[gamblor956]

They were generally correct with their prediction except in 3 states where nobody had been doing detailed polling because the pollsters didn't think it would matter.

It simply wouldn't have been possible for the models to be more accurate with the data they had. As they say, bad data in, bad data out.

That's why this time around the pollsters made sure to be more thorough in their polling.

[ceilingcorner]

> That's why this time around the pollsters made sure to be more thorough in their polling.

"This time is different."

I've heard that enough times to be highly skeptical. I'm also deeply skeptical of the notion that polling is even remotely correlated to actual results. Cultural and historical trends play a drastically higher role and are almost always left out.

[chki]

> I'm also deeply skeptical of the notion that polling is even remotely correlated to actual results.

But it has been strongly correlated to the results in basically all elections so far in all democracies on the planet. Taking 2016 as an example there has been a very strong correlation between polling and the results. The national polling averages were only 3 points off from the actual result. If that's not correlated I don't know what is.

[ceilingcorner]

Polarization and the unacceptability of publicly saying "I voted for X" also didn't really exist prior to 2016. The fear of getting doxxed, combined with a record low level of trust in institutions and the media, leads to skepticism toward answering polls truthfully, IMO.

[gamblor956]

While polarization is bad now, it's nowhere close to historical extremes, and it's not even as bad as it was during the post-Vietnam era only a few decades ago.

As for fear of doxing: plenty of people openly supported and voted for George Wallace (a noted white Supremacist) back in the day, and even Roy Moore (accused pedophile) just 2 years ago. Proud Boys members openly pose for the cameras even as they espouse racist views, and QAnon members brag about being part of QAnon.

The purported shy Trump voter? Doesn't exist. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-supporters-arent-...

[jerkstate]

As a data point, I live in a conservative-leaning area of a purple/blue state. Along my normal driving routes I had seen quite a few, but over the past few weeks they have mostly been taken down (in every case, other republican candidate signs still stand). Scenario one, Trump supporters supported him all the way up until now, enough to donate to his re-election campaign to buy a yard sign, and in the final weeks of the election, decided that they'd had enough and taken down their signs. Scenario two, some random stranger decided that it's their right, nay, their responsibility, to moderate someone else's yard signs.

Not every Trump voter is a "Proud Boy" or noted white supremacist, maybe even some of your friends are who "just aren't interested in politics" because they know that if they were honest with you, you would flip out. Some understand that this attitude about yard signs is actually representative of an entire worldview, and opposing that might actually be the lesser of two evils.

[chki]

Similar to how "not every Trump Voter is a >>Proud Boy<<" not every Biden supporter is a yard-sign stealing communist. Actually the extremists are in the minority in both groups. If you start going down that road and base your vote on how bad the worst people on the other side are, democracy is pretty much collapsing already.

[jimmygrapes]

The shy Tory factor[0] is likely to be even stronger this year than in 2016 when it comes to polls. After 4+ years of being harangued and called every name in the book by the vast majority of national culture (movies, music, TV, news, social media, news-entertainment), along with increasingly hostile projects such as https://donaldtrump.watch/ I imagine less of his more subdued supporters are going to be honest with pollsters.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_factor

[noirbot]

But wouldn't that mostly be concentrated in places/areas where their votes aren't likely to matter? Having just driven through the US South in the last month, I can confidently tell you people are not in any way shy about their support for Trump. I saw more Trump signs and flags than I saw US flags.

It's also likely this works in both directions - if you support Biden, I bet you don't have a yard sign for it if you live in Mississippi.

By construction, the effect is strongest the more you're not in the majority, which also means your unspoken support is more likely to not matter on the actual outcomes of the election.

[ceilingcorner]

It's more relevant in swing states, which are by definition mixed. I.e. if you live in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, or Florida, you can't really be sure how your neighbors will react to a Biden/Trump sign.

[JJzD]

If you're right, the support for Trump should be higher in polls where people talk through a phone menu or the internet, compared to live interviews.

Newsflash, they aren't, so your hypothesis must be they're too shy to admit their Trump support to a machine?

Everybody is just fighting the last war where Trump suddenly won for a couple of reasons. So, the Dems are scared they are missing something, and the Reps are going "Haha, who cares about modelling".

Will, the forecasts be perfect? Nope. But is the margin rather large, but not unsurmountable? Yes it is. Are the mistakes from last time repaired? Yes, they take care of uneducated whites. Is there evidence Trump has found a new source of voter support? I haven't seen it.

[ceilingcorner]

Yep. I see this everywhere, both online and in person.

[gamblor956]

Anecdotal, but I have never met a Trump supporter that was shy about who they were voting for, this year or in 2016.

If anything, Trump supporters have been extremely vocal about who they were supporting, to the extent that they frequently violate social norms and try to takeover events and gatherings to make their political affiliations known, like this week with Among Us.