Fucking NPR goddammit.
The survey of almost 9,000 voters was conducted in the weeks after the 2024 presidential election.
You don’t see any problems with that?
This study is conducted using the Pew research American Trends Panel which is roughly 10,000 people around the US. Invitation is sent by mail. From this pool they randomly select participants for the study. While this panel is meant to be representative we must ask ourselves what kind of person is signing up for the Pew research American Trends Panel. Especially because invitation sent through physical mail. Full info in case I misread something
quoted study methods
For this study, we surveyed U.S. adults on our nationally representative American Trends Panel (ATP). We verified their turnout using commercial voter files that aggregate publicly available official state turnout records. The first analysis of validated voters was completed after the 2016 election. Turnout was validated for subsequent elections in 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2024. Each state and the District of Columbia compiles these publicly available turnout records as part of their routine election administration.
To validate 2024 election turnout, we attempted to match adult citizens who are part of the ATP to a turnout record in at least one of three commercial voter files: one that serves conservative and Republican organizations and campaigns, one that serves progressive and Democratic organizations and campaigns, and one that is nonpartisan.
A member of the ATP is considered a validated voter for a given election if they:
Told us they voted, and Were recorded as having voted in at least one of the three commercial voter files.Those who said they did not vote in an election are considered nonvoters. Nonvoters also include anyone – regardless of their self-reported vote – for whom we could not locate a voting record in any of the three commercial voter files. Those who could not be matched were also considered nonvoters. Overall, 94% of panelists who we attempted to match were successfully matched to at least one of the three voter files.
The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other factors. For benchmarks of partisan affiliation within racial and ethnic categories, we used estimates produced by the Center’s 2023-24 Religious Landscape Study of more than 36,000 adults. In addition, this survey is weighted to benchmarks for voter turnout and presidential vote preference.
Thank you, I was questioning the results too, and your info perfectly illustrates why. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that the most difficult eligible voters to predict are the kind of people who don’t check their mail, don’t sign up for research surveys, and don’t want to tell you who they’d vote for. Eligible non-voters didn’t care enough to vote, so why would they cast a ballot with Pew research?
Maybe they saw trump as the lesser evil.
This is why it will take decades to undo the damage to the reputation of the United States on the world stage.
The world cannot count on Americans to vote for sanity.
Considered how many countries was couped or bombed by the united snakes, the reputation ahould have been so low for decades
I think it was pretty perceptive of people that they can notice us being trapped in a slow decline and voting for chaos to get us off this path for better or worse.
Same thing happened in 2016. When people are disillusioned they vote for change, when the Democrats don’t offer positive change then they vote for the Republicans who always cause negative change.
From the outside looking in, I’m waiting for evidence that Americans want to scrub fascism out of their politics.
I’m not optimistic.
The problem is the people voting for the fascists don’t see it as that and are told by their chosen propaganda outlets that it isn’t fascism, it’s actually the people on the other side who want to do such horrible horrible things like: provide access to affordable childcare. Gasp!
There’s also a lack of understanding of the concept of fascism as related to corporate subservience which a lot of Democrats could be guilty of as well. Unfortunately the shitforbrains SCOTUS ruled corporations are people, money is political speech, and a person’s political speech can’t be limited: unlimited spending for campaigns.
Even if people are misinformed or don’t understand the concept of fascism, they still voted for a rapist. If you vote for a rapist, you are a bad person. You can’t spin it any other way. Rape isn’t that difficult to understand.
Thats the thing about misinformation/disinformation, they’re made to believe he didn’t rape anyone and that it’s all a “witch hunt.” These people think he’s gods gift to the earth and that everything he does is correct, that the only arguments against him are lies made by people who want him to be stopped. If they knew it as fact and still voted for him, then yeah they’re garbage people for sure.
My father for example, I cannot get one single thing through his head if fox news or Newsmax didn’t say it. He still believes they never deport anyone who isn’t a violent criminal. Any article I could show him that says otherwise is “a lie.” He’s brainwashed to believe Republicans are the saviours, the Democrats are the ultimate evil, and the media is largely behind protecting Democrats by lying about everything… :(
That’s tough. I would be devastated if my parents chose to believe some propaganda ‘news’ channel over what the sons they raised had to say.
