Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer

There’s a perpetually simmering debate in the chattering classes of American politics over the validity of polling, or more precisely, the perceived overreliance on polling. This discourse is most common among ideologues who fear that politicians and their advisers will happily sell out the cause in an unwholesome pursuit of that soulless tyrant the “median voter,” even though that involves the abandonment of principles and constituencies. And it’s exacerbated, of course, whenever polls fail to deliver the absolutely accurate predictions of voting behavior that are for some reason expected of them despite multiple disclaimers from pollsters themselves.

The latest spasm of anxiety comes from the political left via an essay by journalist John Ganz with the very direct title “Against Polling” and the even more direct subtitle “It’s 90% Bullshit.” Given Ganz’s considerable hostility to the quantification of politics, it’s surprising he deploys a precise percentage for his dismissal of empirical data. But much of his jeremiad is based on a fundamental misapprehension of the purpose of polls:

Supposedly, the way you make a successful political campaign is that you go out and you ask people what they want, and then you make your message based on that. Except that’s bullshit. It doesn’t work. Politely put, the data-based approach to politics is based on a fallacious understanding of the world. Not so politely put, it’s a racket for political consultants so they can scam hapless hacks and wealthy donors.

To make the most obvious objection, if polling “doesn’t work,” then at some point “helpless hacks” will stop using it and “wealthy donors” will stop paying for it. Measuring public opinion is not just a matter of asking “people what they want” and mechanically offering it right up. Often the purpose of polling is to understand why various people favor or oppose various policies or messages and to set priorities among them and to craft arguments that change, not simply reflect, minds.

Are there lazy politicians and consultants who unimaginatively use the most superficial data in the most superficial way? Of course, but they would likely be even more superficial without data. And that’s the fundamental problem with poll hating: The answer to poor or limited data isn’t to ignore data altogether, it’s to pursue more and better data and use it more intelligently, and yes, morally. Polls should never represent an excuse for abandoning inconvenient principles or unpopular causes, and when they are, the problem is with the consumers, not the producers, of the data, which is only “bullshit” if it’s misunderstood or misused. Yes, some Democrats probably go too far in promoting popularism, a politics based on emphasizing politically salient policy arguments to the exclusion of all else. But polling data is just a tool for that approach, not its essence.

But the single biggest problem with the know-nothing approach to public opinion research is that the abolition of data makes political decisions purely a matter of whim, “gut instincts,” or prejudices. As Eric Levitz of Vox says of Ganz’s position, “It serves to insulate progressives’ intuitions about electoral politics from any empirical challenge.” And Ganz is definitely gripped by intuitions:

We are not in an era of small calculations but of great movements. Politicians with a vision and a strong, clear rhetorical appeal, like Trump, Bernie, AOC, and now Mamdani, are those who excite people.

How do we know that? Levitz rightly asks:

It’s difficult to see a firm basis for selecting Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Zohran Mamdani as exemplars of effective Democratic politics in 2025. All are gifted politicians. And I think there are things that the broader Democratic Party can learn from each. Yet they have collectively won zero general elections outside of New York City and Vermont — two of the most Democratic jurisdictions in America. And Mamdani has a negative 9 percent favorability rating in New York State, according to a Siena College poll released this week.

“Going with your gut” is without question emotionally satisfying, and for decades the prevailing vice of Democratic progressivism has been the assertion of a hidden majority that would rally to the Democratic Party if it just moved hard left and stayed there. Ganz and many other progressives value excitement in politics, and it can indeed matter in close elections while giving greater meaning to those who share it. But the cold reality is that you do not get additional votes for being enthusiastic or self-righteously convinced you are fighting for a cause, or forfeit votes for caring about that ignoble median voter. And that’s just democracy.

These distinctions should matter to Democrats a great deal since they are living through the consequences of losing a high-stakes election to an unprincipled demagogue. As Levitz notes, unsuccessful Democratic pols would have been well advised to pay more, not less, attention to polls than they apparently did:

Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris lost because they paid too little attention to opinion polling, rather than too much. After all, both declined to embrace many majoritarian positions that contradicted progressive principles. And Harris famously ignored the counsel of data-driven Democratic consultants, who had implored her to focus less on “democracy” and more on the cost of living.

Polls don’t tell politicians what to do or refrain from doing; they are simply data points. But without them, politicians can become willfully blind and immersed in an echo chamber of confirmation bias. Candidates who refuse the temptation of information like Odysseus lashed to the mast in the Land of the Sirens are drifting toward irrelevance.

More early and often

Ignoring Polls Is Worse Than Over Relying on ThemTrump Sees Whitewashed U.S. Past and Dystopian PresentLaura Loomer Really Might Be the New Joe McCarthy

From Intelligencer via this RSS feed