The Physics of Focus Groups

In quantum mechanics, theoretical physicists discovered that the results of many experiments at the sub-atomic level were not reliable because the mere presence of an observer altered the outcome.  This “observer effect” has since been applied to several other fields, including psychology and computer science, but has its uses in politics as well.

In the wake of the Harris-Trump debate, most news organizations featured interviews with focus groups comprised of voters who claimed to be undecided.  One in Pennsylvania and another in Georgia provided some interesting insights.  In both cases, a significant majority of those present thought Harris had won.  Some panelists, mostly Harris leaning, said the debate had solidified their choice and one or two who claimed to be truly in the middle chose Harris as well. 

It was the Trump leaning voters, however, who provided the more interesting feedback.  All those who thought Trump won the debate were firm in their intent to vote for him, which, given what transpired during that cataclysmic hundred-five minutes, makes one wonder how undecided they actually were.  There were one or two who thought Harris had won who would nonetheless vote for Trump, including one woman on the Pennsylvania panel who had only hesitantly granted Harris the debate nod.  She and virtually all the others who were voting for Trump gave as a reason Harris’s failure to enunciate the specifics of her economic policies, ignoring that Trump had not either. 

But it was the response of a woman on the Georgia panel that was the most telling. That group of ten had an equal number of Black and white members, ranging in age from late twenties to early sixties and appearing to be economically diverse.  Some had been leaning toward Trump and an equal number toward Harris with a couple favoring neither.  When the moderator asked who had won the debate, all but two said Harris.  But when asked for whom they intended to vote, one white woman who appeared to be in her fifties and dressed perfectly for the suburbs began to say Harris and then snatched it back and instead said Trump.  She appeared particularly hesitant and uncomfortable in doing so and seemed all too aware that the candidate who was supposed to be representing her values and her ideals was loathsome.

Claims of FBI profilers notwithstanding, there is no way to determine for certain what her body language implied, but it is possible to create a working hypothesis.  She admitted she had voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, and given the presence of her wedding band, it was likely that her husband had as well.  It would not be a gender-gap stretch to assume that he also intended to vote for Trump this time around.

So here she was, like every focus group participant, a person who likely had never been on television before, sitting before cameras that would transmit her every word to millions of Americans, including her friends, neighbors, and family members.  One can only imagine their gushing reaction earlier when she informed them that she had been chosen to be on national television, asked to give her opinion on one of the most pivotal moments in this and perhaps any other election in the nation’s history.

But she was a Trump voter, a conservative Republican, as likely were most of those friends, neighbors, and family members.  What would their reaction be if she told the country she intended to vote for a Democrat?  Here was no Liz Cheney or Alyssa Farah Griffin, whose public profile could protect them.  She would be forced to fend off the extreme disapproval of those closest to her, perhaps even be upbraided or shunned.  So, realizing at the last moment that this was not the sort of celebrity she had in mind, she retreated and assured them all she would vote according to their expectations.

Once in the voting booth, however, would she follow through?  Would she vote her conscience instead of her party?  If she did, she could say anything she wanted and no one, not even her husband, would ever be the wiser.

This hypothesis might be fantasy, of course, but it does lead to some interesting questions.  In 2016 and to a lesser extent in 2020, polls underestimated Trump’s support because pollsters insisted many respondents were embarrassed to say they were voting for Trump and gave them misleading or even false answers.  Democrats fear, with some justification, that the current poll numbers might again be skewed against the odious former president.

But what if this time it is the other way around?  What if there is a group of announced Trump voters who will vote for Harris, or perhaps not vote for president at all?  Given the current dynamics of the race, that scenario seems as likely as the reverse.  Nonetheless, that is a question that will only be answered after the votes have been tallied.

In addition, every legitimate pollster has already tried to adjust their algorithms to correct the errors in the past two elections but whether they get it right this time will only be determined, once more, after the election is over. 

So, if pollsters are sailing in uncharted waters and no one really knows whether their results favor Trump, Harris, or neither of them, why are Americans so fixated on numbers that may only approximate reality?

The answer can be found in a terrific book by, what else, a theoretical physicist.  In The Drunkard’s Walk, whose telling subtitle is How Randomness Rules Our Lives, Leonard Mlodinow discusses humanity’s profound need for objectivity in a subjective world.  We search for answers where there are only questions, certainty where there is only probability.

The suspense of these next seven weeks will become increasingly unbearable.  Does the Georgia woman represent an untapped reservoir of Harris support?  Will young people turn out in sufficient numbers?  Will the gender gap prove telling?  Americans will be bombarded by those who purport to know the answers but do not.

Numbers will not relieve the tension, nor will trying to divine whether Americans will really choose a detestable, and possible severely disturbed, convicted felon and sex offender to lead their country.

We will, alas, be forced to wait to find out.  As those in the field discovered, the laws of physics go only so far.