Do you believe in The "Flooding the Zone " Theory ?

[GAinDC]

It isn't a theory, it's an observable phenomenon.

I assume that the motivation behind it is to generate a sense of momentum behind the Republican Party while demoralising the Democratic base so they don't bother to turn out. A darker interpretation is that in some cases it may also be part of an attempt to enable election denial and 'stop the steal' narratives after polling day.

Whether it is effective is another matter - I'm not sure to what extent how people vote is influenced by polls. There may be an indirect link in that the polling can influence the media coverage of the race.

However, it can also backfire by ringing the alarm bell and motivating Democrats to turn out. When the polls are shown to be wrong, it also discredits not just the companies concerned but the entire polling industry.

It worked in 2022. The red wave narrative was completely manufactured by the right wing polls that the media didn’t properly scrutinize. However it wasn’t hard to imagine because history also suggested there would be a red wave.

This year, I think they’re just buoying Trump a bit more, but nobody thinks there’s a red wave happening. 

[wbrocks67]

It isn't a theory, it's an observable phenomenon.

I assume that the motivation behind it is to generate a sense of momentum behind the Republican Party while demoralising the Democratic base so they don't bother to turn out. A darker interpretation is that in some cases it may also be part of an attempt to enable election denial and 'stop the steal' narratives after polling day.

Whether it is effective is another matter - I'm not sure to what extent how people vote is influenced by polls. There may be an indirect link in that the polling can influence the media coverage of the race.

However, it can also backfire by ringing the alarm bell and motivating Democrats to turn out. When the polls are shown to be wrong, it also discredits not just the companies concerned but the entire polling industry.

This is the correct take. But it's also probably a net positive in the end for Democrats like you said. But the more nefarious reasons that it's done by Republicans could end up being a real detriment if Harris wins and Trump inevitably points to all these polls as the election being rigged.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

https://www.natesilver.net/p/are-republican-pollsters-flooding

Nate Silver responds with an article pointing out that excluding republican aligned polls doesn't really change anything.

[VALibertarian]

https://www.natesilver.net/p/are-republican-pollsters-flooding

Nate Silver responds with an article pointing out that excluding republican aligned polls doesn't really change anything.

They hated him because he told the truth

[oldtimer]

I believe in it, and I also believe that Democrats do it too.

So they cancel each other.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

https://twitter.com/admcrlsn/status/1853267675595567370

Theory is pretty much confirmed.

[Crane]

https://www.natesilver.net/p/are-republican-pollsters-flooding

Nate Silver responds with an article pointing out that excluding republican aligned polls doesn't really change anything.

That's because dogsh**t like "AtlasIntel" is technically not aligned with anyone.

[neuroticballofanxiety]

I think that herding and fear of underestimating Trump a la 2016/2020 has far more to do with the poll results we're seeing than any zone flooding. I don't doubt there's sketchy conservative-aligned firms out there pushing out tons of low-quality polls (either to get views or to control the narrative). But the results they give usually aren't too far off the mark, mostly lean Trump by 1-2 pts within the MOE.

As I said in a different thread, Repubs love to see good news and think bad news is fake news. Dems are permanently traumatized/terrified of good news and only trust anxiety-inducing slightly-negative news intermittently interspersed with hopium. Both sides of the aisle, pollsters, and the media all have a) vested interest in presenting a close, lean-Trump race, and b) both sides of the aisle wouldn't believe anything other than a super close race.

[CheapDollarEra?]

I think they just put numbers.
Have any of you ever been polled?

[Trump v. Wong Kim Ark]

I think they just put numbers.
Have any of you ever been polled?

Primary of this cycle by a reputable pollster (UC Berkeley IGS)

[Schumer can go f*** himself!]

Wait, was this not common knowledge?

[RBH]

of course quite a few firms on that nonpartisan column in the Adam Carlson tweet (at the end of page 1) are pollsters who overrated Dems a little thanks to some previous election cycles where shy voters went hard to Rs

[tagimaucia]

AtlasIntel is a questionable pollster with bad methodology IMO, but I don't think they are ideologically right wing.  I think I remember seeing a video with their head guy several years ago talking extemporanously (he's Romanian even though he's based in Brazil) and he was very explicitly *not* a fan of Bolsonaro, at least.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

This absolutely occurred in 2022 and definitely seems to be happening to some degree now.  Most traditional pollsters seems to show Harris leading by generally 2-4 points... I think that's where the race is and would probably indicate a narrow Harris advantage in the EC... but still within the MOE for a Trump victory.

Pretty much this. While I think Harris could greatly exceed expectations, this could go either way.

I think the Trump team in particular have been trying to build a narrative of their candidate's strength and inevitability in order to feed their planned election challenges, which it certainly seems like they believe they may need. (This could be that they think their chances are poor... or it could just be effective due diligence from a pack of fascist traitors bent on destroying Constitutional government.)

I've no doubt some pollsters are "cooking the books" for Trump, whether very deliberately in support of his planned Big Lie 2.0, because they (and the Trump campaign) think it helps him, because of their own internal biases, or simply because they're mistaken, I don't know.

But every pollster out there (with the exception of Selzer, who is either going to be horribly wrong or tremendously vindicated) seems to be making similar decisions, and producing similar results. They're very concerned about Trump, but they don't seem very concerned about Dobbs. I think they're wrong.

[KakyoinMemeHouse]

It was never a "theory".

