Has anyone else found following the polls less enjoyable than in past elections?

[IceSpear]

Yes, I know it's funny there's a poll attached to this.

So this is the fifth major election cycle I've followed polls for, and it's been by far the worst. I think there's two main reasons:

Junk polls: They seem to be reaching new heights this year. I mean really, it's the week before the election, we should be getting tons of valuable data to digest like in past cycles. Instead we're getting inundated with junk from low-tier to outright laughable pollsters such as ARG, Reuters, Gravis, Emerson, Susquehanna, random pollsters nobody's heard of with obvious sh*t results, partisan hack pollsters, incompetent uni polls, incompetent online polls, junky 50 state polls that are never consistent or pass the smell test, etc. That's not to say they didn't exist before, they certainly did, but they actually seem to be INCREASING while the decent pollsters are sharply DECREASING.

FiveThirtyEight/Nate Silver: What was once an oasis of rationality and objective analysis has now become a foul swamp of lame punditry, hot takes, weasel words, and so much hedging that basically every article ends with some form of "or...we could be totes wrong! who really knows? LOLZ!" Nate has apparently come full circle from 2012, embracing his inner Dean Chambers and unskewing like a madman. Considering how much he unskews, you'd expect him to have at least some standards for what polling gets entered, right? Oh, certainly not. Take comfort that every single Google Consumer Survey "poll" that shows Trump cracking 25% in DC, Hillary only getting 19% in Alabama, Trump getting demolished in Kansas, and Hillary winning New Hampshire by a larger margin than Maryland will be entered. His model, supposedly so "sophisticated", couldn't even figure out how to hedge against a SINGLE junky Rhode Island poll from Emerson, instead launching it straight into battleground status.

Also, these two events tie in to each other. The focus on aggregation and models like 538 have decreased the incentive for individual pollsters to bother, leaving us with the junk stew we currently have now. But luckily, Nate will be hoisted by his own petard, because "garbage in, garbage out."

And before some Swedish Trump supporter makes a lame comment, I don't say this simply because the polls are tightening and I'm "scared" or whatever. You didn't see me constantly gloating during the post Pussygrabber landslide polls either, because most were still junky. Even in 2010 when it was an obvious GOP landslide, or 2012 after Romney surged and the race was a dead heat, it was a lot more fun to follow. Also, the fact that we're left with this crap leaves me even less certain of the election outcome than I normally would be, probably a reason I've been somewhat less optimistic than many of the other red avatars here.

Thoughts?

[Meclazine for Israel]

It's my first time following a US election online.

The best part is watching how nervous Democratic people get about the possibility of Trump getting in.

The polls would make 71% of the people on this forum extremely less enjoyable.

[Xing]

I agree completely, and there have also been relatively fewer polls, forcing us to mostly guess where they stand. Can you imagine getting only one or two polls from certain swing states in the final two weeks of the 2012 election? (We've gotten so few Iowa polls recently) It's much harder to just use the RCP average to predict a state when the most recent three polls are spread out over more than a month. Not to mention RCP leaves out certain polls.

I think the dominance of social media also plays a role. Because of this, certain poll results spread like wildfire, and become part of the narrative of the race, while others are largely ignored.

I also agree that this is a much tougher election to predict, as a result. While I'm confident predicting that Hillary will win, I can't categorically rule out a Trump win, and I think a very large Clinton win is also possible. There are easily 6-7 states that I'm very unsure of. In 2012, there were only 3 states that I felt even slightly uneasy about predicting, and only one (FL) that I thought was a complete coin flip. Don't get me started on Senate or Gubernatorial races, either. I feel like I could easily get a total of 15-20 statewide calls wrong this year.

[Liberalrocks]

Yes, I know it's funny there's a poll attached to this.

So this is the fifth major election cycle I've followed polls for, and it's been by far the worst. I think there's two main reasons:

Junk polls: They seem to be reaching new heights this year. I mean really, it's the week before the election, we should be getting tons of valuable data to digest like in past cycles. Instead we're getting inundated with junk from low-tier to outright laughable pollsters such as ARG, Reuters, Gravis, Emerson, Susquehanna, random pollsters nobody's heard of with obvious sh*t results, partisan hack pollsters, incompetent uni polls, incompetent online polls, junky 50 state polls that are never consistent or pass the smell test, etc. That's not to say they didn't exist before, they certainly did, but they actually seem to be INCREASING while the decent pollsters are sharply DECREASING.

