• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    A bigger issue than MOE is structural bias.

    Here is FL 2020:

    Dem’s face a self-imposed structural disadvantage in both inter and intrastate models.

    R+3 in FL should be read more accurately as R+6 or R+7 based on the best most recent structural bias measurement we have. The article is weekend whacking material.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      That’s assuming the polling error goes the same way. That’s not a given at all especially as many pollsters have made methodology changes such as some doing much heavier rural sampling

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        You should base it on the data we have. The data we have says the polling bias for FL leans +3-4 for Republicans.

        You dont get to just “wish” it were some other way and base expectations around that.

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Polling error has historically moved in inconsistent direction. Data goes back further than 2020. In 2012, Democrats were underestimated in florida by ~2 points. Romney was up 1.5% in Florida poll average vs Obama winning Florida by 0.9%

          Assuming it certain to go that way is not a given either. My point is that you cannot be certain about it

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            My point is that you cannot be certain about it

            Yeah and thats not really a point. Everything has uncertainty. We have to and do make judgements in the face of uncertainty of reality all the time.

            If you choose to live in a fact based reality rather, this is the thing we have.

            • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              That’s not how your earlier comments are phrased. The earlier comments declare that this is a given structural bias and that it will always exist. How is entirely ignoring the 2012 election any more real than saying we can’t be sure?

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                declare that this is a given structural bias and that it will always exist

                You just lack reading comprehension. The previous comments said, “the last most recent estimate of structural bias”, which was Trump v Biden 2020.

                I get it. You’ve got an axe to grind.

                • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  My response was more so to the “you don’t get to ‘wish’” part. It could go the same way, it could not. It’s not consistent year to year. Assuming it is when long term data does not support that, isn’t helpful

                  Over the long term, there is no meaningful partisan statistical bias in polling. All the polls in our data set combine for a weighted average statistical bias of 0.3 points toward Democrats. Individual election cycles can have more significant biases — and, importantly, it usually runs in the same direction for every office — but there is no pattern from year to year

                  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/weve-updated-our-pollster-ratings-ahead-of-the-2020-general-election/

                  No where am I claiming that Harris definitely will necessarily be underestimated, I am saying it is possible. Or perhaps even just underestimated by less. Dismissing the possibility out of hand by N=1 is what I am responding to