If The Polls are Wrong: Election 2020 Prediction

Metrics are dependent on proper segmentation 

I'm writing this before the election, so it's not some retro-active defense of bad data or the usual 'but it was within the margins of error!' argument. Which, by the way, is not a bad argument, but feels let true after watching it happen twice in a row... 

So, I put money that Trump would win the 2020 election before Corona virus hit. I think if he loses, it will be because he downplayed the virus too much, did not encourage mask wearing, and overall gave the impression that he didn't really have a clear national strategy, even though I think his team does have a decent strategy.

However, despite the polls, I think Trump will win, and it will be convincing. One of the reasons for this is because I see some parallels of how polls look at data is similar to how marketers look at data. I worked for some of the world's largest YouTube marketing campaigns, and one thing we always struggled with was trying to align metrics with TV ratings to show like for like comparisons. Basically, we wanted TV budgets and were trying to show that people were moving away from TV and moving to digital, so budgets should be moving as well. Despite the obvious data we had that this was true, it was incredibly difficult to shift budgets from TV to digital. I think there were 3 main reasons for this:

1. Change Inertia: It's difficult to change what you're doing

- TV has long purchasing cycles, and a very well establish and respected measuring, buying and purchasing process and system in place. The TV rating system in the UK (BARB) is considered the Gold Standard in marketing metrics, and so if you can't prove that your digital media is getting similar results, then you get a share of the social media budget, not the sacred TV budget. 

2. Lies, Damn Lies, and Marketing Metrics

- Metrics are complicated, hence why the average marketer can't really explain how the metrics work or how to translate them into the digital world. That's what they hire their analysts for, or at least, that's what they hope their analysts are doing. For example, TV ratings are based on Total Universe Sizes, but the secret sauce is that these total universe sizes are actually the size of the TV audience. So for example, if you have 10M 16-34 year olds in a country, and one year all 10M watch TV, and then 10 years later only 5M watch TV, then you have shrunk your Total Universe significantly. But you don't see the total universe sizes, instead you sell a % of the total universe size. So if you want to buy 50% of the total universe size, 10  years ago that would have gotten your ad viewed by 5M people, whereas today is would only have gotten your ad viewed by 2.5M. That difference is hidden, however, because the TV Ratings are the same (you're still buying 50% of the target audience). This is just one example of multiple tricks that can be done with metrics. Of course you have a single source of truth, and if they start to encounter issues like this, they like to ride their reputation for awhile and try to figure out how to frame the changes to their metrics in a way that they won't lose a lot of money. Another example in point 3 below with Nielsen and online metrics. 

3. Fragmentation means less accuracy

- When online exploded, there was an initial fragmentation between offline and online media. Then mobile came in, and made that problem 10x more complicated. The major measurement companies were completely unprepared for this, with the gold standard in digital tracking, Nielsen, not having a mobile solution for about 4-5 years after the mobile revolution took off. They literally could only track desktop/laptop browser activity, and then just extrapolated the rest, which was obviously inaccurate because of how different user behavior was on mobile devices and tablets. Even big guns that lead the mobile revolution like Google and Facebook had a hard time measuring the fragmented marketplace. 

So what does this have to do with Polling? Well, similar to TV modeling, polls are often dependent on pre-selected panels that are meant to reflect the overall population, and then extrapolate. Even direct calling polls have to extrapolate based on the segmentation of the audiences they contact, and while probably more accurate than panels, they are still . 

The reason I believe this is no longer working is because, similar to the mobile revolution, we are seeing political fragmentation. You're also seeing change inertia, so instead of trying to reflect current reality, all the polling models are based on previous assumptions and historical patterns. In reality, I think the assumptions about gender, income, race, etc. in terms of voting segments are now outdated. This is because of the fragmentation of information and the variety of information sources that now exist. Not only because people can live in their own echo-chamber bubbles, but also because people can leave their echo-chamber bubbles, so you have a lot more cross-pollination of ideas. 

Last time, the pollsters claimed they underestimated non-educated white voters. I think this is probably correct, but I think that is only ONE segment that they missed. I think black voters have started to fragment and there is a higher percentage voting for Trump. That means previous assumptions and models around black voters will be skewed. Usually polls try to account for these errors by calculating a margin of error, but the margins of error are calculated based on previous trends. If the baseline assumptions are wrong, then the margin of error calculations are also wrong. In the black voter scenario above, if Trump gets 2x the black vote as any previous Republican candidate, which is possible, then the entire weighting of black voters in the polling results will skew heavily in Biden's direction, and the margin of error calculations will also be off. 

Here is another concrete example of how this works in terms of weighting. If you have a panel or polling result that has 500 women and 500 men, because in previous elections women outvote men, then the 500 women responses are weighted slightly higher, maybe 530 to 470. That means if the Biden Trump vote in the original panel was split evenly with women voting Biden 60-40 and men voting Trump 60-40, then after weighting the women higher (again, based on historical voting data) Biden now has a couple points lead. However, on election day, more men show up than women, and so Trump wins. Now imagine this weighting is done for every segmentation, and you can see how getting the segmentations wrong will completely screw your results... 

