tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7539577136486286096.post4835878950609483649..comments2024-03-28T02:46:41.090-05:00Comments on Supply and Demand (in that order): Do Election Forecasts Suffer from a Lack of Economics?Casey B. Mulliganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03317454408275318282noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7539577136486286096.post-13502356049904403582020-11-02T00:48:39.680-06:002020-11-02T00:48:39.680-06:00Interesting takes. I’m also not convinced the poll...Interesting takes. I’m also not convinced the polling entities are unbiased. Based off the ones aggregated at RealClearPolitics, there is a massive discrepancy with the *quantity* of polls taken in battleground states that Trump won in 2016 compared to the battlegrounds he lost. <br /><br />It would seem to me that Nevada and Colorado are just as much of a “battleground” as Texas or Georgia, yet, the polling org’s have barely touched Nevada & Colorado. Minnesota is really the only Clinton battleground that they somewhat touch, but even Minnesota was often ignored earlier in the year and is still polled much much less than equally-sized Wisconsin. Almost as if they are trying to hide any possible evidence of a blue battleground swinging red, even if only by random variance. <br /><br />I suspect a lot of the polls are “push polls” meant more to serve a political means-to-an-end rather than to accurately portray the situation. Just like 2016, they’ve portrayed big Dem leads to drive Dem enthusiasm and donations and make the trend-following youths feel like blue is what’s “popular”. And meanwhile throwing a wet blanket to discourage Trump support. And, just like 2016, they start taking their fingers off the scales at the last second so that their final polls can be claimed to be somewhat accurate when they are revisited in the future and compared with results.West Texhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14320803195644351807noreply@blogger.com