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

https://www.natesilver.net/p/are-republican-pollsters-flooding

Nate Silver responds with an article pointing out that excluding republican aligned polls doesn't really change anything.

Nate Silver is a paid shill for the Trump campaign, who doesn't have the decency to admit that he is a paid shill for the Trump campaign. He challenges the Selzer poll, by referencing Polymarket - which he works for.

Releasing this poll took an incredible amount of guts because — let me state this as carefully as I can — if you had to play the odds, this time Selzer will probably be wrong. Harris’s chances of winning Iowa nearly doubled in our model from 9 percent to 17 percent tonight, which isn’t nothing. Polymarket shows a similar trend, moving from 6 percent to 18 percent after the survey. But that still places Harris’s odds at around 5:1 against.

Never forget this gem from his debate "analysis":

And the stature gap in terms of physical size was also notable, especially with Harris having a shorter podium. Sometimes you’ll hear people say that you should watch the debate with the sound off, and by that measure it was much closer than with the sound on.

Even the absolute worst hacks on this forum couldn't come up with, "Trump is taller than Harris, so if you turn the sound off, it looks he didn't lose as badly."

I will be so glad when this election is over, because people will stop quoting f-ing shameless hack Nate Silver like his words mean anything. Silver makes Lichtman look good by comparison.

[Lurker]

https://www.natesilver.net/p/are-republican-pollsters-flooding

Nate Silver responds with an article pointing out that excluding republican aligned polls doesn't really change anything.

Nate Silver is a paid shill for the Trump campaign, who doesn't have the decency to admit that he is a paid shill for the Trump campaign. He challenges the Selzer poll, by referencing Polymarket - which he works for.

Releasing this poll took an incredible amount of guts because — let me state this as carefully as I can — if you had to play the odds, this time Selzer will probably be wrong. Harris’s chances of winning Iowa nearly doubled in our model from 9 percent to 17 percent tonight, which isn’t nothing. Polymarket shows a similar trend, moving from 6 percent to 18 percent after the survey. But that still places Harris’s odds at around 5:1 against.

Never forget this gem from his debate "analysis":

And the stature gap in terms of physical size was also notable, especially with Harris having a shorter podium. Sometimes you’ll hear people say that you should watch the debate with the sound off, and by that measure it was much closer than with the sound on.

Even the absolute worst hacks on this forum couldn't come up with, "Trump is taller than Harris, so if you turn the sound off, it looks he didn't lose as badly."

I will be so glad when this election is over, because people will stop quoting f-ing shameless hack Nate Silver like his words mean anything. Silver makes Lichtman look good by comparison.

Do you still think this?

And for the rest of the 73% who believed in this theory, has anyone changed their minds since the election?

[Zenobiyl]

https://www.natesilver.net/p/are-republican-pollsters-flooding

Nate Silver responds with an article pointing out that excluding republican aligned polls doesn't really change anything.

Nate Silver is a paid shill for the Trump campaign, who doesn't have the decency to admit that he is a paid shill for the Trump campaign. He challenges the Selzer poll, by referencing Polymarket - which he works for.

Releasing this poll took an incredible amount of guts because — let me state this as carefully as I can — if you had to play the odds, this time Selzer will probably be wrong. Harris’s chances of winning Iowa nearly doubled in our model from 9 percent to 17 percent tonight, which isn’t nothing. Polymarket shows a similar trend, moving from 6 percent to 18 percent after the survey. But that still places Harris’s odds at around 5:1 against.

Never forget this gem from his debate "analysis":

And the stature gap in terms of physical size was also notable, especially with Harris having a shorter podium. Sometimes you’ll hear people say that you should watch the debate with the sound off, and by that measure it was much closer than with the sound on.

Even the absolute worst hacks on this forum couldn't come up with, "Trump is taller than Harris, so if you turn the sound off, it looks he didn't lose as badly."

I will be so glad when this election is over, because people will stop quoting f-ing shameless hack Nate Silver like his words mean anything. Silver makes Lichtman look good by comparison.

Do you still think this?

And for the rest of the 73% who believed in this theory, has anyone changed their minds since the election?

I bought into this near the end, mainly because of being misled in 2022 and the absolutely bonkers Selzer poll making me question if every other pollster was missing something.

In the end the one thing I was right about is that polling still sucks. Even many of the right wing pollsters that got it right still underestimated Trump in tons of states!

[Agafin]

Flooding the zone has always been leftwing cope. Even in 2022, polling did not overestimate republicans systematically (the GCB was spot on and states like Florida or New York underestimated them), it's just that the most prominent states overestimated them.

[Bush did 311]

Flooding the zone has always been leftwing cope. Even in 2022, polling did not overestimate republicans systematically (the GCB was spot on and states like Florida or New York underestimated them), it's just that the most prominent states overestimated them.

This is untrue. Polls in 2022 called AZ, GA, NV, MI, PA wrong in many cases outside the MOE in favor of Republicans. Saying that dark red and blue states were polled accurately so the average across all states was still good is an intellectually dishonest dodge some of the aggregators have engaged in. If you can't call swing states right what good is your poll?

[Chief Justice PiT]

     This thread proves quite succinctly that conspiratorial thinking exists and is influential on the left as well as on the right.

[Higgs]

Love seeing these sorts of threads get bumped.

It's clearly just pure copium. Anything to explain why my candidate isn't winning in the polls! Occam's Razor would do a lot of you well.