It would be nice if the most famous person in political data journalism would actually ask people for the data they're referring to before amplifying totally misleading takes
as far as i can tell, the "polling" ryan is referring to is far from conclusive (i can't even tell if it exists), and nate's take is pretty transparently too clever by half. pretty standard punditry here
in fact, i think we have enough yougov data to actually model this. turnout ~ faith in the process + demo and party controls. will report back.
OK, here is some actual data on the subject. This is a model of 5k respondents to our YouGov polls predicting turnout with faith in the process + standard demog. stuff.
Whether or not people say the election will be unfair has absolutely zero impact on their likelihood to vote.
Just my two cents, but if people are going to make their careers on talking about polling data, they should maybe actually base their opinions on it.
This was a good suggestion — here is the same analysis but it allows for an interaction between party ID and faith in the election. There are no difference between how Democrats and Republicans are impacted by their trust in the process.
So yeah, that's that. I have other work to get back to but this entire narrative is BS. Or, if you prefer something more civil: "totally unsupported by the polling data"
Yes, I would submit this to the 538 podcast as a very bad use of polling.
Woops, sorry -- the second model should have had this image attached
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.