“Study using self-reported data shows that those more interested in politics are more likely to self-report data with post-election surveys. More at 11.”
They literally say they are using self-reported post election surveys. Most people I know, including myself, have never done a post election survey. People that don’t vote also are not participating in post-election surveys. It’s an interesting study, but this is 100% textbook selection bias and I’m surprised Pew Research Center missed the mark on this one.
If progressives voted in overwhelming numbers, then Bernie would have won the primary. I voted for Bernie, but clearly not many others did.
Not that I should even have to debate this, since my my source is the Pew Research Center and yours is, “most people I know,” but that’s a blatant misrepresentation of the methodology. The survey uses data from a group of randomly selected panelists, not self-reported post-election surveys.
The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. …The ATP was created in 2014, with the first cohort of panelists invited to join the panel at the end of a large, national, landline and cellphone random-digit-dial survey that was conducted in both English and Spanish. Two additional recruitments were conducted using the same method in 2015 and 2017, respectively. Across these three surveys, a total of 19,718 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 9,942 (50%) agreed to participate.
The only reference to self-reporting I found was people self-reporting whether or not they voted, and even then, that was independently verified. I’m pretty sure you clicked the first link you saw, scrolled down until you found this paragraph, and didn’t read it very carefully:
Voter turnout and vote choice in the 2020 election is based on two different sources. First, self-reports of candidate choice were collected immediately after the general election in November 2020 (ATP W78). Secondly, ATP panelists were matched to commercial voter file databases to verify that they had indeed voted in the election. For more details, see “Behind Biden’s 2020 Victory.”
Also, if Bernie’s failure to win the Democratic primary proves progressives don’t vote, then it stands to reason that Clinton and Harris’ defeat proves that moderates don’t vote either, right? I mean, it seems stupid to me to make broad, sweeping generalizations about voter behavior over something that has as many variables as an election, but if that’s what you want to do, then you must concede that Harris and Clinton prove that moderates don’t vote.
Buddy, there’s nothing to debate. The “people I know” is in reference to the post election surveys. Something most people don’t participate in. Something your own quote says only 50% of those selected agreed to participate. It’s also not something I’m arguing, but you are choosing as a red herring.
It literally says, “Note Validated voters are citizens who said they voted in a post-election survey and were found to have voted in commercial voter files.”
#IT LITERALLY SAYS POST-ELECTION SURVEY
You even quoted a section saying, “Panelist participate via self-administered web surveys”
#IT LITERALLY SAYS SELF-ADMINISTERED
How fucking stupid are you that you prove my point when trying to pull a gotcha?
Furthermore, the Pew Research Center is not iron clad and immune to selection bias. They continue to recruit people for the panel and those interested participate, then they recruit more later. This goes back to me saying, “those interested in participating, vote more often.” Plus there is the caveat of surveys. Which are, at best, unreliable. If you understood anything about research, you would know that surveys are always carefully measured in terms of meaningfulness. People lie or misrepresent things ALL THE TIME.
#THIS IS VERY CLEARLY 100% SELECTION BIAS
You also can’t make a board sweeping generalization about Democrats not voting because many were vocal about it. You know what Progressives were vocal about, NOT VOTING. You’re even currently arguing with someone else about how not voting is somehow doing something positive. Like holy fuck. Every day I meet more and more fucking morons.
Oh my God, please sit down, you walking Dunning-Kruger. Clearly the quotes were over your head, so I’m going to explain it using smaller words.
So, you’re looking at very small quote from a single graph that says, “Note Validated voters are citizens who said they voted in a post-election survey and were found to have voted in commercial voter files.” You think that means that this survey is conducted exclusively by people who just voted, but it’s not. It’s just explaining to you how they verified that people, who were already randomly selected for the survey, actually voted.
How these people were actually selected was described in my first quote, but since it went over your head, I’ll rephrase it for you; the respondents were randomly selected through a random sampling of phone numbers, both landline and cell. 50% of those people asked if they’d like to be included in the survey said yes, which was about 10,000 people. This took place between July 8th and July 18th of 2021.
