Politico: Shy Clinton Vote?

[ursulahx]

This is already in the polls though no, where you don't know anyone that supports Clinton, even though she does well...

Exactly. I'm very sceptical of a shy anything vote.

The "shy Tory" effect in the 1992 UK general election was enhanced by the fact that the Tories had been in power for 13 years at that point and were generally held to have done some horrendous things, the poll tax being the most prominent. Add to that the natural British reticence to disclose one's true feelings, even to a stranger, and the trap for the pollsters was set.

[ursulahx]

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

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence.

[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.