FiveThirtyEight/Nate Silver: What was once an oasis of rationality and objective analysis has now become a foul swamp of lame punditry, hot takes, weasel words, and so much hedging that basically every article ends with some form of "or...we could be totes wrong! who really knows? LOLZ!" Nate has apparently come full circle from 2012, embracing his inner Dean Chambers and unskewing like a madman. Considering how much he unskews, you'd expect him to have at least some standards for what polling gets entered, right? Oh, certainly not. Take comfort that every single Google Consumer Survey "poll" that shows Trump cracking 25% in DC, Hillary only getting 19% in Alabama, Trump getting demolished in Kansas, and Hillary winning New Hampshire by a larger margin than Maryland will be entered. His model, supposedly so "sophisticated", couldn't even figure out how to hedge against a SINGLE junky Rhode Island poll from Emerson, instead launching it straight into battleground status.

Also, these two events tie in to each other. The focus on aggregation and models like 538 have decreased the incentive for individual pollsters to bother, leaving us with the junk stew we currently have now. But luckily, Nate will be hoisted by his own petard, because "garbage in, garbage out."

And before some Swedish Trump supporter makes a lame comment, I don't say this simply because the polls are tightening and I'm "scared" or whatever. You didn't see me constantly gloating during the post Pussygrabber landslide polls either, because most were still junky. Even in 2010 when it was an obvious GOP landslide, or 2012 after Romney surged and the race was a dead heat, it was a lot more fun to follow. Also, the fact that we're left with this crap leaves me even less certain of the election outcome than I normally would be, probably a reason I've been somewhat less optimistic than many of the other red avatars here.

Thoughts?

Couldn't agree more. Nate seems to not focus much on early voting in his analysis of certain battlegrounds.

[NOVA Green]

Yes----

I do believe however that the polling industry is having a very difficult time adjusting to changes in technology and a dramatic increase in non-responsiveness in all forms, that makes their jobs much more difficult than has been the case in any previous election cycle since not only is it more difficult to get an accurate sample of real voters, but additionally RV/LV models add an even more volatility, to what was already an imprecise science.

[pikachu]

I haven't read 538 regularly since 2012, but I agree that the polls just seem so bad this cycle. All the big-name ones seem to put out polls less regularly, and somehow all of these universities and random firms have gotten the money to commission shi**y polls. It's unrelated, but it also doesn't help that Atlas has declined in quality since 2012, and the 2016 board has managed to become an even bigger cesspool than 2012. Makes the entire experience much more unpleasant imo.

[cinyc]

No.  The Atlas Google Survey experiments have made polling more interesting, not less. We actually get to see and weight raw data, which we were never able to do in the past. That has made my enjoyment and understanding of polling and hatred of decimals greater.

[BlueSwan]

Yes, I know it's funny there's a poll attached to this.

So this is the fifth major election cycle I've followed polls for, and it's been by far the worst. I think there's two main reasons:

Junk polls: They seem to be reaching new heights this year. I mean really, it's the week before the election, we should be getting tons of valuable data to digest like in past cycles. Instead we're getting inundated with junk from low-tier to outright laughable pollsters such as ARG, Reuters, Gravis, Emerson, Susquehanna, random pollsters nobody's heard of with obvious sh*t results, partisan hack pollsters, incompetent uni polls, incompetent online polls, junky 50 state polls that are never consistent or pass the smell test, etc. That's not to say they didn't exist before, they certainly did, but they actually seem to be INCREASING while the decent pollsters are sharply DECREASING.

