Nicholas Jacobs is the Goldfarb Family Distinguished Chair in American Government at Colby College, where he also serves as the inaugural director of the Bram Public Policy Lab. 

I love a good poll as much as the next person.

It’s why I’ve relied on them throughout my research and teaching. Surveys offer a rare glimpse into attitudes that are otherwise difficult to observe, and in competitive races they can help orient both journalists and voters to what appears to be unfolding. And this Senate race in Maine — it is competitive. I’m itching for clarity.

Polls matter beyond our general academic curiosity. They actually shape the race and our expectations. The findings out of the University of New Hampshire about Graham Platner’s meteoric rise in the Democratic primary have already begun to shape how observers are talking about the Senate race, subtly altering expectations about competitiveness and early advantage. No doubt, donations will follow the topline finding.

But a word of caution is warranted. Polling in Maine is unusually difficult. And yes, you can simply refuse to “trust the polls,” but let me also suggest you don’t have to even go that far: just look at what the pollsters are and are not telling you each time they report results.

Most anyone who cares about polling results knows a few things to check, none more important than the all important margin of error. It offers a useful reminder that polls estimate rather than measure, and that even well-executed surveys contain uncertainty.

Try telling me who’s ahead with just a few dozen people and you’ll see a margin of error in the double-digits; everyone knows know you might as well stop reading. But a small margin of error only reflects precision, not representativeness — and a survey can be statistically tidy while still overlooking meaningful variation within the electorate.

You can get a representative snapshot of what Maine, on average, thinks with a modest sample — about 1,000 of our neighbors. Yet that is rarely what readers or campaigns are focused on in moments like this. We are not just asking what “Maine” thinks. We are asking what primary voters, independents or late-deciding voters think. And that is where interpretation becomes harder.

As attention shifts to those subsamples, the number of respondents quickly shrinks and the margin of error widens. That mechanical inflation is familiar and usually reported. What is discussed far less is whether those smaller groups meaningfully reflect the diversity of voters they are meant to represent — geographically, politically and in terms of engagement with the race. Because, as is often the case, the initial goal was not to survey, say, young people in Maine, but all people in Maine. That distinction creates problems.

When looking at subsamples, the relevant question is not simply how large the margin of error becomes, but how much confidence we should have that the subsample itself captures the electorate we care about. One way researchers evaluate this is by looking beyond sample size to how heavily responses must be weighted and adjusted to reflect that diversity — a process captured in what survey methodologists call “design effects.”

When those adjustments are substantial, the survey contains less independent information than the respondent count suggests, meaning apparent precision can mask deeper uncertainty about how accurate the estimates really are.

Again, the latest UNH survey in Maine offers a useful illustration.

Buried in the methodology statement, the researchers report a design effect of 2.3 and note that they did not adjust their margins of error for what is a pretty major acknowledgement that their sample, however large, needed some help in representing the broader Maine electorate. Put plainly, a design effect of 2.3 means those 1,120 likely voters function statistically more like a sample of about 500 — making the apparent precision of the results considerably overstated.

If the effective sample size is cut substantially, the true uncertainty around candidate support widens. What was a margin of error of about ±2.9 grows quick, to ±4.5. Of course, this might mean that Platner’s lead over Collins in the general election is higher than what the poll estimated, but it also means that, in this case, his lead could be as small as two points.

Specific to the one finding that is drawing substantial media attention, it also means that Platner’s “advantage” among Maine independents is a statistical fantasy. That is because once you start looking at sub-samples, the “penalty” that a design effect has on a poll’s margin of error is even greater.

To begin with, there are only about 164 independents represented in the full sample — a testament to the large design effect, because the poll seems to have captured way more partisans than proportionally exist in the state. The baseline margin of error for that group, to begin with, is ±7.

And then once weighting and design effects are taken into account, the effective number of independent respondents becomes smaller still — in this case, giving us estimates that have an equal chance of being 12 points higher (Platner leads with 59% of independents!) or 12 points lower (Collins has a 15 point advantage!). We just don’t know.

Now, I realize this may sound like unwelcome news to those eager to read the poll as
confirmation of a decisive shift in the race. I look forward to the emails I will receive telling me my “academic caution” is masquerading as excuse-making for Sen. Collins.

But, if anything, the statistically rigorous takeaway remains quite interesting. The same issue with independents I describe above (an ever-shrinking sample size) is just as true for analyzing the subset of Democratic primary voters. Even after accounting for the design effect here, functionally inflating the margin of error on the Democratic primary, Platner’s lead is unequivocal.

Even the most generous read, given that uncertainty, gives Mills just about a third of Democratic primary voters in the survey. The margin may be less precise, and there are still questions about whether the poll captured the broad swath of likely voters, but the signal is unmistakable: he is a credible and competitive challenger.

Statistical caution does not weaken that conclusion, even as it tempers claims of an inevitable victory for one candidate or party.

Platner’s emergence is real. So is the uncertainty surrounding everything beyond it. Acknowledging that uncertainty, though, is the difference between careful interpretation and wishful thinking. And when uncertainty is translated into premature conclusions, the narrative can begin to influence the election before voters do.

Calling all beer lovers…More than 200 small, independent breweries from all over the state are participating in Mass Beer Week, a celebration that highlights the craft beer community by bringing businesses together.

Gov. Maura Healey has officially proclaimed March 7-14 as Mass Beer Week in the Commonwealth, formally recognizing the vital role that local breweries play in the state’s economy, culture, tourism and communities.