Now, the last question then comes down to why would this change favor Trump over Biden? Well, my theory is that because the segmentation that is happening is partially because of Trump. Trump is a shock to the system, so the people that are moving out of normal voting patterns are breaking towards Trump. The perfect example would be the black American voters I mention above. The men and women split is also a good example, as maybe men are more pumped to vote this year due to Trump. The truth is, the polls are probably no where near their margin or errors or historical levels of accuracy, and just like the digital marketing examples I mentioned above, I think they're riding on their reputation more than actually reacting to the changes that are happening in the electoral landscape. It's too hard to account for everything that has happened, and you can't just say " 'eff it! we don't know!", so they resort to the easiest and tried and true methods, kind of knowing they're no longer relevant but not really having other options they can use. 

Their best defense is to leave a 10% chance that they're wrong, so if they are wrong, they can always point to the 10% chance and just say 'that's how statistics work!". And maybe they're right. 

Or maybe I am. ;)

Ely Loew

2040 Presidential Candidate

Youtube.com/ElyLoew2040

My Facebook Post after Trump's Win

I'm going to copy and paste this here, because it is one of the most honest and sincere things I've written. I thought I preferred Trump over Clinton, but when I heard he won, I was mildly disappointed. Not for the reasons that most people were, but just because I felt Hillary Clinton would be a better President with a Republican House and Senate. Anyway, here is what I wrote, and I meant it:

For those that don't support Trump, please don't worry (too much). I remember when I cried in 1992 when Clinton won the election. I was only 9, but I never forgot the feeling of despair. It's a reflection of how caught up we get in the election process. I was 9, and knew nothing about politics, but hearing my parents speak with their friends, I felt as if a Bill Clinton Presidency would destroy the world... I think some of you, who I love and care for, might be feeling that way now. Please don't despair.

Since that time, I've come to realize that almost nothing is as bad (or as good) as it seems. Trump, like all of us, is a flawed man, but his victory speech is sincere, with the first people he thanked being his parents and his brothers and sisters. Please don't be angry.

I didn't vote for him. I try to explain my views on that in my most recent YouTube video, including why I can live with a Trump Presidency. I won't post it here, however, because the first part is mocking (as a parody), and if you're in a bad mood it won't help...

I genuinely want every person to be happy. I think despite how you may feel right now, no person can do that for you, or stop you from achieving it. Life is beautiful, and the rest is background noise.

I love you all.

Sincerely, a brother and friend,

Youngil Ely Loew

For those who's comments I deleted, it's not because I don't mind opposing views or robust discussions. However, in the raw first three days after the election, the purpose of my post was for people to calm down and to try to look forward with optimism. I had to delete any comments that didn't help that purpose. I hope you understand.

Twenty-Four Hours in Lisbon (phlog)

I haven't phlogged in awhile, but my recent trip to Portugal, especially my 24 hours in Lisbon, definitely deserves it. This is more a warning to those most entitled of travelers: Americans. Hopefully others find it insightful or useful in some way.

First of all, straight lines. The Portuguese don't seem to believe in them... the exits of the highways are incredibly curvy, almost needlessly so. Lisbon airport is the epitome of the war on German efficiency, as you will be required to walk the longest distance from point A to B. There might be something in the Portuguese psyche that desires to always take the scenic route, since there is no other explanation that comes to mind.

Next, credit cards. I was staying in a suburban area 20 minutes on the train from city center. I was surprised by the kind of places that wouldn't take credit cards, like a bar at the bottom of an apartment complex off a main road, and a small take away sit down restaurant in a shopping mall. Also, a lot of the machines would reject my Irish Bank card, and I realized later because they were swipe readers instead of chip and pin (my swipe strip is a bit worn). At least, that's the only explanation I can think of for my credit card getting rejected only half the time... basically, if you're going outside the city center, bring cash.

Lastly, public transport*. They have a train system to the suburbs of the city and then a metro inside the city. They have green travel cards that you can top up and spend everywhere, but if you buy a day pass, it only works on either the metro or the train system. That means if you're using a combo of train and metro for the day, it's better not to buy the day pass, as its cheaper to just use the card top up. Of course, there is no way for a tourist to know this, so as I was buying a separate metro card to replace my now useless day travel card, I felt again a feeling I had felt quite often in my 24 hour Lisbon stint: mildly annoyed. 

I won't even mention the reflective floor material in one of the bathroom stalls, which meant that the people next to me could clearly see if I was standing, sitting, or wiping my ass.... 

*Note: this is where the phlogging ended and I wrote the rest at home on my laptop

Iraq (phlog)

Short commute so short phlog. Iraq... is anyone surprised? What did we expect when we withdrew our armed forces? That an inexperienced government in a country rife with religious and ethnic division and extremism would sort itself out? Do we really learn nothing from history? I think the honest truth, and this is true of the majority of Americans, is we didn't bother to care. Based on the political dialogue and media around Iraq from the start of the war to when we pulled out, it seems clear that we value the lives of our own more than the lives of others. How many Iraqi lives is one American soldier worth? If one American dies saving ten Iraqis, did the world benefit or lose? Did America benefit or lose?