FiveThirtyEight/Nate Silver: What was once an oasis of rationality and objective analysis has now become a foul swamp of lame punditry, hot takes, weasel words, and so much hedging that basically every article ends with some form of "or...we could be totes wrong! who really knows? LOLZ!" Nate has apparently come full circle from 2012, embracing his inner Dean Chambers and unskewing like a madman. Considering how much he unskews, you'd expect him to have at least some standards for what polling gets entered, right? Oh, certainly not. Take comfort that every single Google Consumer Survey "poll" that shows Trump cracking 25% in DC, Hillary only getting 19% in Alabama, Trump getting demolished in Kansas, and Hillary winning New Hampshire by a larger margin than Maryland will be entered. His model, supposedly so "sophisticated", couldn't even figure out how to hedge against a SINGLE junky Rhode Island poll from Emerson, instead launching it straight into battleground status.

Also, these two events tie in to each other. The focus on aggregation and models like 538 have decreased the incentive for individual pollsters to bother, leaving us with the junk stew we currently have now. But luckily, Nate will be hoisted by his own petard, because "garbage in, garbage out."

And before some Swedish Trump supporter makes a lame comment, I don't say this simply because the polls are tightening and I'm "scared" or whatever. You didn't see me constantly gloating during the post Pussygrabber landslide polls either, because most were still junky. Even in 2010 when it was an obvious GOP landslide, or 2012 after Romney surged and the race was a dead heat, it was a lot more fun to follow. Also, the fact that we're left with this crap leaves me even less certain of the election outcome than I normally would be, probably a reason I've been somewhat less optimistic than many of the other red avatars here.

Thoughts?

I generally agree, but I will add that the absolute main reason why I have found it less enjoyable this time around, is because of the deep existential angst that the idea of a potential Trump presidency provokes in me. It is not even "just" about the fear of Trump starting a nuclear war either. It is about my entire belief in democracy and western civilization. I teach political science at a danish high school and I'm not sure I can go on doing that if Trump wins. You need to have some amount of faith in democracy and human sanity to do that or it would just be an exercise in disillusionment.

[SPQR]

Yes, I know it's funny there's a poll attached to this.

So this is the fifth major election cycle I've followed polls for, and it's been by far the worst. I think there's two main reasons:

Junk polls: They seem to be reaching new heights this year. I mean really, it's the week before the election, we should be getting tons of valuable data to digest like in past cycles. Instead we're getting inundated with junk from low-tier to outright laughable pollsters such as ARG, Reuters, Gravis, Emerson, Susquehanna, random pollsters nobody's heard of with obvious sh*t results, partisan hack pollsters, incompetent uni polls, incompetent online polls, junky 50 state polls that are never consistent or pass the smell test, etc. That's not to say they didn't exist before, they certainly did, but they actually seem to be INCREASING while the decent pollsters are sharply DECREASING.

FiveThirtyEight/Nate Silver: What was once an oasis of rationality and objective analysis has now become a foul swamp of lame punditry, hot takes, weasel words, and so much hedging that basically every article ends with some form of "or...we could be totes wrong! who really knows? LOLZ!" Nate has apparently come full circle from 2012, embracing his inner Dean Chambers and unskewing like a madman. Considering how much he unskews, you'd expect him to have at least some standards for what polling gets entered, right? Oh, certainly not. Take comfort that every single Google Consumer Survey "poll" that shows Trump cracking 25% in DC, Hillary only getting 19% in Alabama, Trump getting demolished in Kansas, and Hillary winning New Hampshire by a larger margin than Maryland will be entered. His model, supposedly so "sophisticated", couldn't even figure out how to hedge against a SINGLE junky Rhode Island poll from Emerson, instead launching it straight into battleground status.

Also, these two events tie in to each other. The focus on aggregation and models like 538 have decreased the incentive for individual pollsters to bother, leaving us with the junk stew we currently have now. But luckily, Nate will be hoisted by his own petard, because "garbage in, garbage out."

And before some Swedish Trump supporter makes a lame comment, I don't say this simply because the polls are tightening and I'm "scared" or whatever. You didn't see me constantly gloating during the post Pussygrabber landslide polls either, because most were still junky. Even in 2010 when it was an obvious GOP landslide, or 2012 after Romney surged and the race was a dead heat, it was a lot more fun to follow. Also, the fact that we're left with this crap leaves me even less certain of the election outcome than I normally would be, probably a reason I've been somewhat less optimistic than many of the other red avatars here.

Thoughts?

