shy clinton factor

[King]

how will the presence of millions of americans too weak in the knees at the thought of such a strong, smart, and beautiful woman becoming our next president affect the final outcome versus the polls?

[afleitch]

Early days, but might be borne out in early voting.

[Maxwell]

I definitely think shy clinton is far more common than shy trump - for a lot of the same reasons as shy Obama was always more than shy Romney. Demographics are destiny - and Trump sealed his own fate a long time ago - and a lot of voters marked "unlikely" are going to come out in droves to vote for Clinton, especially in the hispanic community. White men think their wives are going to vote for Trump, the reason why they believe there is a shy trump effect, but their wives are really going to vote for Clinton. And of course, there are people at the ballot box, facing their possible decision of voting for Trump, and ending up not going through with it because of WHO HE IS. These are right-leaning independents or even Republicans who are "for" trump but have been fighting with the idea of voting for him because, well, he's Trump.

[ApatheticAustrian]

i believe in the great re-alignment.

trump may lose, maybe badly, but he is going to bring more blue-collar-voters into the GOP tent and drive some white-collar voters out.

since the latter tend to the live in suburbs anyway, i guess some house seats are going to be re-shuffled.

in general...i believe HRC is going to overperform in the south and in subs.....especially dangerous in the south, since about all not-college-educated whites tend to vote for republicans anyway but the college-educated voters also did.....which is changing this year, i guess.

[dspNY]

I definitely think shy clinton is far more common than shy trump - for a lot of the same reasons as shy Obama was always more than shy Romney. Demographics are destiny - and Trump sealed his own fate a long time ago - and a lot of voters marked "unlikely" are going to come out in droves to vote for Clinton, especially in the hispanic community. White men think their wives are going to vote for Trump, the reason why they believe there is a shy trump effect, but their wives are really going to vote for Clinton. And of course, there are people at the ballot box, facing their possible decision of voting for Trump, and ending up not going through with it because of WHO HE IS. These are right-leaning independents or even Republicans who are "for" trump but have been fighting with the idea of voting for him because, well, he's Trump.

Looking at early voting subsamples, it seems like a lot of independents and even some Republicans are shy Clinton because she is outdoing the party ID and demographic splits substantially

[Mr. Morden]

I definitely think shy clinton is far more common than shy trump - for a lot of the same reasons as shy Obama was always more than shy Romney. Demographics are destiny - and Trump sealed his own fate a long time ago - and a lot of voters marked "unlikely" are going to come out in droves to vote for Clinton, especially in the hispanic community. White men think their wives are going to vote for Trump, the reason why they believe there is a shy trump effect, but their wives are really going to vote for Clinton. And of course, there are people at the ballot box, facing their possible decision of voting for Trump, and ending up not going through with it because of WHO HE IS. These are right-leaning independents or even Republicans who are "for" trump but have been fighting with the idea of voting for him because, well, he's Trump.

As I’ve said many times in these threads, a polling error due to the likely voter models being wrong isn’t a “Shy” effect.  It’s the pollsters getting their sample selection wrong.  A “Shy X” effect is when the pollsters are wrong not because they messed up the sample, but because they’re being lied to, because poll respondents don’t want to reveal their true voting intentions.

And again, it’s also not about people “being shy” in public, or not telling their neighbors or even spouses who they’re voting for.  It’s about them not telling pollsters.  I don’t see any way to predict which candidate would be more likely to benefit from that kind of effect.  But I also don’t think it’s going to be that significant.  My hunch is that the more likely source of pollster error will be bad sample selection rather than deception on the part of those being polled.

[HisGrace]

I definitely think shy clinton is far more common than shy trump - for a lot of the same reasons as shy Obama was always more than shy Romney. Demographics are destiny - and Trump sealed his own fate a long time ago - and a lot of voters marked "unlikely" are going to come out in droves to vote for Clinton, especially in the hispanic community. White men think their wives are going to vote for Trump, the reason why they believe there is a shy trump effect, but their wives are really going to vote for Clinton. And of course, there are people at the ballot box, facing their possible decision of voting for Trump, and ending up not going through with it because of WHO HE IS. These are right-leaning independents or even Republicans who are "for" trump but have been fighting with the idea of voting for him because, well, he's Trump.