It’s definitely frustrating. He’s one of those “I’m always right” types and the propaganda is just confirmation bias for him, so if it reenforces something he already wants to believe. It’s “I’m right, and they back it up with their “facts” on Fox, so obviously it’s correct.”
Honestly most of us live in a mirror reality. We see “them” as misinformed and brainwashed, and they see us in exactly the same way. He won’t believe me because he believes I’m just misinformed.
Oh, the rest of the world sees sees the wilful ignorance, and the considerable funds that go into entrenching it.
We also see that Americans don’t consider the above to be sufficient reason to show up to vote against heavy handed social engineering designed to harm them.
The rest of the world is at the mercy of every fucking American election cycle, left with fading hope that Americans will pull their heads out of their asses.
Hopefully they isolate themselves so much that the rest of the world will be influenced less by their election cycle.
It’s that pesky superpower detail that complicates matters.
Just remember information can be manipulated to say anything you want.
Just a reminder that it is, in fact, possible for the claim to be true as well.
Information… And people.
A lot of people that voted for Trump probably wouldn’t actually want what he actually brought to the table, but through decades of neo-lib propaganda and ignorance to non economical issues and general right wing media extreme bias thought it was “the right choice”
If find it’s a bigger problem when people are presented with valid credible data and then still refuse to accept reality.
This thread consists of people in denyal about a survey that was conducted by the most credible organization that could have done it.
Pretty sure most poling data has been “adjusted” to fit the narrative of the oligarchy at this point. Think for yourselves kids.
Idk. I want to agree, but that’s how we got Qanon. Thinking for yourself without data is just inviting biases to control what you believe to be true.
I want it to be true that America would not have actually chosen Trump, but the older I get the more I see, the more I realize we’re surrounded by severely under informed, misinformed, disinformed, igorant, selfish, people. The moment nuance is required to actually understand a situation, you can bet it won’t be. :(
There is lots of data though. Trump had absolutely nothing and got laughed out of courts by judges he appointed.
I want it to be true that America would not have actually chosen Trump, but the older I get the more I see, the more I realize we’re surrounded by severely under informed, misinformed, disinformed, igorant, selfish, people. The moment nuance is required to actually understand a situation, you can bet it won’t be. :(
By design, unfortunately :(
There is a difference between attesting that people wouldn’t have voted for Trump and attesting that this survey does not prove anything. The latter seems to be the only thing we can deduce here.
Reminder, QANON started on the internet as a joke making fun of Republicans.
Is that true? I thought it was from the people who ran 8chan?
It started on 4Chan and then moved to 8Chan. It is pretty much impossible to know if it was the same person on each site.
Both are correct
This was the Pew Research Center, the most credible polling organization in the US, and in the article it explains how they compensate for potential biases.
They even surveyed 9 times the usual sample size to make sure this was a legitimate trend.
The article is from NPR, the most credible news outlet in the US.
People need to snap out of this denial that the US didn’t willingly vote in a fascist because we were sick of stagnation
the most credible news outlet in the US
The most credible corporate-funded media outlet in the US.
You intentionally misread, that’s so fucking disrespectful.
The Pew Research Center is not a news organization, and is controlled by a nonprofit.
“The Pew Charitable Trusts is an independent non-profit, non-governmental organization (NGO), founded in 1948.”
If you would like to name a more credible US based polling org i challenge you to do so, i haven’t seen one.
The article is from NPR, the most credible news outlet in the US.
the most credible news outlet in the US
The most credible corporate-funded media outlet in the US.
You intentionally misread, that’s so fucking disrespectful.
The Pew Research Center is not a news organization, and is controlled by a nonprofit.
I don’t think they misread or were disrespectful.
But what if the data itself is the problem? The Rockland county tampering case may show that the voting machines did not report the actual vote. In that case, we have very good analysis of incorrect data.
These were bias controlled groups of voters and non voters, this has nothing to do with voting machines
The article is from NPR, the most credible news outlet in the US.
No.