“From Boston to the Berkshires, our craft breweries are anchors in their communities and significant contributors to our regional economies,” Healey said in a statement. “I’m proud to proclaim Mass Beer Week and encourage everyone to go celebrate at their local brewery safely and responsibly!”

The statewide celebration of Massachusetts-made beer officially kicked off Saturday and continues through the next week, during which time participating breweries will host special releases, collaborative brews, tasting events, educational programming, and community fundraisers.

The Massachusetts Brewers Guild says the formal recognition of this week by the Commonwealth is an incredible honor for the brewing community.

“Massachusetts breweries are small manufacturers, employers, and community gathering spaces,” said Katie Stinchon, the executive director of the Massachusetts Brewers Guild. “This proclamation underscores the importance of supporting local businesses and the people behind them.”

The owner of Drawdown Brewing says unification is exactly how she would describe Mass Beer Week.

“Beer is intrinsically very community based and brings people together and the Massachusetts/New England community we’re definitely kind of ride or die so it’s just a great unifier,” said Liz Nicol. “We’re all making beer. We’re all moving in the same direction, but everyone has something that makes us really unique so for us we do more malt forward beverages.”

Sarah Harkness says she also loves the comraderie.

“I just love that it grows the craft beer community as opposed to pitting breweries against each other,” she said.

While others say they just love beer, period.

“It’s such a New England thing to go to a brewery after going hiking and stuff so Boston really loves their beer,” said Dylan Pollman-Blom.

Events are scheduled all over the state for the next week. Beer lovers are encouraged to visit local taprooms, try Massachusetts-made beer, and share their experiences on social media. Click here for a full list of participating breweries and event details.

Bathroom bans targeting transgender people have been spreading rapidly across the United States. In previous years, adult bathroom bans in public buildings were limited to a handful of states with extreme laws. This year, they have become one of the primary vehicles for anti-trans legislation nationwide. Kansas was the first to act, passing a bathroom bounty hunter system and invalidating transgender people’s IDs. Idaho and Missouri began advancing their own bills. Now, the New Hampshire House of Representatives has passed its own version — one of the most extreme in the United States, which states that a trans person using the bathroom of their gender identity is a crime under the state civil rights act, violations of which carries hefty penalties. The bill passed 181-164 on Wednesday night, just weeks after Governor Kelly Ayotte vetoed a separate bathroom ban. Republicans are now sending her something far more aggressive — raising the question of whether they are trying to move the goalposts or simply daring her to veto again.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with the exception of RSA 21:3, RSA 21:54, and paragraph II below, all multi-user facilities, including bathrooms, restrooms, and locker rooms located in buildings owned, leased, or operated by any municipality shall be used based on the individual’s biological sex,” reads the new bill. This prohibition is expansive: it applies to parks, rest stops, airports, civic buildings, and more, and could leave transgender people struggling to find a public place to use the restroom across the state.

The bill contains a novel enforcement mechanism not seen in any other state. It declares that a transgender person “asserting” that their gender identity allows them to use the bathroom is against the law under the state civil rights act, turning civil rights protections that were meant to be protective of transgender people into a weapon against them. “It shall be unlawful for any person to assert that their gender identity is a sex other than that defined in RSA 21:3 for the purposes of accessing places or services restricted on the basis of sex,” reads the bill. Such violations could result in fines of up to $5,000 per incident and even jail time if a person violates a resulting court injunction by continuing to use the restroom.

The bill also contains provisions for private businesses. It permits any owner or operator of a “place of public accommodation” — a category that under New Hampshire law includes hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, bars, and concert venues — to restrict bathrooms by assigned sex at birth. The bill then immunizes those businesses from discrimination claims: “Adoption or enforcement of a policy pursuant to this section shall not be deemed discrimination under RSA 354-A or any other state law,” it reads.

A separate bill, HB 1217, also passed on Wednesday. That bill permits governmental buildings and businesses to classify bathrooms and locker rooms by assigned sex at birth — similar to the bathroom bans Ayotte has already vetoed. It passed by an even wider margin, 187-163. It contains no enforcement mechanism, but rather, states that bathroom bans and sports bans are not discriminatory towards transgender people under New Hampshire law.

The bills are part of a larger movement towards bathroom bans for transgender people. Just last month, Kansas passed a bathroom ban that allows every citizen in the state to become a bounty hunter, where reporting transgender people in bathrooms can net them $1,000 per trans person caught. This law also invalidated trans people’s drivers licenses in the state. Meanwhile, Idaho and Missouri are both advancing extreme anti-trans bathroom bans of their own, with Idaho’s ban even applying to private businesses, making it against the law for a private business to allow a trans person to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

The bills are substantially more extreme than the one vetoed by Governor Ayotte just weeks ago. In a veto statement of a bathroom ban last month, Ayotte stated, “I believe there are important and legitimate privacy and safety concerns raised by biological males using places such as female locker rooms and being placed in female correctional facilities… At the same time, I see that House Bill 148 is overly broad and impractical to enforce, potentially creating an exclusionary environment for some of our citizens.”

It remains unclear why Republicans are pushing an even more extreme version of a bill their own governor has already vetoed three times. The bill still needs to pass the New Hampshire Senate and be signed by Ayotte to become law. One possibility is that the more extreme HB 1442 is designed as cover for HB 1217 — making that bill appear moderate by comparison and improving its chances of earning a signature. Another is that Republicans believe they can pressure Ayotte into signing, or are simply laying the groundwork for an override attempt down the line. Regardless, HB 1442 is one of the most extreme bathroom bans moving through any state legislature in the country, and transgender people across New England will be watching closely as it advances to the Senate.