I generally agree, but I will add that the absolute main reason why I have found it less enjoyable this time around, is because of the deep existential angst that the idea of a potential Trump presidency provokes in me. It is not even "just" about the fear of Trump starting a nuclear war either. It is about my entire belief in democracy and western civilization. I teach political science at a danish high school and I'm not sure I can go on doing that if Trump wins. You need to have some amount of faith in democracy and human sanity to do that or it would just be an exercise in disillusionment.

I think that the combination of terrible polling, terrible "unbiased forecasting" by Silver (who simply goes on and on to say how bullish he is on Trump with respect to other forecasters), and the absolutely terrifying idea of Trump being president are making this election extremely unpleasant.

[Kalimantan]

Polling has just become another example of things in our world that exist to make money rather than provide objectivity,  fact, truth or be a service to the public at large. There are still pollsters that strive for accuracy,  but they are in a sea of companies who are out to make money, truth be damned.

There will be a result, but firms who got it wrong won't be ppunished because they made money out of being wrong and they will continue to do so

[ursulahx]

Yes, I know it's funny there's a poll attached to this.

So this is the fifth major election cycle I've followed polls for, and it's been by far the worst. I think there's two main reasons:

Junk polls: They seem to be reaching new heights this year. I mean really, it's the week before the election, we should be getting tons of valuable data to digest like in past cycles. Instead we're getting inundated with junk from low-tier to outright laughable pollsters such as ARG, Reuters, Gravis, Emerson, Susquehanna, random pollsters nobody's heard of with obvious sh*t results, partisan hack pollsters, incompetent uni polls, incompetent online polls, junky 50 state polls that are never consistent or pass the smell test, etc. That's not to say they didn't exist before, they certainly did, but they actually seem to be INCREASING while the decent pollsters are sharply DECREASING.

FiveThirtyEight/Nate Silver: What was once an oasis of rationality and objective analysis has now become a foul swamp of lame punditry, hot takes, weasel words, and so much hedging that basically every article ends with some form of "or...we could be totes wrong! who really knows? LOLZ!" Nate has apparently come full circle from 2012, embracing his inner Dean Chambers and unskewing like a madman. Considering how much he unskews, you'd expect him to have at least some standards for what polling gets entered, right? Oh, certainly not. Take comfort that every single Google Consumer Survey "poll" that shows Trump cracking 25% in DC, Hillary only getting 19% in Alabama, Trump getting demolished in Kansas, and Hillary winning New Hampshire by a larger margin than Maryland will be entered. His model, supposedly so "sophisticated", couldn't even figure out how to hedge against a SINGLE junky Rhode Island poll from Emerson, instead launching it straight into battleground status.

Also, these two events tie in to each other. The focus on aggregation and models like 538 have decreased the incentive for individual pollsters to bother, leaving us with the junk stew we currently have now. But luckily, Nate will be hoisted by his own petard, because "garbage in, garbage out."

And before some Swedish Trump supporter makes a lame comment, I don't say this simply because the polls are tightening and I'm "scared" or whatever. You didn't see me constantly gloating during the post Pussygrabber landslide polls either, because most were still junky. Even in 2010 when it was an obvious GOP landslide, or 2012 after Romney surged and the race was a dead heat, it was a lot more fun to follow. Also, the fact that we're left with this crap leaves me even less certain of the election outcome than I normally would be, probably a reason I've been somewhat less optimistic than many of the other red avatars here.

Thoughts?

I generally agree, but I will add that the absolute main reason why I have found it less enjoyable this time around, is because of the deep existential angst that the idea of a potential Trump presidency provokes in me. It is not even "just" about the fear of Trump starting a nuclear war either. It is about my entire belief in democracy and western civilization. I teach political science at a danish high school and I'm not sure I can go on doing that if Trump wins. You need to have some amount of faith in democracy and human sanity to do that or it would just be an exercise in disillusionment.

I think that the combination of terrible polling, terrible "unbiased forecasting" by Silver (who simply goes on and on to say how bullish he is on Trump with respect to other forecasters), and the absolutely terrifying idea of Trump being president are making this election extremely unpleasant.

All the above, yes. The added nervousness because of Brexit hasn't helped, either (Yes, I know the polls didn't get Brexit as wrong as everyone makes out).