I know it said, “self-administered,” at one point, and that was very confusing for you, but that isn’t describing how people were selected for the survey, it’s describing how they took the survey. They self-administered it online, but it was still sent out by Pew to randomly pre-selected candidates, not anyone who wanted to take it. Do you get it now?
So, just to be 100% clear, so you don’t get confused anymore, between July 8th and July 18th of 2021, Pew Research Center selected about 10,000 randomly selected Americans for a survey. They then self-administered that survey through a website shared with them by the Pew Research Center. They were asked about their votes in the last election, and while that information was self-reported, it was also independently verified with voter databases to ensure it was true. There are literally 2 Appendices of information attached to this survey that explain all of this.
So, A) no, this is not a selection problem, you just don’t understand the selection process, and B) if it seems like everyone else is a, “fucking moron,” well, I’ve actually got a theory on why that is.
You have no argument. You are trying to pull a gotcha on a report you randomly googled and then didn’t read. Projecting that I didn’t read it, when I did. Clearly better than you. And now you’re trying to call this a Dunning-Kruger situation, when clearly you don’t understand how surveys work, how studies work, or possess the proper reading comprehension skills to actually understand and digest the information you are glancing at and speed reading.
However, you are right, this is a Dunning-Kruger situation, because YOU are not a researcher and YOU do not understand the caveat associated with surveys, especially self-administered surveys. (A distinction you clearly don’t understand).
You have no argument. You have no point. You are done. No go fuck off and continue to not vote while demanding change.
LOL, you are a fantastically stupid person who has somehow convinced himself he’s brilliant. You can keep repeating, “self-administered post-election survey,” but that just means, “survey that was conducted after the election, in which the participants administered the survey to themselves rather than being given the questions by a surveyor.” You think that means there was selection bias, but all of those steps took place after the selection process.
You’re reading a one sentence summary of a single process to verify one data point and thinking you understand the entire survey methodology. It’s like you’ve got the directions for baking a cake, and you’re only looking at the last step that says, “remove cake from refrigerator and cover with icing.” Then, when someone tries to tell you that you need to put the cake batter in the oven, you keep saying, “no, cakes go in the fridge, can’t you read, dumb-ass?”
It was honestly kind of infuriating at first, but it’s becoming funnier and funnier the longer it goes on. Please keep digging this hole.
We can dig this hole, but this is honestly funny to me because you just don’t understand.
Participants were randomly selected. This study was done three times and they randomly selected participants each time. On that total participants 50% agreed to participate. Then those 50% took a survey, which I have to remind you for the nth time, surveys ALWAYS HAVE A CAVEAT OF BEING POTENTIALLY INACCURATE. People lie or exaggerate on surveys all the time. Then those people were validated with election data to validate they did in fact vote. The potential inaccuracy here is how they rate themselves on the political spectrum. That’s fine.
The part you are very clearly missing and why it is selection bias, is because this isn’t just for a survey of those on the political spectrum and how often they vote. This is also a survey that shows those more interested in politics are more likely to agree to a survey about politics to begin with. It even says 50% decided not to participate. In that same study they even use Twitter as an example of those more interesting in politics. Well duh, you and I are commenting on a political memes channel on Lemmy. So we are more interested in politics and more likely to interact with political topics and vote. It’s very likely many people who are on the political fence or only vote for the president and not in mid-terms or down ballot are not interested in a political survey.
Those with strong opinions are interested in surveys to show their strong opinions. It’s not a hard concept to understand, but you continuously miss the mark. You have ZERO critical thinking skills and that buddy, is both hilarious and truly sad. The education system has failed you.