This isn't about "shy Clinton supporters" (I don't put much stock in the shy voter hypothesis, especially not in the United States)  but I think Trump is going to do poorly with current undecideds, unlike what some people were saying on here earlier. No one is on the fence about Trump at this point, you either like him or hate him. I think most the undecideds are people who know they're not going to vote for Trump, and just haven't decided if they're going to vote Clinton, vote third party, or stay home. Any of those choices spells doom for Trump.

[PollsDontLie]

I definitely think shy clinton is far more common than shy trump - for a lot of the same reasons as shy Obama was always more than shy Romney. Demographics are destiny - and Trump sealed his own fate a long time ago - and a lot of voters marked "unlikely" are going to come out in droves to vote for Clinton, especially in the hispanic community. White men think their wives are going to vote for Trump, the reason why they believe there is a shy trump effect, but their wives are really going to vote for Clinton. And of course, there are people at the ballot box, facing their possible decision of voting for Trump, and ending up not going through with it because of WHO HE IS. These are right-leaning independents or even Republicans who are "for" trump but have been fighting with the idea of voting for him because, well, he's Trump.

As I’ve said many times in these threads, a polling error due to the likely voter models being wrong isn’t a “Shy” effect.  It’s the pollsters getting their sample selection wrong.  A “Shy X” effect is when the pollsters are wrong not because they messed up the sample, but because they’re being lied to, because poll respondents don’t want to reveal their true voting intentions.

And again, it’s also not about people “being shy” in public, or not telling their neighbors or even spouses who they’re voting for.  It’s about them not telling pollsters.  I don’t see any way to predict which candidate would be more likely to benefit from that kind of effect.  But I also don’t think it’s going to be that significant.  My hunch is that the more likely source of pollster error will be bad sample selection rather than deception on the part of those being polled.

Clearly Trump would benefit from this effect if anyone in this election would.  People who support Trump are often openly ostracized by their peers and/or boycotted as a business (see, e.g., Peter Thiel).  The same is not true for saying that you are voting for Clinton, as the SJWs are on her side.

That said, I doubt there is enough of a shy Trump effect to overcome his deficit in the polls.  If he were behind only a point or two, then maybe, but he's down 5-6.

[IceSpear]

I definitely think shy clinton is far more common than shy trump - for a lot of the same reasons as shy Obama was always more than shy Romney. Demographics are destiny - and Trump sealed his own fate a long time ago - and a lot of voters marked "unlikely" are going to come out in droves to vote for Clinton, especially in the hispanic community. White men think their wives are going to vote for Trump, the reason why they believe there is a shy trump effect, but their wives are really going to vote for Clinton. And of course, there are people at the ballot box, facing their possible decision of voting for Trump, and ending up not going through with it because of WHO HE IS. These are right-leaning independents or even Republicans who are "for" trump but have been fighting with the idea of voting for him because, well, he's Trump.

Plus the fact that shy Clinton supporters have ALWAYS been "a thing." She and her supporters got hammered constantly from the left and right for over a year, so it's not surprising many would withdraw. Hell, sometimes I saw more Bernie stuff than Hillary stuff in towns she won by 50+ points.

[IceSpear]

Clearly Trump would benefit from this effect if anyone in this election would.  People who support Trump are often openly ostracized by their peers and/or boycotted as a business (see, e.g., Peter Thiel).  The same is not true for saying that you are voting for Clinton, as the SJWs are on her side.

Because clearly, an enthusiastic Hillary supporter in the Oklahoma Panhandle would make out just fine.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Shy Clinton could also be a thing, especially among Republicans who hate Trump but don't want to admit they are supporting Clinton.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I definitely think shy clinton is far more common than shy trump - for a lot of the same reasons as shy Obama was always more than shy Romney. Demographics are destiny - and Trump sealed his own fate a long time ago - and a lot of voters marked "unlikely" are going to come out in droves to vote for Clinton, especially in the hispanic community. White men think their wives are going to vote for Trump, the reason why they believe there is a shy trump effect, but their wives are really going to vote for Clinton. And of course, there are people at the ballot box, facing their possible decision of voting for Trump, and ending up not going through with it because of WHO HE IS. These are right-leaning independents or even Republicans who are "for" trump but have been fighting with the idea of voting for him because, well, he's Trump.

As I’ve said many times in these threads, a polling error due to the likely voter models being wrong isn’t a “Shy” effect.  It’s the pollsters getting their sample selection wrong.  A “Shy X” effect is when the pollsters are wrong not because they messed up the sample, but because they’re being lied to, because poll respondents don’t want to reveal their true voting intentions.

