![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bunnWas listening to pollsters being quizzed on BBC Radio 2 about Why They Got It Wrong at lunchtime. Much talk of percentages of variation and people not wanting to give socially unacceptable answers in telephone polls.
But I wondered, as I did with Brexit, if it is possible that the emphatic reporting of polls itself changes peoples voting intentions?
If the candidate/option you prefer appears to be winning, does that decrease the likelihood that less enthused voters who prefer that option but aren't wild about it, would turn out?
Did it increase the likelihood that Trump voters vote, seeing Clinton in the lead and reported as a probable winner?
I'm just wondering if 'Hell no!' is a more effective voting motivator than 'let's just make sure about this'.
But I wondered, as I did with Brexit, if it is possible that the emphatic reporting of polls itself changes peoples voting intentions?
If the candidate/option you prefer appears to be winning, does that decrease the likelihood that less enthused voters who prefer that option but aren't wild about it, would turn out?
Did it increase the likelihood that Trump voters vote, seeing Clinton in the lead and reported as a probable winner?
I'm just wondering if 'Hell no!' is a more effective voting motivator than 'let's just make sure about this'.