Wow, great point! Except for two things; first, if people with strong political beliefs were more likely to reply to surveys, would that mean that basically every political survey was inherently biased? Second, if you look under the section of Appendix A marked, “incentives,” you can see that they corrected for sampling bias by offering higher incentives to groups that have a lower response rate:
All respondents were offered a post-paid incentive for their participation. Respondents could choose to receive the post-paid incentive in the form of a check or a gift code to Amazon.com or could choose to decline the incentive. Incentive amounts ranged from $5 to $20 depending on whether the respondent belongs to a part of the population that is harder or easier to reach. Differential incentive amounts were designed to increase panel survey participation among groups that traditionally have low survey response propensities.
Anyway, do want to keep trying to prove that the Pew Research Center doesn’t know how to conduct a survey, or are you finally tired of digging?
Literally the opposite is true. People on the far-left and far-right are much more likely to vote than people in the middle.
“Study using self-reported data shows that those more interested in politics are more likely to self-report data with post-election surveys. More at 11.”
They literally say they are using self-reported post election surveys. Most people I know, including myself, have never done a post election survey. People that don’t vote also are not participating in post-election surveys. It’s an interesting study, but this is 100% textbook selection bias and I’m surprised Pew Research Center missed the mark on this one.
If progressives voted in overwhelming numbers, then Bernie would have won the primary. I voted for Bernie, but clearly not many others did.
Not that I should even have to debate this, since my my source is the Pew Research Center and yours is, “most people I know,” but that’s a blatant misrepresentation of the methodology. The survey uses data from a group of randomly selected panelists, not self-reported post-election surveys.
The only reference to self-reporting I found was people self-reporting whether or not they voted, and even then, that was independently verified. I’m pretty sure you clicked the first link you saw, scrolled down until you found this paragraph, and didn’t read it very carefully:
Also, if Bernie’s failure to win the Democratic primary proves progressives don’t vote, then it stands to reason that Clinton and Harris’ defeat proves that moderates don’t vote either, right? I mean, it seems stupid to me to make broad, sweeping generalizations about voter behavior over something that has as many variables as an election, but if that’s what you want to do, then you must concede that Harris and Clinton prove that moderates don’t vote.
Buddy, there’s nothing to debate. The “people I know” is in reference to the post election surveys. Something most people don’t participate in. Something your own quote says only 50% of those selected agreed to participate. It’s also not something I’m arguing, but you are choosing as a red herring.
It literally says, “Note Validated voters are citizens who said they voted in a post-election survey and were found to have voted in commercial voter files.”
#IT LITERALLY SAYS POST-ELECTION SURVEY
You even quoted a section saying, “Panelist participate via self-administered web surveys”
#IT LITERALLY SAYS SELF-ADMINISTERED
How fucking stupid are you that you prove my point when trying to pull a gotcha?
Furthermore, the Pew Research Center is not iron clad and immune to selection bias. They continue to recruit people for the panel and those interested participate, then they recruit more later. This goes back to me saying, “those interested in participating, vote more often.” Plus there is the caveat of surveys. Which are, at best, unreliable. If you understood anything about research, you would know that surveys are always carefully measured in terms of meaningfulness. People lie or misrepresent things ALL THE TIME.
#THIS IS VERY CLEARLY 100% SELECTION BIAS
You also can’t make a board sweeping generalization about Democrats not voting because many were vocal about it. You know what Progressives were vocal about, NOT VOTING. You’re even currently arguing with someone else about how not voting is somehow doing something positive. Like holy fuck. Every day I meet more and more fucking morons.
Oh my God, please sit down, you walking Dunning-Kruger. Clearly the quotes were over your head, so I’m going to explain it using smaller words.
So, you’re looking at very small quote from a single graph that says, “Note Validated voters are citizens who said they voted in a post-election survey and were found to have voted in commercial voter files.” You think that means that this survey is conducted exclusively by people who just voted, but it’s not. It’s just explaining to you how they verified that people, who were already randomly selected for the survey, actually voted.
How these people were actually selected was described in my first quote, but since it went over your head, I’ll rephrase it for you; the respondents were randomly selected through a random sampling of phone numbers, both landline and cell. 50% of those people asked if they’d like to be included in the survey said yes, which was about 10,000 people. This took place between July 8th and July 18th of 2021.