And again, it’s also not about people “being shy” in public, or not telling their neighbors or even spouses who they’re voting for.  It’s about them not telling pollsters.  I don’t see any way to predict which candidate would be more likely to benefit from that kind of effect.  But I also don’t think it’s going to be that significant.  My hunch is that the more likely source of pollster error will be bad sample selection rather than deception on the part of those being polled.

Clearly Trump would benefit from this effect if anyone in this election would.  People who support Trump are often openly ostracized by their peers and/or boycotted as a business (see, e.g., Peter Thiel).  The same is not true for saying that you are voting for Clinton, as the SJWs are on her side.

That said, I doubt there is enough of a shy Trump effect to overcome his deficit in the polls.  If he were behind only a point or two, then maybe, but he's down 5-6.

Trump underperformed his polls, Clinton generally over-performed (MI being the obvious exception) - outside of the bizarre victim mentality of Trump supporters (the irony of which is sad and adorable), I see NO evidence of a genuine shy Trump effect, there is however, evidence of a shy Clinton effect. This might come as a shock to some Trump supporters that facts are not the same as your feelings

[Kalimantan]

There will be many people who who have voted Republican all of their lives, who will be choosing Clinton in November. There may well be some of these who are shy about it. Of course there are many more who are not shy, so if we're looking for states where this has an effect, look to see where there is already a big shift. I'm looking at you Texas

[Mr. Morden]

Trump underperformed his polls, Clinton generally over-performed (MI being the obvious exception) - outside of the bizarre victim mentality of Trump supporters (the irony of which is sad and adorable), I see NO evidence of a genuine shy Trump effect, there is however, evidence of a shy Clinton effect.

IIRC, Trump basically matched his polling #s in the primaries, while his GOP opponents tended to beat their numbers.  Which I’m assuming is because undecideds broke towards Cruz/Kasich/Rubio/etc.  And that makes sense, as supporters of the other candidates tended to have a negative opinion of Trump.  So there could be lots of voters undecided between Cruz and Rubio or Kasich and Rubio, or some other combination.  But few were undecided between Trump and another candidate.  Thus he would obviously pick up few undecideds.  Whereas in the Dem. race, since it was just a 2-person contest, any undecideds were undecided between Clinton and Sanders.  So Clinton picking up some of those folks is not unexpected.

But that’s not a “Shy” effect either.  Undecideds breaking for one candidate at the end isn’t a “Shy” effect.  As I said, the idea that the main source of polling error is people being reluctant to tell pollsters who they really support is weird to me.  I don’t know why this meme is so popular here.  There are plenty of reasons why polls might underestimate or overestimate a candidate’s support, and I don’t see why people are convinced that voters lying to pollsters would be that significant an effect compared to other reasons.

EDIT: I guess I can see the argument some have made that if there is a real "shy effect" for either candidate (and I'm not convinced there is), then it would be more of a problem for live phone polls than robopolls and internet polls, because people too embarrassed to admit their true voting intentions would be more likely to lie to a person than a machine.  So OK, if robopolls end up being a lot more accurate than live phone polls, then I'll concede that there's at least a little evidence for a shy effect, as opposed to polling error being present for other reasons.  But I'm not counting on that happening.  Live phone polls are (in aggregate) more reliable, and I have no reason to think it'll be different this time.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

In Sweden we still have pretty high responce rate (about 50% vs 8% in USA), don't have LV screen since "everyone" votes.

Polls were always very/pretty good (probably best in the word) until... trump'ish party came in. They've got a really bad press, being called Nazi/racists (in fact, they are originally from a nazist movement) and are heavily underestimated, the evil party. And what party have been highly overestimated instead, yeah, Green Party that is goooood party, always for immigration, always against deportation...

But you're right about live/online polls. There is a difference and online polls are in fact better than others to measure Trump'ish party. Lately the difference got ridiculous. Right now live pollsters have ~17%, while onlite ~24%, some month there is 10% difference
We don't see it in this election, which is a bad news for Trump. In Brexit there were http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/daily-chart-14

One of live pollsters did in fact a "research">>>
Google Translate

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though, it is more about fearing of being exposed, than being ashamed according to them. But there is pretty vague evidence for it. All we know that people answer as long as you ask right questions that identify this party as immigration/islamism/law and order for example (they don't say what type of questions they asks, so it is purely my guess), but if you ask who would you vote for — then you've got a problem.

