Smart Trade Insights
  • Business
  • Economy
  • Investing
  • Politics
Top Posts
AI Still Has Legs, but Valuation Risk is...
Crypto Market Update: White House Pushes for Compromise...
Anglo Takes Third De Beers Writedown in Three...
Cellulose Breakthrough Could Simplify Rare Earths Separation
Western Copper and Gold Announces Filing of Final...
Tech Weekly: Stocks Rally After SCOTUS Ruling on...
Top 5 Canadian Mining Stocks This Week: Belo...
Gold and Silver Stocks Dominate TSX Venture 50...
Nuvau Minerals Announces Amendment to Private Placement Terms
Kinross’ Great Bear Gold Project Accelerated Under Ontario’s...
  • Business
  • Economy
  • Investing
  • Politics

Smart Trade Insights

Politics

Jesse Watters doesn’t know how polls work

by admin August 9, 2024
August 9, 2024
Jesse Watters doesn’t know how polls work

Jesse Watters is onto it. Onto the whole thing. He’s figured it out.

The Fox News host knows that the media — that is, the media outside of his own right-wing channel — is hopelessly in the tank for Vice President Kamala Harris. And he has the evidence to prove it, as he revealed Wednesday afternoon on the show “The Five.”

“The media’s just gonna protect and elect” the Democrats, Watters declared. “They’re juicing the polls! I just found out, this country identifies R plus-2. And all the polls we’ve seen with Kamala doing so well, their samples? R plus-7! R plus-8! R plus-4!”

“These are fake polls!” he added. “Trump is going to kill her!”

“Well, we’ll see,” co-host Jeanine Pirro replied, moving on to another subject.

Perhaps she was confused, as you might be, about what Watters is saying. Perhaps she took it in stride, given that Trump’s campaign similarly disputed a poll this week. Or perhaps she realized, as you may already but certainly will in a moment, that Watters doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

The first thing to point out here is that Watters misspoke. He was trying to say that the polls showing a lead for Harris were D plus-7 or plus-8, not R. Because the claim he’s making is that the population is more Republican than Democrat — that Republicans have a 2-point (plus-2) edge in identification — while the polls include more Democrats by a 7- or 8-point margin.

The next thing to point out is that the “R plus-2′ thing is a misrepresentation of what polling shows.

Watters is probably referring to Gallup’s regular polls in which they ask Americans “as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an independent?” The most recent result, completed in the first three weeks of July, had Republicans with a 2-point advantage, as Watters states.

But you’ll notice on that graph that the two-party total comes up to less than 60 percent. That’s because the actual most-common identifier is “independent.” America is an “I plus-11″ country, if you want to put it in Wattersian terms.

Gallup, like other pollsters, then asks people whether they tend to vote more with the Republican or Democratic Party, which most independents do. Overlay that data, and you see that, in a sense, America is an “R plus-6′ country!

Or at least it was in early July, before President Joe Biden withdrew his candidacy for reelection. When Trump was leading in the polls, this was the Republican edge. It may change.

We should also note that this is self-identified partisanship. In actual voter registrations, Democrats have a substantial edge. L2, a political data firm, shows more registered Democrats in states where voters register by party and a growing advantage in its modeled partisanship for states that don’t have partisan registration.

(The modeled values, shown with the outlined bars below, use other indicators, including primary voting history, to estimate a voter’s partisanship.)

In other words, while Republicans have an advantage in identification at the moment, Democrats have one in registration.

All of this, though, ignores the other fundamental problem with Watters’s self-confident dismissal of polling: the results of a statistically accurate poll are essentially never an exact reflection of the people who participate in it.

You understand how this works in your own life. If you’re buying a Christmas present for your niece and nephew, you might get suggestions for popular video games from other teenagers. You find a representative opinion that you feel confident answers your question.

Pollsters have a far more rigorous way of doing this same thing. If they are trying to determine the likely results of an election, their poll has two components: talking to poll respondents and figuring out who is likely to vote. Then, using relatively complicated math, they ensure that the responses reflect the electorate.

Let’s say that you ask 100 Democrats and 80 Republicans how they plan to vote in an election, with 90 percent of each group picking their party’s candidate and 10 percent selecting the other party’s. By itself, that’s a 54 percent to 46 percent margin in favor of the Democrat. If you think, though, that the electorate will be 50-50? You can simply treat each Democrat response as eight-tenths of a response — what pollsters call “weighting.” The result is a 50-50 race.

Respondents
Dem votes
Rep votes
Weighted Dem
Weighted Rep
Democrats
90
10
72 (90 x 80%)
8 (10 x 80%)
Republicans
8
72
8 (8 x 100%)
72 (72 x 100%)

This assumes, of course, that the estimates about who will vote are correct, which is by itself fraught. But, again, pollsters spend a lot of time and energy figuring out what the target population looks like across a range of demographic groupings. Then they do their best to match their respondent poll to the target population and weight the results to make up the difference.

Pollsters, after all, are in the business of accurately capturing public opinion and they know how to do their job effectively. If a pollster were consistently giving its clients inaccurate results, it would quickly find itself losing clients (unless the clients wanted inaccurate results, of course).

As Watters has said, he’s in the business of championing disarray on the left. If that means distorting crime data or misrepresenting how polling works, so be it. Watters knows how to do his job effectively, too.

Lenny Bronner contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

previous post
RFK Jr. and the third-party effect are now hurting Trump
next post
With Harris and Walz in, some Democrats still weigh skipping the polls

You may also like

Larry Hogan features ‘horror’ of Jan. 6 in...

September 3, 2024

Former Colorado official sentenced to prison in election...

October 4, 2024

Harris holds slight national lead over Trump, Post-ABC-Ipsos...

August 18, 2024

Harris slams Trump as ‘architect of this crisis’...

September 21, 2024

Harris and Walz rally in the Midwest, seeking...

August 8, 2024

Michigan lawyer who claimed election fraud arrested after...

August 14, 2024

Vance, Walz square off in what could be...

October 2, 2024

With voting under attack, Arizona schools don’t want...

August 6, 2024

3 takeaways from Kamala Harris and Tim Walz’s...

August 30, 2024

Fox’s seemingly contradictory polls offer an insight into...

October 18, 2024

    Fill Out & Get More Relevant News


    Stay ahead of the market and unlock exclusive trading insights & timely news. We value your privacy - your information is secure, and you can unsubscribe anytime. Gain an edge with hand-picked trading opportunities, stay informed with market-moving updates, and learn from expert tips & strategies.

    Recent Posts

    • AI Still Has Legs, but Valuation Risk is Back in Focus

      February 21, 2026
    • Crypto Market Update: White House Pushes for Compromise in Stablecoin Negotiations

      February 21, 2026
    • Anglo Takes Third De Beers Writedown in Three Years

      February 21, 2026
    • Cellulose Breakthrough Could Simplify Rare Earths Separation

      February 21, 2026
    • Western Copper and Gold Announces Filing of Final Short Form Prospectus

      February 21, 2026
    Promotion Image

    banner ads

    Categories

    • Business (940)
    • Economy (839)
    • Investing (3,944)
    • Politics (747)
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: smarttradeinsights.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.


    Copyright © 2026 smarttradeinsights.com | All Rights Reserved