|
Typo posted:you are engaging with a gimmick don't waste your time Now now, don't be pissy just because he's better at it than you.
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
Whether pollsters are trying to adjust polls to their expectations or not, the reality is that primary polling is going to be super fickle, because very few people vote in primaries and it is very hard to estimate who is going to turn out. To summarize this: in 2016, there were 38 states with at least one primary poll conducted in 2016. Of those 38, 29 had 2 or more polls within the last month of the campaign that allowed RCP to have an RCP average. 9 had 1 or 2 polls done the year of the primary, though not necessarily in the last month of the campaign. In these states I simply averaged out the polls from 2016 itself myself. Of these 38 contests: - Polls predicted Bernie would only win 4 of them ahead of the primary (NH, VT, WI, WV). He won 11 of those 38 (NH, VT, WI, WV, MN, OK, KS, AK, RI, IN, OR) - Of the 38 contests: - In 11 the winning margin of victory was within 5 points of the polling average - in 10, the winning margin of victory was between 5 and 10 point of the polling average - in 17 the winning margin of victory was more than 10 points off from the polling average - If you just want to focus on the 29 that had enough polling to have an RCP average: - In 9 the winning margin of victory was within 5 points of the polling average - in 10, the winning margin of victory was between 5 and 10 point of the polling average - in 10 the winning margin of victory was more than 10 points off from the polling average If you want a graphical representation:  It doesn't have to be pollster bad faith. Primary elections have ridiculously low turnout. Median voter turnout in closed primaries for democrats in 2016 was 12.7%, for open primaries was 13% and for hybrid states was 26%. A minor event that drives turnout up by 2% can drastically change the results and is essentially impossible to account for in polls. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Sep 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
i give 27 a month to president sanders but i really can't imagine giving money to someone like pete that has less than zero shot regardless of his politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Delaney That reminds me, does Delaney even accept donations? Dude's dumped like 15 million or more of his own money into this so far
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i give 27 a month to president sanders but i really can't imagine giving money to someone like pete that has less than zero shot regardless of his politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
overmind2000 posted:That reminds me, does Delaney even accept donations? Dude's dumped like 15 million or more of his own money into this so far I'm sure he would in theory, if anyone ever actually wanted to throw their money into the incinerator like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
You keep coming back to conspiracy but I am not suggesting a shadowy cabal crafting future poll results behind the scenes (though I did make a crack about the Council of Nate and the orthodoxy, so forgive my narrative flair, I guess?). There is a dominant narrative that is being constructed but it's being constructed and reinforced the way these things normally are, not via some sort of top-down marching orders being given. People are taking cues from their peers, and the media, from the newscasters to the editorialists to the pollsters, are all peers. They're definitely herding: they have personal and class interests that inform how they construct their models, and these models end up biased in a way that generates certain results and reinforces certain narratives. In the case being discussed here, their models resulted in an unexpected outcome, and the outcry over this was so fierce they had to do something that as far as I'm aware is wholly unprecedented, which is issue an apology for a poll giving unexpected numbers. They released the poll probably expecting it would generate a lot of headlines, and thus a lot of free advertising, but had to do damage control when potential future clients got upset. TheOneAndOnlyT posted:This makes no sense. Who would want to contract a pollster who only "adheres to the dominant narrative"? The whole point of the contract polling is to give those politicians and policy groups accurate information, so they can figure out whom to target and where to spend their money. A pollster who only tells their clients what they want to hear would be the most worthless pollster imaginable. If I need a poll to say something that supports my political goals, then I would definitely want to hire a firm that can provide that service and give a thin veneer of scientific impartiality to the kabuki theater I'm performing. Your mistake is thinking the people in power want accuracy or knowledge, when what they really want is to be told that they're right and everyone else is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:
yeah that's why hillary's polls were 100% correct and she's president you don't get it, your loving polls got trump elected liberal polls failed, and you are still here being a number fuckerstain liberal who just can't accept that america wants socialism and the best candidate will win
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
overmind2000 posted:That reminds me, does Delaney even accept donations? Dude's dumped like 15 million or more of his own money into this so far https://secure.actblue.com/donate/john-delaney-2 Here's the link if you want to help Delaney pay off the debt he owes himself. Typo posted:yeah that's why hillary's polls were 100% correct and she's president Not sure how you're reading anything I'm writing here and coming away with the idea that I think the polls are good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:https://secure.actblue.com/donate/john-delaney-2 Sorry I just wish polls get banned already so we don't have to pretend this whole charade has meaning
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
