So uh, about that “shy” Trump vote? And the “shy” Tory vote. And the “shy” UKIPers.
Sorry, but it looks like they don’t really exist.
I mean, they exist. But they’re not really shy. They’re just busy.
These people, when you look at their socio-economic class, and their demographics, are the working people of the United States and United Kingdom respectively.
Basically, the reason the media and the pollsters got it wrong is because they assumed everyone has time to speak to pollsters on the phone for half an hour, answering reams of questions about their voting preferences.
And this applies to people raising families too. Stay-at-home mothers and fathers don’t really have time, between getting the kids to school, tending to the house, paying the bills, changing diapers, what ever it is… to spend their lives talking to strangers about elections.
In their eyes the only poll that matters is the one on election day, and because their lives are perhaps the most heavily impacted by economic policy, tax policy, immigration policy, and more… they actually do go and vote. Because they have skin in the game.
Conversely, the people who do have time to speak at length to pollsters tend to be, well, voluntarily unemployed, flexible workers, students, or similar. These people also have no skin in the game, and are therefore less likely to vote.
But don’t take my word for it.
Political scientist Professor John Curtice is way ahead on the issue.
According to the Telegraph, he studied the answers given in the British Social Attitudes Survey in 2015, and “found that if polls had been based on the people who answered the door on a first visit then Labour would be six points ahead”.
But, conversely, if those who needed between three to six visits before answering the door had been factored in, the Conservative Party would have had an 11-point lead.
This is what we talk about when you hear those of us on the right talked about flawed, or skewed, methodology by the pollsters.
“Prof Curtice said it wasn’t ‘shy Tories’ who skewed polling results but ‘busy’ ones”.
“The people who the pollers interviewed are not always fully representative. It wasn’t that people were lying, or saying they would vote and then not turning up,” he said, adding: “Conservatives are just simply more difficult to get hold of. There is an availability bias. People who you can get hold of first time round, who say, ‘oh yes come in’ are disproportionately Labour voters. The people you can easily get hold of are not representative.”
Shocking, isn’t it? That the same people who defy lives of hard work and family are the very same people who are heavily left-leaning, don’t bother voting, and then complain about the results of elections.
I mean really, blow me down!