PA: NYT / Siena: Fetterman (D) +6

[Calthrina950]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

[Calthrina950]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

The point remains that it's a tossup, but you don't think there is a difference of having Oz at 25-30% of the black vote compared to the typical # that Democratic candidates have gotten for the last 3 cycles? I mean come on now. You can't be that dense to wonder why those are not taken as seriously. Even Nate Cohn himself called the GOP poll flooding out in his article today.

"GOP poll flooding"? Why is it that we haven't had more "mainstream" pollsters polling these races in recent weeks? Why have they allowed for the field to be dominated by these Republican polls? The definition seems to be that any poll which shows Republicans leading in any of these competitive races, even by the slightest amount, is not credible and needs to be tossed into the trash. But any poll showing Democrats leading in these competitive races is immediately viewed as reliable, or as indicating that "something is up" for Republicans. Just look at Ohio, and how some people unironically think that Ryan has a better chance at winning than Oz does.

[Calthrina950]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

The point remains that it's a tossup, but you don't think there is a difference of having Oz at 25-30% of the black vote compared to the typical # that Democratic candidates have gotten for the last 3 cycles? I mean come on now. You can't be that dense to wonder why those are not taken as seriously. Even Nate Cohn himself called the GOP poll flooding out in his article today.

"GOP poll flooding"? Why is it that we haven't had more "mainstream" pollsters polling these races in recent weeks? Why have they allowed for the field to be dominated by these Republican polls? The definition seems to be that any poll which shows Republicans leading in any of these competitive races, even by the slightest amount, is not credible and needs to be tossed into the trash. But any poll showing Democrats leading in these competitive races is immediately viewed as reliable, or as indicating that "something is up" for Republicans. Just look at Ohio, and how some people unironically think that Ryan has a better chance at winning than Oz does.

Unironically part of the problem as of late; "mainstream" polls got 2016 straight wrong, and overshot Dem wins of 2018 and Biden 2020.

This is what I'm emphasizing. NYT/Siena, in particular, overestimated Biden in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania in 2020. And yet they are viewed as more reliable and more credible then all of the pollsters I listed above. We've gotten many bad polls this year, and many of them are going to be further discredited very soon.

[Calthrina950]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

If you don't see a qualitative difference between NYT/Siena polls and the others you mentioned (one of which, Big Data, is highly questionable as to whether they're even a legitimate pollster), then I don't know what else to say to you.  But keep on beating your dead horse.

The problem is not so much that NYT/Siena isn't "credible", but it's that they are more highly regarded than other pollsters, despite not being as accurate as they.

[Calthrina950]

Unironically part of the problem as of late; "mainstream" polls got 2016 straight wrong, and overshot Dem wins of 2018 and Biden 2020.

This is what I'm emphasizing. NYT/Siena, in particular, overestimated Biden in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania in 2020. And yet they are viewed as more reliable and more credible then all of the pollsters I listed above. We've gotten many bad polls this year, and many of them are going to be further discredited very soon.

They underestimated House Dems pretty much across the board in 2018. (What a fun project this was, though.) The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

This actually bolsters the case I make, that NYT/Siena is not inherently more credible than the GOP pollsters who have been decried. No pollster is perfect, and it is best to average them all, and to understand that the only poll which matters is on Election Day.

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

If you don't see a qualitative difference between NYT/Siena polls and the others you mentioned (one of which, Big Data, is highly questionable as to whether they're even a legitimate pollster), then I don't know what else to say to you.  But keep on beating your dead horse.

The problem is not so much that NYT/Siena isn't "credible", but it's that they are more highly regarded than other pollsters, despite not being as accurate as they.

co/efficient had the KS anti-abortion referendum winning by 4 points (it lost by 20).

This relates to my point above. I'm not trying to suggest that the GOP pollsters are the "most accurate", or the "most credible". I'm saying that they are being dismissed far more readily than their Democratic counterparts, many of which have been equally erroneous in the past.

[Calthrina950]

This relates to my point above. I'm not trying to suggest that the GOP pollsters are the "most accurate", or the "most credible". I'm saying that they are being dismissed far more readily than their Democratic counterparts, many of which have been equally erroneous in the past.

...is this a gaslighting? am i being gaslit? is there a light (powered, of course, by gas) shining upon my face? Because you literally said two posts ago that co/effecient (and the other three GOP pollsters) was more accurate than NYT/Siena. You can say what you will about NYT/Siena having a slight pro-Dem bias (and I would agree with you!), but I don't think they've ever had a 24-point polling miss.

I said that NYT/Siena has been less accurate than many of these other pollsters, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those pollsters are the "gold standard" either. Emerson and Trafalgar, for example, both have had polling misses. And all three pollsters possess an "A" rating from 538.

[Calthrina950]

This actually bolsters the case I make, that NYT/Siena is not inherently more credible than the GOP pollsters who have been decried. No pollster is perfect, and it is best to average them all, and to understand that the only poll which matters is on Election Day.

Great! So looks like Fetterman will be winning by around 4 points, then. Happy we agree.

We don't agree about that. I actually think Oz is going to win now, although I believed for months that Fetterman would. And he sill can, given that the early vote in Pennsylvania looks unambiguously good for Democrats.

[Calthrina950]

This actually bolsters the case I make, that NYT/Siena is not inherently more credible than the GOP pollsters who have been decried. No pollster is perfect, and it is best to average them all, and to understand that the only poll which matters is on Election Day.

Great! So looks like Fetterman will be winning by around 4 points, then. Happy we agree.

We don't agree about that. I actually think Oz is going to win now, although I believed for months that Fetterman would. And he sill can, given that the early vote in Pennsylvania looks unambiguously good for Democrats.

"It's best to average them all" (and then completely ignore the average to fit my priors instead)

I just said in this very thread that Pennsylvania is a Tossup and that I wouldn't be surprised if Fetterman won. What I'm saying is that I've changed my prediction over the last few weeks from a Fetterman to an Oz victory. I continue to firmly believe that Shapiro will win without any difficulty.

[Calthrina950]

If this showed Oz+6, so many people here would be calling this race a done deal. But because it shows the Democrat leading, it’s treated with skepticism.

This is not true. Many (such as wbrocks67) would be dividing head first into the crosstabs to find any nugget that would discredit the poll, and assert that Fetterman is faring much better than what it shows.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1587048192079716353
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1587093381603368960

how bad of a reckoning will the polling industry receive after this election?

Polling Dies in Darkness

Who do you think will be proven correct next week? The R-leaning pollsters, like Trafalgar, Big Data, InsiderAdvantage, etc., or the "mainstream" pollsters such as NYT/Siena, Civiqs, Selzer, and the like? Most left-leaning posters seem to believe that the latter will.