I don't know if anyone has pointed this out

[wryter2000]

If someone has, I'll just revise the post to give a link to who said it first.

The people who are telling us Biden's popularity numbers are bad are the same ones who told us we were in danger or losing everything on Tuesday. How do we know they're right about that? I don't think they are.

We have no good data on Biden's popularity.

[Claustrum]

1. I actually believe people aren't voting because of Biden, at least not against him.

So his popularity is less important than say TFG.

[wryter2000]

3. For sure

TFG has done a number on the Republicans, and he shows no signs of shutting up.

[Claustrum]

9. That's what they got for running a "personality" candidate

who has a constant need to suck all of the air out of everything. Everything is about him, good or bad. Just look at him in the last few days. This midterm wasn't supposed to be about him. Hillary didn't make TFG's first midterm about her. She didn't insert herself in there. But TFG just can't shut up and has to make everything about him. Then of course his unpopularity is going to matter.

Biden, on the other hand, stays out when needed.

[LakeArenal]

2. Just don't waver. Popular vote. No popular vote

Biden is our President. We know who he is.

Sometimes it does take blind faith. It’s the only option sometimes.

[wryter2000]

6. I'm not wavering

I've been his fan since the Bork hearings. (The Thomas hearings, oy. That's another story.)

I think he's been and will continue to be a wonderful President in an extremely difficult time.

[LakeArenal]

12. That's all we can do until next election.

[Walleye]

4. That very point came to my mind this morning. They keep quoting his approval rating

Are these the same people who polled the midterm elections? If so, I think we can add about 10 points

[wryter2000]

7. Great minds

[SheltieLover]

13. They have to have something to complain about related to Dems. Always. Corporate advertisers

demand it, no doubt!

Precisely why I don't even have TV service. Haven't for years.

[getagrip_already]

5. yup, it's all done via polling......

With all the inherent flaws, but even less rigorous screening. They basically just call numbers randomly based on locale and ask them questions.

If they happen to end up reaching older folks who are home during the day and answer calls,well, that's that.

So no, it not a scientific surety.

[wryter2000]

8. Thanks

I'm not going to worry about polls going forward.

[Genki Hikari]

14. And you work for what polling company to know this is how they contact people?

Because you must work for a crappy one to do things no reputable pollster is doing to reach people. You also haven't been polled to make so many false assumptions.

Pollsters do NOT call numbers randomly. That's your first mistaken assumption. They use massive databases that have reams of info on people to sort out groups of people to call by gender, age, race, voter registration status and more.

Really.

And they don't cold call people. That's your second mistaken assumption. They're not stupid. They know people screen calls, so they attempt access through voice mail and texting, with requests to get back to them.

And they don't talk only to "old people." That's your third mistaken assumption. They get through to all kinds of people, else those people wouldn't show up in their demographics, which always list them, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary. All it takes is finding the methodology and actually, you know, looking at it for who they talked to. Because if you had done that bare minimum, you'd know that they talk to plenty of people who aren't old. Or white. Or r.

Three strikes, and all that. Stop regurgitating nonsense from people who don't know what they're talking about, and take a bit of time to learn the reality for yourself.

[getagrip_already]

15. sorry for attacking your profession, but...

I honestly don't believe that is what the bulk of pollsters do. I do look at the tabs to see what methodolgy was used, and I've never seen any of that.

Now I'm sure some do, and if you work for one I hope that is how you operate.. But, polls are still junk science whose only purpose is to give the media something to talk about.

They can wrap all the pseudo-sciece around it they want. The fact is their results are just trash.

Sorry if that insults the pollsters stock and trade. It is not a personal attack.

And yes, I was being hyperbolic. I know they use call books. I know they try to target specific segments at specific levels. But, most still do phone calling. Texting isn't common and no more prone to getting a response than cold calling.

So they do what they can to get responses. And they customblend the demo's to what they think the population is as a whole, which introduces bias.

Garbage resulting.

[DestinyIsles]

10. Its mostly Republican hacks polls skewing the averages

such as Trafalgar. I think Biden's approval is probably like 45% like the exit polls said before we got results, which still isn't great but better then average of 538 which oversample junk Republican polls

[wryter2000]

11. Exit polls, at least, are some data

I hope 538 has learned something.

[iemanja]

16. Many, if not most, of their predictions have proven true

[getagrip_already]

17. yeah, but.....

There is always a but.

I've heard countless times that the polls are in the end are accurate. That is by design - meaning they design the final sets of polls to be within the margin of error of the predictable outcomes.

Most results have the winner within 3% points of the loser. So if the final poll is +/- 4 points, and they magically fall within that spread, then it doesn't matter who they predicted would win. They would be right.

So the polls are accurate! Only they can't not be, at the same time serving no useful purpose to anyone except the media.