I know it said, “self-administered,” at one point, and that was very confusing for you, but that isn’t describing how people were selected for the survey, it’s describing how they took the survey. They self-administered it online, but it was still sent out by Pew to randomly pre-selected candidates, not anyone who wanted to take it. Do you get it now?
So, just to be 100% clear, so you don’t get confused anymore, between July 8th and July 18th of 2021, Pew Research Center selected about 10,000 randomly selected Americans for a survey. They then self-administered that survey through a website shared with them by the Pew Research Center. They were asked about their votes in the last election, and while that information was self-reported, it was also independently verified with voter databases to ensure it was true. There are literally 2 Appendices of information attached to this survey that explain all of this.
So, A) no, this is not a selection problem, you just don’t understand the selection process, and B) if it seems like everyone else is a, “fucking moron,” well, I’ve actually got a theory on why that is.
You have no argument. You are trying to pull a gotcha on a report you randomly googled and then didn’t read. Projecting that I didn’t read it, when I did. Clearly better than you. And now you’re trying to call this a Dunning-Kruger situation, when clearly you don’t understand how surveys work, how studies work, or possess the proper reading comprehension skills to actually understand and digest the information you are glancing at and speed reading.
However, you are right, this is a Dunning-Kruger situation, because YOU are not a researcher and YOU do not understand the caveat associated with surveys, especially self-administered surveys. (A distinction you clearly don’t understand).
You have no argument. You have no point. You are done. No go fuck off and continue to not vote while demanding change.
LOL, you are a fantastically stupid person who has somehow convinced himself he’s brilliant. You can keep repeating, “self-administered post-election survey,” but that just means, “survey that was conducted after the election, in which the participants administered the survey to themselves rather than being given the questions by a surveyor.” You think that means there was selection bias, but all of those steps took place after the selection process.
You’re reading a one sentence summary of a single process to verify one data point and thinking you understand the entire survey methodology. It’s like you’ve got the directions for baking a cake, and you’re only looking at the last step that says, “remove cake from refrigerator and cover with icing.” Then, when someone tries to tell you that you need to put the cake batter in the oven, you keep saying, “no, cakes go in the fridge, can’t you read, dumb-ass?”
It was honestly kind of infuriating at first, but it’s becoming funnier and funnier the longer it goes on. Please keep digging this hole.
We can dig this hole, but this is honestly funny to me because you just don’t understand.
Participants were randomly selected. This study was done three times and they randomly selected participants each time. On that total participants 50% agreed to participate. Then those 50% took a survey, which I have to remind you for the nth time, surveys ALWAYS HAVE A CAVEAT OF BEING POTENTIALLY INACCURATE. People lie or exaggerate on surveys all the time. Then those people were validated with election data to validate they did in fact vote. The potential inaccuracy here is how they rate themselves on the political spectrum. That’s fine.
The part you are very clearly missing and why it is selection bias, is because this isn’t just for a survey of those on the political spectrum and how often they vote. This is also a survey that shows those more interested in politics are more likely to agree to a survey about politics to begin with. It even says 50% decided not to participate. In that same study they even use Twitter as an example of those more interesting in politics. Well duh, you and I are commenting on a political memes channel on Lemmy. So we are more interested in politics and more likely to interact with political topics and vote. It’s very likely many people who are on the political fence or only vote for the president and not in mid-terms or down ballot are not interested in a political survey.
Those with strong opinions are interested in surveys to show their strong opinions. It’s not a hard concept to understand, but you continuously miss the mark. You have ZERO critical thinking skills and that buddy, is both hilarious and truly sad. The education system has failed you.
Wow, great point! Except for two things; first, if people with strong political beliefs were more likely to reply to surveys, would that mean that basically every political survey was inherently biased? Second, if you look under the section of Appendix A marked, “incentives,” you can see that they corrected for sampling bias by offering higher incentives to groups that have a lower response rate:
Anyway, do want to keep trying to prove that the Pew Research Center doesn’t know how to conduct a survey, or are you finally tired of digging?