Validity of Polls?

[Yard Dog]

We have talked about this many times on here. I wouldn't mind if people more in the know posted facts and such on the matter. I heard this piece today on NPR that reminded me of our debates over the validity and necessity of polls.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2016/01/26/problems-with-polls

The intriguing debate seems to be whether or not polls actually influence voters to make a specific decision.

Also funny that the first political polling was only done to prove that the polling process was accurate.

[MakeItRain]

Polls aren't meant to influence

[Yard Dog]

Polls aren't meant to influence

What they are meant to do and what they really do can be two different things. It's hard to debate the fact that a good number of voters and donors will make decisions specifically on the poll data.

[MakeItRain]

Polls do not influence voters

[Yard Dog]

Polls do not influence voters

Please put some effort in and find me sources that support your opinion. These sources seem to say otherwise:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rothschild/understanding-how-polls-affect-voters_b_2009034.html

To answer the burning question, researchers have long observed that people often conform to majority opinion (i.e. during every election, some people jump on the bandwagon and shift their preference to the leading candidate or the most popular policy).

During elections, and major public policy events, much of the media coverage focuses on the "horse race," or fluctuations in support for a candidate or policy. Reporting on public opinion not only affects support, but levels of engagement: donations, volunteering and turnout. These bandwagon effects can make polls self-fulfilling prophecies; the predictions of the polls come to pass because the polls not only measure public opinion but also influence public opinion and engagement.

https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472099213-ch11.pdf

Polls provide information about how well the parties are doing in a campaign. That information may affect voters' perceptions of the various parties' chances of winning in a first past the post (FPP) system such as Canada or the chance o being part of a coalition government in a proportional representation (PR) system. By affecting voters' expectations about the outcome of the election, polls may affect the vote. How and why could expectations affect voting choice? The literature suggests two key reasons: strategic voting and a contagion effect.

You should also take the time to listen to the short ten minute piece from NPR's Here and Now linked in the OP.

[MakeItRain]

Yard Dog, there was nothing in anything you linked that supports polls having a measurable affect on how people vote. That Huffington Post article you linked was based on opinion and that second quote you posted has the word "may" in the quote, twice.

Evidence that polling has little to no effect on voting, how about the 2000 Presidential election,  the 2004  Presidential election, the 2008 democratic nomination race, the 2014 kansas gubernatorial election and the 2016 democratic and republican nomination race. Just like your cause yesterday, endorsements, the information age has dealt a significant blow to the affect of these things. There is so much information available that people are self-reliant to make their decisions.

[ChiComCat]

I think polls would effect voter turnout more than it effects who people vote for

[8manpick]

I don't have the sources, but I would have to think that polls significantly influence donations which typically trickles down to influence voters.  If Kasich or Bush had been polling at 15% instead of 1%, I would imagine that business interests would pour a lot more into their campaign than they are currently.

[Yard Dog]

I don't have the sources, but I would have to think that polls significantly influence donations which typically trickles down to influence voters.  If Kasich or Bush had been polling at 15% instead of 1%, I would imagine that business interests would pour a lot more into their campaign than they are currently.

This is a huge part of it. For anyone that says that the wealthy buy elections it comes down to their belief in the effect of campaign media. That media is extremely expensive. Jeb's super pac has spent over a million dollars on attack ads. If he was polling any higher that number would most definitely be higher.

Yard Dog, there was nothing in anything you linked that supports polls having a measurable affect on how people vote. That Huffington Post article you linked was based on opinion and that second quote you posted has the word "may" in the quote, twice.

Evidence that polling has little to no effect on voting, how about the 2000 Presidential election,  the 2004  Presidential election, the 2008 democratic nomination race, the 2014 kansas gubernatorial election and the 2016 democratic and republican nomination race. Just like your cause yesterday, endorsements, the information age has dealt a significant blow to the affect of these things. There is so much information available that people are self-reliant to make their decisions.

How do these outcomes prove that polling doesn't matter at all? There doesn't seem to be concrete evidence either way the effect polling can have, thus why it is an interesting debate.

[MakeItRain]

I don't have the sources, but I would have to think that polls significantly influence donations which typically trickles down to influence voters.  If Kasich or Bush had been polling at 15% instead of 1%, I would imagine that business interests would pour a lot more into their campaign than they are currently.

Barack Obama? Bernie Sanders?

[8manpick]

I don't have the sources, but I would have to think that polls significantly influence donations which typically trickles down to influence voters.  If Kasich or Bush had been polling at 15% instead of 1%, I would imagine that business interests would pour a lot more into their campaign than they are currently.

Barack Obama? Bernie Sanders?

Each of those were clearly the viable alternative to the front runner at least 8-12 months before primary season, it's a bit of a different deal.

Obama was polling at 20% as early as November 2006 (behind Hilary at 30-45%), and announced his candidacy in February 2007.  It wasn't nearly as big an upset as it's been made out to be.

Bernie may be a better example, but even he was polling at 20% by last summer.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

If conservative talk radio is any indication, Trump is going to significantly underperform his polling in Iowa. Talk radio could be a terrible indicator, but I just have a hunch that a lot of Trump's "support" (from morons - both non voters and traditional dem voters) does not actually materialize at the caucuses. The people who are calling in to talk radio (representative of people who listen to talk radio, I presume) generally loathe Trump and praise Cruz. The caucuses are a format Ted Cruz can and should win.

We will see in just a few days! Looking forward to some clarity after New Hampshire when the field narrows sharply.

[star seed 7]

Calls are also screened on radio shows. If rush wanted trump supporters on, he would put trump supporters on. He's doing his best right now to pump up cruz without being obviously bias (he very much likes to pretend he's impartial) but if you know anything at all about rush, then you know cruz is his wet dream.

Cruz is exactly who neocon radio wants

[michigancat]

Polls absolutely will influence who people vote for.

[michigancat]

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/how-polls-influence-behavior

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Calls are also screened on radio shows. If rush wanted trump supporters on, he would put trump supporters on. He's doing his best right now to pump up cruz without being obviously bias (he very much likes to pretend he's impartial) but if you know anything at all about rush, then you know cruz is his wet dream.

Cruz is exactly who neocon radio wants

A fair point. Can't wait to finally do some voting!

[8manpick]

Good lord caucuses are dumb

[Rage Against the McKee]

Good lord caucuses are dumb

Yeah, they suck.