math democrat
@mathdemocrat.bsky.social
Progressive democrat. Proud supporter of the Democratic Party and President Biden & Vice President Kamala Harris. I love 😺 cats very much! Academic background/ degrees are in mathematics (ie proof/theory). Math=Logic. Longtime Daily Kos poster.
Pinned
The "socialist" label energizes a specific coalition—young people, people of color, and lower-income Democrats—but it simultaneously alienates a larger and, in most competitive elections, more decisive coalition of older voters, white voters, higher-income voters, and political independents.
|
|
The logic follows that if non-response is correlated with political affiliation (e.g., highly motivated, transient anti-Trump voters are difficult to reach via phone but are highly likely to vote), standard demographic and geographic weighting protocols cannot compensate effectively.
December 3, 2025 at 3:26 AM
The logic follows that if non-response is correlated with political affiliation (e.g., highly motivated, transient anti-Trump voters are difficult to reach via phone but are highly likely to vote), standard demographic and geographic weighting protocols cannot compensate effectively.
When high enthusiasm—such as the surge observed in New Jersey's urban centers —is tied specifically to an anti-Republican structural reaction, traditional WUV models based on historical voting patterns fail dramatically.
December 3, 2025 at 3:26 AM
When high enthusiasm—such as the surge observed in New Jersey's urban centers —is tied specifically to an anti-Republican structural reaction, traditional WUV models based on historical voting patterns fail dramatically.
These models attempt to project the actual electorate from the sampled population.
December 3, 2025 at 3:26 AM
These models attempt to project the actual electorate from the sampled population.
The Failure of Who Will Vote (WUV) Modeling
The systemic Democratic overperformance strongly suggests that pollsters are employing outdated or inaccurate Who Will Vote (WUV) models.
The systemic Democratic overperformance strongly suggests that pollsters are employing outdated or inaccurate Who Will Vote (WUV) models.
December 3, 2025 at 3:25 AM
The Failure of Who Will Vote (WUV) Modeling
The systemic Democratic overperformance strongly suggests that pollsters are employing outdated or inaccurate Who Will Vote (WUV) models.
The systemic Democratic overperformance strongly suggests that pollsters are employing outdated or inaccurate Who Will Vote (WUV) models.
the resultant data set is fundamentally skewed toward a less polarized, less energized electorate.
December 3, 2025 at 3:24 AM
the resultant data set is fundamentally skewed toward a less polarized, less energized electorate.
If a significant proportion of motivated voters, particularly those with a strong anti-Republican stance, are systematically less accessible or less willing to participate in traditional survey modes (e.g., landline or standard online panels),
December 3, 2025 at 3:23 AM
If a significant proportion of motivated voters, particularly those with a strong anti-Republican stance, are systematically less accessible or less willing to participate in traditional survey modes (e.g., landline or standard online panels),
This dynamic creates a baseline issue in the construction of the initial sample frame.
December 3, 2025 at 3:22 AM
This dynamic creates a baseline issue in the construction of the initial sample frame.
Differential Response Rates (DRR) and Accessibility
Contemporary research suggests that the population segment most likely to respond to public opinion polls is increasingly correlated with those who are predisposed to vote Democratic.
Contemporary research suggests that the population segment most likely to respond to public opinion polls is increasingly correlated with those who are predisposed to vote Democratic.
December 3, 2025 at 3:22 AM
Differential Response Rates (DRR) and Accessibility
Contemporary research suggests that the population segment most likely to respond to public opinion polls is increasingly correlated with those who are predisposed to vote Democratic.
Contemporary research suggests that the population segment most likely to respond to public opinion polls is increasingly correlated with those who are predisposed to vote Democratic.
The Role of Non-Sampling Errors in Skewing Results
Non-sampling errors, particularly those related to how polling organizations reach various population subgroups and their criteria for estimating who will vote, introduce shared, common components of error across many surveys for a given election.
Non-sampling errors, particularly those related to how polling organizations reach various population subgroups and their criteria for estimating who will vote, introduce shared, common components of error across many surveys for a given election.
December 3, 2025 at 3:21 AM
The Role of Non-Sampling Errors in Skewing Results
Non-sampling errors, particularly those related to how polling organizations reach various population subgroups and their criteria for estimating who will vote, introduce shared, common components of error across many surveys for a given election.