This is why it's so good to hear from the likes of Jim Messina, David Plouffe and Mitch Stewart, who have run internal data operations for the Democrats and know how diamond-quality that data is. Their quiet confidence is about the only piece of comfort I can wrest from the current situation. Just wish they could share some of that data with me...

[eric82oslo]

I agree completely, and there have also been relatively fewer polls, forcing us to mostly guess where they stand.

It's funny and kind of telling that Utah has had far more polls this season than one of the most important swing states, Minnesota. Minnesota has a very high chance of ultimately becoming the tipping point state, and has been extremely close to actually being the tipping point state in the last two or three presidential elections. Still it's only gotten 40 polls tracked by 538, while Utah has had 56. New Hampshire 92. Ohio 99. Pennsylvania 106. North Carolina 110. And Florida 132. Yet extremely important swing state Minnesota, which actually has a considerably higher chance than Florida to end up as the ultimate tipping point state, due to being closer to the national average (Florida has been too Republican in almost every single poll this season, while Minnesota has been close to Wisconsin in the few polls we've seen from there), has only seen, I repeat 40 polls. I mean, even Maine for heaven's sake has had 46 polls! Only in the perfect storm would Maine even be somewhat close to being the ultimate tipping point state.

So what's up with Minnesota? Why is almost every single pollster in the entire USA (and there are literally 100s of pollsters out there) deliberately ignoring, again the extremely important state, Minnesota this season? We all know that Minnesota has been trending Republican in almost every single presidential election since 1984. And that it's one of the whitest states in the US. As in, a perfect ground for not only Republicans to make up new votes, but particular for Trump, who's whole strategy has been to increase enthusiasm and turnout among white voters, at least in certain segments of the white vote (poorly educated, older white men). So again, why hasn't Minnesota deserved any attention from pollsters this season? Anyone got any explanation?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The best part is watching how nervous Democratic people get about the possibility of Trump getting in.

[IceSpear]

oh my god today was even worse, I didn't think it could get worse.'

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

oh my god today was even worse, I didn't think it could get worse.'

You just have to let it ride now.

[Mr. Smith]

Considering 2014 midterms (especially them), Virginia 2013, and Kentucky 2015? No, not at all.

The situation seems identical with the number and type of polls, so the same result is highly likely (aka Republicans dominate entirely, and maybe one Democrat manages to slip through).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yes, because any poll that doesn't show a Clinton lead is collectively deemed a junk poll by the red avatars who will argue and insult and tire out anyone who challenges it.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes, because any poll that doesn't show a Clinton lead is collectively deemed a junk poll by the red avatars who will argue and insult and tire out anyone who challenges it.

Works the other way too.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Couldn't have put it better myself. This is so frustrating.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yes, because any poll that doesn't show a Clinton lead is collectively deemed a junk poll by the red avatars who will argue and insult and tire out anyone who challenges it.

Works the other way too.

Well of course, there is a minority of election year only posters here who do the same for Trump. I'm talking about the more established posters who four years ago made a strong case as to why Obama would win. I never doubted his reelection in 2012. I have no idea what is happening on Tuesday, and part of that confusion is that I can't separate the legitimate criticism (such as the ones that are being made today about why Trump isn't going to win NV) and the one's that are in the air, such as the actual early vote numbers.

We really need to establish a gold standard for Atlas that everyone can accept. It'd make the board a bit more informing than it currently is.

[Admiral Kizaru]

Also, these two events tie in to each other. The focus on aggregation and models like 538 have decreased the incentive for individual pollsters to bother, leaving us with the junk stew we currently have now. But luckily, Nate will be hoisted by his own petard, because "garbage in, garbage out."

Especially agree with this but as it pertains to polling aggregators as a whole and not just 538. Won't call them freeloaders/leeches by any means, but it must be grating for some pollsters to see people who don't invest a single dime in polling themselves, make a businesses in taking apart their polls.

Interestingly, they (538) actually addressed this specific issue on a recent podcast and defended themselves against the charge, instead shifting the blame to "reduced TV/Newspaper revenues" for the decrease in quality polling.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

It's less fun to me because I don't like following polls between Alien (D) and Predator (R) when I know that no matter who wins, America loses.