Hi all -- just wanted to pop in quickly and say thank you for all the kind words and support, which are beyond deeply appreciated during a somewhat overwhelming week.
I also just want to take a moment to reflect on the HuffPost/YouGov poll. In my time running the partnership since 2014, we've fielded more than 1,000(!) surveys, asking Americans about everything from economic hardships and gun violence to the correct pronunciation of "GIF."
We've rerun historical polls from the 1930s to see what's changed, and checked into to see how people coped.
Not one of those polls included the question "Which candidate will you vote for?"
It has been a dream opportunity to learn so much about the beliefs and experiences of the people around me, and I'm really proud of the work that's come out of it.
Also want to briefly highlight a poll finding I wasn't able to write up, but that I think might be useful for discussion!
There's been a lot of debate over public health messaging on the benefits of the vaccine, which raises the question: what do people think that message is?
We asked people what level of risk they thought they/others would face once vaccinated -- as you can see, clear education/partisan divides. Field dates are Feb. 19-23: s.crunch.io/widget/index.h… s.crunch.io/widget/index.h…
57% of people thought scientists were saying being vaccinated put them at lower (52%) or no (5%) risk of coronavirus. 11% said no decline in risk, rest were unsure or said science not yet settled.
One thing that's probably worth mentioning as impeachment polling starts to come out: Until we have a better sense of factors behind 2020 election polling error, can't discount that some of the same factors are affecting non-election political surveys.
To the extent there was a likely-voter-model problem, that's not a factor. But differential non-response very well could be.
Reasonable hypothesis that national impeachment polling might understate opposition by up to 3-4 points.
Compared to elections (where slim margins can be crucial), something like 39% opposition vs. 42% opposition isn't as meaningfully different.
But it's probably a good reminder that all these numbers are, by definition, estimates.
Dem voters say, 43% to 33%, Biden should compromise to work with GOP. GOP voters say, 54% to 25%, that Republicans in Washington should stick to their positions.
That same asymmetry shows up in voters' expectations: Dem voters think that Biden will work with GOP (but not vice versa), while GOP voters don't expect either side to work together.
Sort of an interesting crosstab: how likely Dem voters think it is that GOP will work with Biden vs. whether they think Biden should try to work with GOP. Even those who think he should compromise are mostly bearish it will be reciprocated.
It is going to be really interesting to see if/how this affects public opinion over the next couple of months.
Right now, we're in a place with clear partisan divides for preventative measures, but nevertheless still pretty broad public support across the board.
One scenario I've worried about: With Trump's messaging so inconsistent, many Trump voters focused on the more pro-restriction things he said, which aligned with their own beliefs. (See this from July.)
With a Dem president advocating for preventative measures, is there any possibility of some backlash effect? Probably depends to some extent on who the loudest GOP voices are, and what message they're putting forward.
I don't have a ton to add to the polling discussion at the moment -- want to get a lot more information before I start theorizing in detail about what happened, or what that means for polling in the future.
Here's an initial writeup, to which I'll add a few personal thoughts:
I think there are two main issues here: the communication and the data. Polling is an inexact snapshot, and this level of error was always a possibility.