Election 2018 Results: A Look Back at the Polls' Performance

The polls did pretty well, with the 'traditional' polls doing particularly well. According to Nate Cohn from The New York Times, most pundits and pollsters got it wrong in 2018, 2020, and 2022, not because their artificial intelligence systems failed, but because they were unable to learn from true facts and instead hid in a haze of denial.

However, media pundits and forecasters often lump weaker outlets and partisan pollsters together with reputable institutions in their analysis. For example, the Trafalgar Group's founder Robert Cahaly has said that he 'wants to be right more than anything' and to be 'the Elon Musk of polling.' Some polls, such as those conducted by Harris Poll and Morning Consult, are rather nuanced and accurate.

Great expert resources, such as the National Opinion Research Center, Pew, and Edelman, have better methods, larger samples, and avoid daily headline-driven overnight readings. Unfortunately, many media commentators view election forecasts put out by the domestic political polling industry as the product of highly sophisticated data analysis, providing breathless horse-race coverage based on who is up and who is down in the most recent poll.

However, the practices of these pollsters often veer more towards unsupported assumptions and sophistry. Quantitative statistics and data can often present ambiguous situations with a veneer of objective, unimpeachable fact – which makes it even more disappointing when statistical integrity is twisted or misunderstood.

It's worth noting that correcting false numerical narratives is an ongoing process. For the past nine months, we have worked assiduously to correct the false numerical narratives of Putin's propaganda on everything ranging from dubious Russian national income statistics to the number of companies that have actually pulled out of Russia to the supposed resilience of the Russian economy.

In conclusion, while some polls did perform well in 2018, it's essential to recognize the limitations and biases of polling data and avoid relying too heavily on unsupported assumptions and sophistry. By doing so, we can work towards a more accurate understanding of election outcomes and the complex factors that influence them.

Election 2018 results nytimes