So... people are bad at organizing, don't live long enough to endure the slow pace of bureaucracy, and are apathetic anyway? Yeah? Why is this article so long?
> Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 thanks to a huge increase in anti-immigrant sentiment
> Nobody was worried about climate change in the 1990s, but now lots of people are freaking out about it
> Mass shootings have led to a spike in support for gun control
That's not my common understanding for any of these things, though they sound like forgotten hot takes from the perpetual news cycle. None of them even make sense.
The rest of the article is about how people's estimates of polls diverge from those same polls, but not why. Were people better at estimating polls or national sentiment thirty years ago?
Pollsters realized that polls can impact the result of a election, people who lean for a particular candidate can be pushed over the edge with a poll that shows that candidate winning.
Half the country has been classified as deplorable and have learned to not express how they feel to others, it shows up at the ballot box but you don't see it when you survey.
I absolutely cannot stand this sampling in psychological studies. It is not a good representation of the population
How in the heck don't researchers realize this? It's lazy, the easy way out to getting a sample to survey.