• 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