Airline Inefficiency (phlog)

So I'm reading Atlas Shrugged, which is interesting and appeals to me. Not completely, but maybe 80%. One of the underlying themes is how pride in ones work drives efficiency, something I totally can relate to. Even more so because I'm on a plane and just really annoyed by how inefficiently people are boarded onto planes... it is even more annoying by how easy a problem it is to fix. Load the back of the plane first! So damn simple. No one gets blocked by people in front of them settling into their seats.

Recently (as in, within the last few years) airlines have started a phased approach to loading, which would work if they loaded the back zones first! The fact that they decided to start phase loading but not back to front drives me mental. Am I missing something here? I would bet that this "one simple trick" would cut loading times in half. That could equal an extra departure or two a day at busy gates. I don't know if demand is that high for airport gates, but a smart person must be able to monetize efficiency.

Then again, if airlines were run by efficient people, they would make money. 

end rant. end phlog.

P.S. (non-phlogged) - Interesting article I found later on this very issue, although I think this solution might be too complicated so not followed. That being said, the article claims back to front to be the least efficient method with block boarding, although I haven't see block boarding being done front to back myself... at least, whenever I have a back seat ticket it seams the entire flight has already been loaded. Maybe it's the same problem of people not following the load order. Anyway, good to follow up, and I might have to admit (later) that I was wrong ;P

Another Terrible Article about Ukraine

Following up on yesterday's rant, a good example of terrible journalism:

http://www.voanews.com/content/crisis-in-ukraine-stirs-fears-of-new-nuclear-arms-race/1913697.html

Let me sum it up for you:

US and Russian military drills (pretty standard exercises, btw) have "raised fears of a new nuclear arms race between the U.S. and Russia." Blah Blah fear-mongering, blah blah, some somewhat interesting but irrelevant historical context, followed by an academic saying "fears of nuclear fallout from the Ukraine crisis are unfounded". Duh...so basically her conclusion is that the title of her article is complete BS. This waste of time article popped up as one of the top articles for "World News" today in my phone app.

Where is Ukraine?

So... I'm commuting from NYC to Bridgeport and thought I'd try blogging from my phone. I've decided to call this phlogging, probably because by the end I'd rather be flogged than do this again...

I'm trying that new swipe keyboard on my Nexus 5. Takes a little getting used too but best thing about it? No space bar necessary! The dumb thing is I have my laptop in my bag but on a crowded train it is too cumbersome. 

So what to phlog about? Let's try something topical; Russia. Actually, I meant Ukraine, but I'll leave the error since it's part of my point.

First, the usual disclaimers: I have no idea what I'm talking about. The thing that has prompted me to write this is that I feel neither does anyone else...

The Western world usually lacks any real understanding of local conflicts until long after they're "resolved", if then. Yugoslavia, and to a lesser extent Cyprus (speaking of which: WTF EU court?  Greece is way too influential in the EU) are good examples of this, and that's within Europe. Don't really feel the need to point out our utter ignorance of Africa, South America, and Asia.

To some extent ignorance should be expected. People are selfish and by extension so are nations, since they are merely extensions of the individual people running them.However, there should be experts somewhere that can give a somewhat objective view of what is going on... and I haven't been able to find one yet.

The closest thing was this Forbes article that got it completely wrong. I remember in the original article the author was mocking the idea of a Crimea referendum having any impact on the situation. That part of the article was removed... I remember when I first read it thinking "this guy doesn't really grasp what is going on". 

Of course, nothing on TV or any major news outlets felt that enlightening either, but before I went on a rant on this, I did a quick Google search for scholarly commentary on Ukraine. I was happy to see at least one major newspaper give the experts some voice.

However, my original complaint still stands. I feel the focus of most commentary is on Russia, ignoring what is in many ways a Ukrainian ethnic conflict. Even as I write this, I can't believe I'm trying to defend either Russia or Putin, and I promise never to do it again. In fact, Putin is making a terrible situation worse, but the EU and US are focusing on the wrong problem (Russia), so are coming up with the wrong solutions (sanctions). Yes, let's drag the world into a trade war with the world's eighth largest economy. I think Russia knows we're bluffing, even if we don't...

After the Orange Revolution I did a report on Ukraine for a final paper. Remember my disclaimer: I know nothing. The reason I did the report, however, was because I was drawn to the issue of ethnic relations. I saw lots of similarities to what happened in Cyprus and what happened in Kosovo, and my conclusion was that Ukraine was ripe to become a divided nation... so my biggest pet peeve with the current situation is how easy it is for people to think Russia is behind everything. 

Ironically, by not really addressing the current crisis from a Ukrainian perspective, we're already accepting Russian sovereignty. End result? Ukraine will probably be three provinces short this time next year. A lot of offended and outraged Western politicians will be back to business as usual with Russia, and a couple Russian billionaires will be multi millionaires after the sanctions wear off... not to mention all the middle class Russians who will get knocked down the socioeconomic ladder a couple rungs. 

end commute. end phlog.