But yeah USA is not Sweden etc, we have so much more extreme situation in Sweden. Media "expose" (naming and shaming) SD-voters. One of the leaders "got fired" from his job (teacher), though he was one of the best teachers according to surveys in that school, because he got "exposed" by the local newspaper...

[ApatheticAustrian]

scandinavian right-wing-leaders usually look like nerds and mother's darling......trump is the antithesis to all of those.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

scandinavian right-wing-leaders usually look like nerds and mother's darling......trump is the antithesis to all of those.

Haha, it is true

[Tartarus Sauce]

I definitely think shy clinton is far more common than shy trump - for a lot of the same reasons as shy Obama was always more than shy Romney. Demographics are destiny - and Trump sealed his own fate a long time ago - and a lot of voters marked "unlikely" are going to come out in droves to vote for Clinton, especially in the hispanic community. White men think their wives are going to vote for Trump, the reason why they believe there is a shy trump effect, but their wives are really going to vote for Clinton. And of course, there are people at the ballot box, facing their possible decision of voting for Trump, and ending up not going through with it because of WHO HE IS. These are right-leaning independents or even Republicans who are "for" trump but have been fighting with the idea of voting for him because, well, he's Trump.

As I’ve said many times in these threads, a polling error due to the likely voter models being wrong isn’t a “Shy” effect.  It’s the pollsters getting their sample selection wrong.  A “Shy X” effect is when the pollsters are wrong not because they messed up the sample, but because they’re being lied to, because poll respondents don’t want to reveal their true voting intentions.

And again, it’s also not about people “being shy” in public, or not telling their neighbors or even spouses who they’re voting for.  It’s about them not telling pollsters.  I don’t see any way to predict which candidate would be more likely to benefit from that kind of effect.  But I also don’t think it’s going to be that significant.  My hunch is that the more likely source of pollster error will be bad sample selection rather than deception on the part of those being polled.

Another thing to take into consideration: ground game operational disparity. Could be potentially exacerbated by Trump underperforming his numbers due to his toxicity, poisoning the well with Republican voters with rhetoric about vote rigging, and doubling down on marginal constituencies with almost no campaign turnout structure to capture them.  

[Mr. Morden]

I definitely think shy clinton is far more common than shy trump - for a lot of the same reasons as shy Obama was always more than shy Romney. Demographics are destiny - and Trump sealed his own fate a long time ago - and a lot of voters marked "unlikely" are going to come out in droves to vote for Clinton, especially in the hispanic community. White men think their wives are going to vote for Trump, the reason why they believe there is a shy trump effect, but their wives are really going to vote for Clinton. And of course, there are people at the ballot box, facing their possible decision of voting for Trump, and ending up not going through with it because of WHO HE IS. These are right-leaning independents or even Republicans who are "for" trump but have been fighting with the idea of voting for him because, well, he's Trump.

As I’ve said many times in these threads, a polling error due to the likely voter models being wrong isn’t a “Shy” effect.  It’s the pollsters getting their sample selection wrong.  A “Shy X” effect is when the pollsters are wrong not because they messed up the sample, but because they’re being lied to, because poll respondents don’t want to reveal their true voting intentions.

And again, it’s also not about people “being shy” in public, or not telling their neighbors or even spouses who they’re voting for.  It’s about them not telling pollsters.  I don’t see any way to predict which candidate would be more likely to benefit from that kind of effect.  But I also don’t think it’s going to be that significant.  My hunch is that the more likely source of pollster error will be bad sample selection rather than deception on the part of those being polled.

Another thing to take into consideration: ground game operational disparity. Could be potentially exacerbated by Trump underperforming his numbers due to his toxicity, poisoning the well with Republican voters with rhetoric about vote rigging, and doubling down on marginal constituencies with almost no campaign turnout structure to capture them.  

Yes, though you could also put that into the "likely voter model" bucket.  That is, you could break down the reasons for polling errors into three categories:

1) The sample of people included in the poll doesn't match the sample of people who actually end up voting (disparities in the ground game operation would be part of this, but there are plenty of other things feeding into it).

2) Some of the people being polled change their minds or decide on who to vote for at the last minute, after the poll was conducted.

3) People lie about their voting intentions when they talk to pollsters.

The "Shy" effect is #3: People who don't want to tell the pollsters their true voting intentions, for whatever reason.  But my guess is that #1 will end up being the biggest source of polling error.