This was the Pew Research Center, the most credible polling organization in the US
The most credible car wash is still just a car wash. It’s not magic. Polls get it wrong all the time. 9,000 chosen respondents is as many people as there were in the local grocery store between 8am-5pm. It’s nothing. Yeah they fixed it with math, sure. Because they have all the variables and every one is dead-on. No.
People need to snap out of this denial that the US didn’t willingly vote in a fascist because we were sick of stagnation
What
Polling is not the result, and doesn’t explain the discrepancies in the data.
Data is all fine and dandy, but these datasets are created from a very small control group. When is the last time you picked up the phone from a random unknown or unlisted phone? I haven’t gotten one of these calls in well over 20 years. The only people answering these are those who still have landlines or don’t care to screen out these mubers. These are the same people that are constantly falling for phone scams and losing their savings.
Polling data may as well be the bible. While it is all fine and dandy on the outside, someone in the back room has carefully adjusted content to fit their own needs and goals.
The control group is 9 times larger than when they usually do these surveys.
Sample size is not an issue, learn to accept reality
“Most credible polling organization in the US” means just about nothing these days, in my opinion.
Well your opinion is wrong.
They are as credible as the Associated Press.
So you deny that political polls have been increasingly incorrect over the last three election cycles?
You being incapable of accepting valid data has nothing to do with what you typed.
If you can’t accept reality then you’re going to find yourself making the same mistakes as Republicans.
I’m not saying that they manipulated results or anything, I only think their method of mailing 10,000 people wasn’t thorough enough to draw the conclusion they drew.
It barely matters in the end—the golden turd won.
Well this is the most official data we get every election year about the political leanings of non voters.
And eveelection year before 2024 they were able to get accurate results with just 1,000 surveys. There’s even an except that they got 9x the sample size to excessively make sure they were accurate.
Most people vote on vibes - that’s what the data always shows. They follow their peers, community, maybe a trusted authority figure. They are not, and have never been informed on issues, and they aren’t interested in learning more about them. I think those of us who do try to stay informed fall into the trap of thinking “if these folks were only better educated about this issue they would vote differently”. But that has never been and will never be true. Gotta project better vibes, baby!
The more charismatic candidate wins almost every time. The parties and candidates already analyzed which issues will get them the votes, they have whole teams breaking down which positions poll the best in which county.
The actual result is based on which candidate voters would rather have a beer with. The elections are mostly decided by swing voters. Swing voters don’t have strong opinions on the issues which is why they are swing voters
Swing voters are not really the sole political deciders. They matter extra because they effectively count as two votes, but base turnout is often a larger effect than the actual swing voters.
About 15% of Biden’s voters did not vote, 5% switched to Trump and 1% voted for someone else. That’s compared to 11% of 2020 Trump voters, who sat it out, 3% who switched to Harris and 1% who went for someone else.
So of 2020 voters, Harris lost a net 4% to the couch and 2% to switching. You can count the switchers twice because they were a lost vote for Harris and a gained vote for Trump, so that’s basically a wash. Trump then won a net 1% of people who didn’t vote in 2020 (which coincidentally is roughly the same size as an individual candidate’s 2020 voters). So doing better with any of those groups could have swung the election.
Exactly - this is a pretty good overview of the idea and the research behind it. We’ve always wanted to believe that people are fundamentally rational beings but it just isn’t true lol.
Sort of - but that view treats all communication as equal and valid, and it ain’t.
I do wonder whether the story here is that the non-voting population largely mirrors the popular vote. This was the first time in their survey the Republican won the popular vote and the first time their non-voting respondents went toward the Republican candidate.
Which isn’t entirely surprising, as both that’s probably driving the vibes and many non-voters are not apolitical, but just don’t vote because their elections are not competitive.
“The only correct study pew has ever done.” - Trump
How could they have gotten this information without literally asking everyone in the country?
Statistics is hard.
I’m just saying that a good chunk of nonvoters have never voted, so there is no preexisting pattern to predict what they would do. For the last 4 elections, the polls have been largely incorrect. It just seems like a massive assumption to say if every single person voted, he still would have won, particularly when you consider the statistical anomalies in the swing states this last election.
