"It’s best not to force too much meaning out of a poll. If a race looks like it’s within three or four points in either direction, we should simply say it's a close race and not force the data to say something they can’t. I think pollsters will take this inaccuracy and try to do better. But at some level, we should stop expecting too much out of the polling data."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-polls-were-mostly-wrong/
I am not an expert. Polls can be useful. They're gauges of perception. That is important, but I don't think Biden was as bad in the debate as some people say. I only listened to the debate, though. However, he's been good other times. Biden is the incumbent, perceived better than Harris, I've heard, won the primaries, and has the financing. Time and energy are being wasted by some Democrats.
@nealfig The logistics of finding this accurate and precise set of voters is quite daunting because
voters are difficult to communicate and validate their choices,
voters have to reflect the demography of the 7 million that will vote, and
it costs time and money to organize 2500 people
That’s just one swing state. Multiply it by the six other swing states - MI, WI, GA, NC, AZ, and NV - by the number of voters who cast votes in 2020, and you’d need about 15,000 voters.
#politics 2/2
@nealfig No worries and no apologies necessary.
Polls are as useful as the reality that reflects them. This means the poll’s methodology must reflect that particular race’s demographics of the voters.
Take a swing state like Pennsylvania. 7 million people voted in the last Presidential election. Biden won by 80,555 votes, or 1%.
To accurately *and* precisely poll 7 million people, a pollster must get at least 2,500 people to validate their poll answer. 1/2