't win as much as people expected. To use a sports analogy, they won the game but didn't cover the spread.

Yes absolutely. In 2010 - Obama's first midterm - republicans gained like 64 seats in the house. It was a massacre for anything with a D next to their name on the ballot, expect in the most solidly blue locales. This was not like that at all. More of a regression to the mean in most places.

> This just seems to be a mismatch of expectations. The Republicans won the election in that they are going to have more seats than they did before. People are saying they "lost" because they didn't win as much as people expected. To use a sports analogy, they won the game but didn't cover the spread.

They under-performed very, very badly. It's like eking out a narrow win because (somehow) the sun was always in your opponents eyes and the wind was always at your back. Sure you got a win, but a win of that magnitude means you suck and will probably lose badly in the future.

They might still get control of the Senate and the House, which is like winning the Super Bowl with a last minute field goal. They’ll take it if it happens and the teams (political talking points) will all be different in 2 years anyway.

Not sure what "there" there is here.

Republicans did not overwhelm but it looks like they will get control of the house. The senate is hanging by a thread. Since Reagan there have always been Democratic senators that vote with the Republicans. Between that and the filibuster, the Democrats would need to control something like 65 seats in the Senate to really say they control the Senate. We'll be in the divided government state which is normal for American politics.

As for "friends and family" I expected my wife to vote Democratic and my son to vote Republican, probably my coworkers to vote Democratic and many of my friends but one long-term friend of mine is the ringleader of the local Republican party. So my answer to that question would be "mu".

There was a lot of hype around a "red wave", not only in the senate but towards election day several governorships where the Democratic governor had a lead completely vanish.

I suspect much of this boils down to pollsters consistently undercounting republican support for several election cycles and over-correcting this time around.

I think that is the point: Polling/Outlets had them getting a massive lead, keep in mind too that this was the worst performance for midterms for the party that does not hold the presidency in a very long time. Usually the party that has the presidency takes a larger share of the house in midterms. The fact that the polling was calling for a "Red Wave" and that the "Red Wave" severely underperformed is the thing that is being investigated now.

538 has been all through this. 538 expected the Senate to be close and for Republicans to win the house, which seems to be the outcome.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-best-tool-for-predi...

It's normal for the president's party to lose some ground in the midterms. Biden's approval numbers were poor which was not good for the dems... but, that's countered by Trumpism being unpopular. Republicans who were sane did pretty well, lunatics like Oz didn't. Trumpism was so toxic that it was a winning strategy for Democrats to promote the worst Republicans in their primaries.

It was the outcome... on a much, much smaller margin that usually happens around this time in the cycle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com