Non-sampling errors, particularly those related to how polling organizations reach various population subgroups and their criteria for estimating who will vote, introduce shared, common components of error across many surveys for a given election.
The challenges are concentrated primarily in two interconnected areas: differential response rates and the difficulty of accurately modeling the probable voter universe.
December 3, 2025 at 3:21 AM
The challenges are concentrated primarily in two interconnected areas: differential response rates and the difficulty of accurately modeling the probable voter universe.
The pervasive Election-Level Bias observed in 2025 stems from deeply rooted non-sampling errors that have accelerated in the polarized post-2016 era.
December 3, 2025 at 3:20 AM
The pervasive Election-Level Bias observed in 2025 stems from deeply rooted non-sampling errors that have accelerated in the polarized post-2016 era.
Roanoke College | -8.0 (R Lead) | +6.4 | -14.4 | Oct 22-27 |
| Actual Final Margin | N/A | +6.4 | N/A | Nov 4, 2025 |
III. Methodological Review: Causal Factors Behind Systemic Democratic Polling Bias
| Actual Final Margin | N/A | +6.4 | N/A | Nov 4, 2025 |
III. Methodological Review: Causal Factors Behind Systemic Democratic Polling Bias
December 3, 2025 at 3:20 AM
Roanoke College | -8.0 (R Lead) | +6.4 | -14.4 | Oct 22-27 |
| Actual Final Margin | N/A | +6.4 | N/A | Nov 4, 2025 |
III. Methodological Review: Causal Factors Behind Systemic Democratic Polling Bias
| Actual Final Margin | N/A | +6.4 | N/A | Nov 4, 2025 |
III. Methodological Review: Causal Factors Behind Systemic Democratic Polling Bias
Insider Advantage | +2.0 | +6.4 | -4.4 | Nov 2-3 |
| Quantus Insights | 0.0 (Tied) | +6.4 | -6.4 | Nov 3 |
| Trafalgar Group | 0.0 (Tied) | +6.4 | -6.4 | Nov 1-2 |
|
| Quantus Insights | 0.0 (Tied) | +6.4 | -6.4 | Nov 3 |
| Trafalgar Group | 0.0 (Tied) | +6.4 | -6.4 | Nov 1-2 |
|
December 3, 2025 at 3:19 AM
Insider Advantage | +2.0 | +6.4 | -4.4 | Nov 2-3 |
| Quantus Insights | 0.0 (Tied) | +6.4 | -6.4 | Nov 3 |
| Trafalgar Group | 0.0 (Tied) | +6.4 | -6.4 | Nov 1-2 |
|
| Quantus Insights | 0.0 (Tied) | +6.4 | -6.4 | Nov 3 |
| Trafalgar Group | 0.0 (Tied) | +6.4 | -6.4 | Nov 1-2 |
|
Table 2: Polling Error Analysis: Virginia Attorney General Election (2025)
| Pollster/Source | Polling Margin (Jones Lead) | Final Result (Jones Lead) | Polling Error (Pts.) | Date of Final Poll |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Pollster/Source | Polling Margin (Jones Lead) | Final Result (Jones Lead) | Polling Error (Pts.) | Date of Final Poll |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
December 3, 2025 at 3:19 AM
Table 2: Polling Error Analysis: Virginia Attorney General Election (2025)
| Pollster/Source | Polling Margin (Jones Lead) | Final Result (Jones Lead) | Polling Error (Pts.) | Date of Final Poll |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Pollster/Source | Polling Margin (Jones Lead) | Final Result (Jones Lead) | Polling Error (Pts.) | Date of Final Poll |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
In this environment, specific candidate scandals were largely minimized by the broader desire to vote against the Republican party, a factor that pre-election polls clearly failed to incorporate into their turnout models.
December 3, 2025 at 3:18 AM
In this environment, specific candidate scandals were largely minimized by the broader desire to vote against the Republican party, a factor that pre-election polls clearly failed to incorporate into their turnout models.
This powerful structural environment created a "Blue Wave" that was sufficiently robust to functionally override traditional negative candidate effects.