The polls said 48% tie with a 3% error margin
It ended up 49.8% to 48.3% which is within the error margin
https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2024/11/13/were-2024-election-polls-wrong-ucr-expert-weighs
The sample size for this survey was 9 times more than usual.
This is accurate data.
Right, but that is a survey of the type of people who answer surveys. I have to wonder how many people who don’t bother to vote also do bother to answer surveys about voting.
Pretty sure an organization like Pew knows how yes l to handle the most basic challenges with polling (self-selection bias of those who answer polls). There are validated, proven ways to address those issues with a large enough sample size and specific methods for how and who they poll.
And yet they are still regularly wrong. Because statistics are probability, not certainty.
Pretty sure means don’t know.
I grew up on pew data; I was disappointed years ago when they stopped using face to face interviews.
Later, I could not get a good answer about how they dealt with the scam epidemic the last few years
I’m beginning to think most polling companies in the USA have serious flaws in their methodology because of changes in the last few years, and they’re not going back to in person questions.
But these are institutions now in the USA, so most people assume they know what they are doing.
I’m beginning to think most polling companies in the USA have serious flaws in their methodology because of changes in the last few years, and they’re not going back to in person questions.
This, exactly.
There’s no real solution for selection bias if you don’t have other respondents of that group. With something like race or education, you have their demographics and can upsample those that do respond. But it the group is specifically defined by not wanting to respond to polls and that comes with biases to the poll questions, you don’t have anything to upsample.
Now whether such a group is really a distinct entity out there that can’t be kind of approximated by people who share other traits is the question. If white conservatives have a spectrum of trust in pollsters and the non-responders would just answer questions the same you’re fine. But it those with low trust are also more anti-vax or some sort of distinct population like an insular community, you couldn’t just approximate them with people who did respond.
So do you have any evidence to imply that willingness to respond to a survey has anything to do with political orientation?
https://www.surveylegend.com/customer-insight/generational-differences-in-surveys/
A quick google search shows that there are massive differences in how willing different generations are to respond to surveys, especially relating to how they are delivered. 40% of gen-z will abandon a survey if they are asked for personally identifying information.
Another user in this thread mentioned that this particular survey was delivered by mail, which means that this was only able to reach people with a mailing address, who actually read non essential mail, and who are willing to respond to this survey.
I agree that being young makes you less likely to RESPOND to a survey.
What we are talking about is the results of a survey that shows you it compensated for that bias by making sure they reached enough people in every demographic on all parts of the political spectrum.
They are reaching enough genz to know the genz opinion, i promise you, if you need it proven to you please go to the paper and read the methodology for the survey
I have yet to understand how surveys compensate for most people ignoring unknown phone calls or texts. The ones who do answer are not representative of the total population.
I know some of people who were hit by scam surveys the last year, which are common too. Those scams scare some people away even from snail mail invites.
I think until these methods explained slowly, in small words, I am going to assume this is biased to older and more gullible , those who drift towards Trump.
This one has a pre-cleared set of respondents who want to take polls.
Which is weird. But then math makes it good. Trust us, bro.
When I tried to find out the process for getting on a list like that, earlier, i found out it involved at least partially cold calling.
I think the survey companies are compensating for people answering less, by using complex models they keep as trade secrets . It’s not an easy process to understand even with complete openness and transparency. And it’s impossible for an outsider to verify.
Statistics is barely applicable.
That doesn’t stop everyone from doing it 100% quantitatively though.
You really don’t need to survey many people to get statistically significant results, assuming your sample is truly random. For a population of 340 million, you only need to randomly sample ~2500 people to get a 95% confidence interval with a 2% margin of error.
A sample of 9000 people would get you closer to a 99%+ confidence interval.
Does a pre-cleared set of volunteers who willingly gave their demographic information in order to participate in online polls count as a random sample?
I don’t know how participants in polls are selected, so I’m not really qualified to make assumptions about it.
The methodolgy section of their site lays it all out. It’s a selling point. And no, it’s not random.
And no, it’s not random.
In that case, the data is practically meaningless :D
Well that’s the thing. Do meaningless things make the national news everyday in October? Yes. And here we are in June. They’re gonna throw more money at us until we forget about 2016. And since that’s not going to happen, it’s all this.
