One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong
&gt; I reached out to the smartest polling guy I know: David Shor, an independent data analyst who’s a veteran of the Obama presidential campaigns who formerly operated a massive web-based survey at Civis Analytics before leaving earlier this year<p>Before <i>being fired</i> for pointing out that violent protests alienate people: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nymag.com&#x2F;intelligencer&#x2F;2020&#x2F;06&#x2F;case-for-liberalism-tom-cotton-new-york-times-james-bennet.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nymag.com&#x2F;intelligencer&#x2F;2020&#x2F;06&#x2F;case-for-liberalism-...</a><p>Schor’s firing is a tremendous example of how free speech values make people better at their job, and attacks on free speech values can jeopardize organizations and political parties. It’s conventional wisdom now that failure to condemn violent protests earlier cost Democrats votes, including among minority groups. This was quite apparent from polling this summer. (By June, YouGov polls showed that Latinos were more worried about the “breakdown of law and order” than about “systemic racism.”) Creating a culture that makes people afraid to have dispassionate, context-appropriate discussions about what the data was saying made it harder for people to do their jobs effectively.<p>Obviously what kinds of facts are relevant to an organization’s mission differs greatly depending on the organization! In many contexts Schor’s comments wouldn’t have been relevant and may have been better left unsaid to foster workplace harmony. But in a political organization, obviously some heated issues will come up and people need to be able to have honest discussions about them.