December 3, 2025 at 3:17 AM
This powerful structural environment created a "Blue Wave" that was sufficiently robust to functionally override traditional negative candidate effects.
This outcome indicates that the electorate’s motivation in 2025 was fundamentally structural and nationalized, driven by factors such as anti-Trump sentiment and discontent with economic conditions.
December 3, 2025 at 3:17 AM
This outcome indicates that the electorate’s motivation in 2025 was fundamentally structural and nationalized, driven by factors such as anti-Trump sentiment and discontent with economic conditions.
This damaging controversy would typically be expected to depress turnout or alienate moderate voters. However, Jones not only maintained the endorsements of elected Democrats but successfully won by a decisive 7-point margin.
December 3, 2025 at 3:17 AM
This damaging controversy would typically be expected to depress turnout or alienate moderate voters. However, Jones not only maintained the endorsements of elected Democrats but successfully won by a decisive 7-point margin.
A particularly instructive element of the Jones victory is the performance relative to campaign headwinds. Jones faced widespread condemnation after text messages from 2022 surfaced in which he advocated violence toward a political rival and made offensive comments regarding that rival’s family.
December 3, 2025 at 3:17 AM
A particularly instructive element of the Jones victory is the performance relative to campaign headwinds. Jones faced widespread condemnation after text messages from 2022 surfaced in which he advocated violence toward a political rival and made offensive comments regarding that rival’s family.
The average ELB across the final polls was consistently high, ranging between 4.4 and 6.4 points.
December 3, 2025 at 3:16 AM
The average ELB across the final polls was consistently high, ranging between 4.4 and 6.4 points.
* The Roanoke College poll, taken a week earlier, suggested an 8-point lead for the Republican incumbent Miyares, demonstrating a catastrophic \approx 14.4 point bias against the eventual winner.
December 3, 2025 at 3:16 AM
* The Roanoke College poll, taken a week earlier, suggested an 8-point lead for the Republican incumbent Miyares, demonstrating a catastrophic \approx 14.4 point bias against the eventual winner.
* Insider Advantage and Emerson College/The Hill polls, conducted in the final week, showed Jones leading by only 2 points.
* Quantus Insights and Trafalgar Group polls reported the race as tied.
* Quantus Insights and Trafalgar Group polls reported the race as tied.
December 3, 2025 at 3:16 AM
* Insider Advantage and Emerson College/The Hill polls, conducted in the final week, showed Jones leading by only 2 points.
* Quantus Insights and Trafalgar Group polls reported the race as tied.
* Quantus Insights and Trafalgar Group polls reported the race as tied.
The Result and Structural Overriding of Candidate Controversy
The final margin of 6.4 points was more than twice the advantage predicted by the most favorable Democratic polls in the final week. Late-stage polling exhibited severe underestimation of Democratic strength:
The final margin of 6.4 points was more than twice the advantage predicted by the most favorable Democratic polls in the final week. Late-stage polling exhibited severe underestimation of Democratic strength:
December 3, 2025 at 3:15 AM
The Result and Structural Overriding of Candidate Controversy
The final margin of 6.4 points was more than twice the advantage predicted by the most favorable Democratic polls in the final week. Late-stage polling exhibited severe underestimation of Democratic strength:
The final margin of 6.4 points was more than twice the advantage predicted by the most favorable Democratic polls in the final week. Late-stage polling exhibited severe underestimation of Democratic strength:
This occurred as part of a statewide Democratic sweep, including a landslide gubernatorial win for Democrat Abigail Spanberger (D+15.36).
December 3, 2025 at 3:15 AM
This occurred as part of a statewide Democratic sweep, including a landslide gubernatorial win for Democrat Abigail Spanberger (D+15.36).
The Virginia Attorney General race provided a parallel example of polling failure in a structurally competitive state. Democrat Jay Jones defeated incumbent Republican Jason Miyares, winning by a significant 6.45 percentage point margin (53.14% to 46.45%).
December 3, 2025 at 3:15 AM
The Virginia Attorney General race provided a parallel example of polling failure in a structurally competitive state. Democrat Jay Jones defeated incumbent Republican Jason Miyares, winning by a significant 6.45 percentage point margin (53.14% to 46.45%).