Politico: Shy Clinton Vote?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

As someone who's become more vocally in favor of Hillary since the convention, I've noticed a lot more Hillary supporters "coming out", including many former Bernie supporters who never hated her but rather simply preferred Bernie.


But there are definitely many Hillary supporters who keep in to themselves, however like I said many are starting to be a bit more open about it.


Again, this is anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt.

[Badger]

I found out tonight my elderly rural conservative Catholic mother-in-law is voting for Hillary. Probably the first Democrat she's voting for president since Johnson (if that).  My wife doesn't want us to. Bring it up when she visits soon, however, as we aren't supposed to know about it as it's a taboo subject around home in her conservative county.

FWIW.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I do it's more likely to be shy Clinton than shy Trump.

[ursulahx]

Again, this is anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt.

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence.

[Slander and/or Libel]

If the polls end up being "off", then I think it's far more likely to happen because the pollsters did a bad job of constructing their samples that because the poll respondents were untruthful about who they supported.

This is anecdotal, but I wonder sometimes about if it might represent something bigger in constructing samples:

My aunt lives in Virginia and is a devoutly religious person, and a fiercely loyal Republican. But she's not going to be able to bring herself to vote for Trump. Just can't do it. It seems to me likely that people like her, discouraged voters, not ones who have flipped to the other side, are likely to be underrepresented in surveys. I wonder if the demographic weightings have tended to overrepresent Trump support among evangelicals because the evangelicals who respond are those who aren't discouraged this year.

[Adam Griffin]

My mother is a Shy Clinton voter, in large part because she doesn't want to hear her husband bitch and moan. 

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The "shy Clinton vote" extends beyond middle-aged or elderly women: there are loads of shy Clinton supporters among millennials. There's a lot of vitriol that's immediately directed towards any millennial, particularly if they're among white men, for saying anything positive about Clinton so male millennials are inclined to keep their support for Clinton close to the vest. I learned about this inadvertently when I got into a public argument with a Trump supporter and a bunch of white engineering majors, out of the blue, started saying that they prefer Clinton to Trump.

Hillary Clinton is about as maligned as Osama Bin Laden in parts of the country so I'm not surprised that this phenomenon is real...

[Mr. Morden]

The "shy Clinton vote" extends beyond middle-aged or elderly women: there are loads of shy Clinton supporters among millennials. There's a lot of vitriol that's immediately directed towards any millennial, particularly if they're among white men, for saying anything positive about Clinton so male millennials are inclined to keep their support for Clinton close to the vest. I learned about this inadvertently when I got into a public argument with a Trump supporter and a bunch of white engineering majors, out of the blue, started saying that they prefer Clinton to Trump.

Hillary Clinton is about as maligned as Osama Bin Laden in parts of the country so I'm not surprised that this phenomenon is real...

But you're talking about these people's unwillingness to acknowledge Clinton support in social settings.  We don't know if that translates to unwillingness to acknowledge it to pollsters.  I'm skeptical of the idea that we can infer a "shy X" effect for either candidate in the polls before the election.

For that matter, even after the election, if the polls are wrong, how do we determine if it's because people lied to pollsters or because the pollsters did a poor job of creating their samples?  Even if the pollsters get the topline demographic mix "right", there could still be hidden selection effects that prevented them from reaching the "right" kinds of Hispanics, or non-college whites or whatever.

[ursulahx]

But you're talking about these people's unwillingness to acknowledge Clinton support in social settings.  We don't know if that translates to unwillingness to acknowledge it to pollsters.  I'm skeptical of the idea that we can infer a "shy X" effect for either candidate in the polls before the election.

For that matter, even after the election, if the polls are wrong, how do we determine if it's because people lied to pollsters or because the pollsters did a poor job of creating their samples?  Even if the pollsters get the topline demographic mix "right", there could still be hidden selection effects that prevented them from reaching the "right" kinds of Hispanics, or non-college whites or whatever.

