That's definitely a thing. I know a number of people quietly planning to vote for Trump (and here in Manhattan, no less) but who would never admit it publicly - because they want to keep their social status and jobs/clients. Many of them are not in the classic Trump demographic, e.g. a retired woman with a state pension and liberal social views, a young gay hairstylist, the local neighborhood dog walker/cat sitter.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 7:04 pmI'm sure that 4 years of nonstop demonizing of Trump and anyone who supports him by the lamestream media wouldn't make anyone leery of admitting that they are planning to vote for him.Tortoise wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:33 pm Didn’t the polls going into the 2016 election suggest that Trump was going to lose, yet he won, suggesting that a lot of poll participants may have been embarrassed or just unwilling to openly admit that they planned to vote for Trump?
If so, what does that imply about these polls for the 2020 election?
I think this figured into the 2016 election and was probably greater than a 1% bump. Ad is right, the results were nearly all within the margin of error cited by the polls. However don't you find it interesting that the errors all went the same way? If it were truly all due to unbiased polling error, half the states (on average) should have gone the other way, and Clinton would have won. That's why she was projected as the winner with such confidence.