This is spot on. I'm highly sceptical of the 'shy voter' effect - even in the '92 UK election it may have been pollster error rather than any social effect. Yet it has become conventional wisdom, without much evidence, that people didn't want to admit voting Tory. I don't think any 'shy voter' effect - even though there is some anecdotal evidence for it on this thread - would make much difference either to the polls or the final result.

[Erc]

The "shy Clinton vote" extends beyond middle-aged or elderly women: there are loads of shy Clinton supporters among millennials. There's a lot of vitriol that's immediately directed towards any millennial, particularly if they're among white men, for saying anything positive about Clinton so male millennials are inclined to keep their support for Clinton close to the vest. I learned about this inadvertently when I got into a public argument with a Trump supporter and a bunch of white engineering majors, out of the blue, started saying that they prefer Clinton to Trump.

Hillary Clinton is about as maligned as Osama Bin Laden in parts of the country so I'm not surprised that this phenomenon is real...

But you're talking about these people's unwillingness to acknowledge Clinton support in social settings.  We don't know if that translates to unwillingness to acknowledge it to pollsters.  I'm skeptical of the idea that we can infer a "shy X" effect for either candidate in the polls before the election.

For that matter, even after the election, if the polls are wrong, how do we determine if it's because people lied to pollsters or because the pollsters did a poor job of creating their samples?  Even if the pollsters get the topline demographic mix "right", there could still be hidden selection effects that prevented them from reaching the "right" kinds of Hispanics, or non-college whites or whatever.

If such an effect exists, it's likely only in live-interview polls (where you are talking out loud to a human) rather than in robopolls or internet polling.  Obviously, the latter two have their fair share of even worse systematic issues, so it would be hard to disentangle regardless.

If there are such effects, it's again likely among married women, or among "Don't Know" voters who will ultimately vote Clinton on election day.

[Mr. Morden]

If such an effect exists, it's likely only in live-interview polls (where you are talking out loud to a human) rather than in robopolls or internet polling.  Obviously, the latter two have their fair share of even worse systematic issues, so it would be hard to disentangle regardless.

Right.  People often suggest the "Shy X" theory whenever there's a discrepancy between live phone polls and robo-polls/internet polls.  The implication then is that we should believe the latter over the former, because people will lie to human beings but not to robots.  Except....there's no evidence that robo-polls and internet polls are more accurate than live phone polls.  If anything, the evidence runs in the other direction.

[pbrower2a]

Many women are likely to vote for Clinton and tell their husbands that they voted for Trump just to keep some household peace.

Anti-feminist male against a feminist woman... 

[Mr. Morden]

Should also note that the article linked in the OP doesn't say anything to indicate that there's a "Shy Clinton vote".  It's the opposite: The article says that there are educated women who won't tell their friends and families that they support Clinton.  And the evidence they use is.....polls.  That is, they're assuming that the polls are right, meaning that people are being truthful when they talk to pollsters.  But that they're not always being truthful when they talk to people in real life.

[Wolves]

my theories are coming true people! The shy Clinton vote may give us a truly beautiful landslide, folks!

It will not. There is no shy Clinton vote contary to popular belief. Ask anyone, Clinton voters will proudly say they are voting Clinton.

They just don't show interest in her as a person, they don't care, she's not someone who can motivate and inspire people, she's a bad leader

Her rally performance proves this, it doesnt correlate with her polls, her decent polls show people aren't scared to admit they're voting for her. She just isn't interesting. It's fact.

[mencken]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Looks like it was not the Clinton vote that was shy among college-educated white women.

[Skill and Chance]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Looks like it was not the Clinton vote that was shy among college-educated white women.

Since we have had exit polls, Democrats have pretty consistently done better when the gender gap in the vote is smaller.  For some reason, it is easier for Republicans to win men in a blowout than vice versa. 

[Pericles]

WHY! WHY COULDN'T THIS HAVE BEEN TRUE!!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Heh. I was right.