So with all this debate about polling, what can we reliably use as an indicator for how well campaigns are going? If you exclude polls you got headlines about Bernie campaign staff drama and resignations/firings ahead of Iowa. There’s a comically obvious media bias against Bernie but the majority of polls are saying Bernie is third place in Iowa. How do you interpret that differently? Is there a cadre of magic younger voters that will somehow turn up? His small donor figures look good, his volunteer army seems promising, so where are the votes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:So with all this debate about polling, what can we reliably use as an indicator for how well campaigns are going? Number of individual donors and volunteers are pretty good indicators imo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1175879569947148289
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:So with all this debate about polling, what can we reliably use as an indicator for how well campaigns are going? If Bernie is doing what he needs to do to win, he's going to be turning out people who don't make it through likely voter screens and he'll outperform the polls significantly. But there's no way to know if that's the case until the voting actually happens. And we're still over four months away from Iowa and New Hampshire, and five months from Super Tuesday. Typo posted:Sorry I just wish polls get banned already so we don't have to pretend this whole charade has meaning Understandable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:So with all this debate about polling, what can we reliably use as an indicator for how well campaigns are going? There are 4 polls that have come out in September for Iowa. In 2 Bernie is in 2nd, in 1 he is in 3rd and in 1 he is in 4th. The range of support that he gets in those polls goes from 9 on the low side to 26 on the high side. What you should do is ignore the horse race and do everything you can for the candidate you like. I'm a Latino immigrant with family still in Latin America. I wish I was privileged enough to be able to pick a candidate based on twitter drama, media coverage, or strategic considerations. But there is only one candidate that I trust not to gently caress with governments in Latin America (especially if you know the whole story with Lula). Part of my wife's family is Lebanese. There's one candidate I know won't be cheerleading Israel incursions in Lebanon. Bernie could be polling at 0% and 4chan could descend on twitter to harass people on his behalf and there still be only one choice for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:So with all this debate about polling, what can we reliably use as an indicator for how well campaigns are going?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
the polls are disheartening i'm not gonna lie. i really did think he'd be polling first and it'd be a breeze to the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:the polls are disheartening i'm not gonna lie. i really did think he'd be polling first and it'd be a breeze to the nomination. It was always gonna be a slog, I'm afraid. But he's got a drat good chance of winning. So get out there and volunteer! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
Are there any articles on the ground game team and infrastructure of the various campaigns? It's one thing to raise a bunch of money from rich donors, it's another to motivate people enough that they're willing to phonebank, canvass door-to-door, drive people to the polls, and in general bother showing up to vote. Sanders definitely leads but I don't think Warren is far behind. The K-Hive (  ) is very vocal online but I don't think it's a huge group in real life. I can't imagine who's revved up to volunteer for Biden.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:the polls are disheartening i'm not gonna lie. i really did think he'd be polling first and it'd be a breeze to the nomination. now more than ever is when we need to have faith in and keep loyal to the best candidate
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Typo posted:wonder what he's going to say once bernie wins He'll say that the pollsters misjudged how many young people and usual nonvoters would turn out, because that's the actual reason why these polls have him low, not because of any conspiracy. They believe that young people won't show up like usual.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
i will say it is impressive where warren is considering early in the primary it looked like she was going to have to drop out due to lack of funds. and i was hoping it was going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i will say it is impressive where warren is considering early in the primary it looked like she was going to have to drop out due to lack of funds. and i was hoping it was going to happen. lol she's being shoved down our throats by everyone from the clintons to Soros to the liberal media to possibly the Koch brothers to stop bernie. It's more impressive Bernie is where he is
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i will say it is impressive where warren is considering early in the primary it looked like she was going to have to drop out due to lack of funds. and i was hoping it was going to happen. A wealthy donor came through and bought the DNC voter list for her campaign. Since then, it has been propped up by a lot of the same types that were behind the Clinton campaign in terms of voter enthusiasm. She will be a problem all the way to the convention.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i will say it is impressive where warren is considering early in the primary it looked like she was going to have to drop out due to lack of funds. and i was hoping it was going to happen. There's nothing impressive about astroturf.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
Judakel posted:A wealthy donor came through and bought the DNC voter list for her campaign. Since then, it has been propped up by a lot of the same types that were behind the Clinton campaign in terms of voter enthusiasm. She will be a problem all the way to the convention. she might be propped up by the billionaire class but the working class will see through her centrism and stop her
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
Judakel posted:A wealthy donor came through and bought the DNC voter list for her campaign. oh i hadn't heard about that. makes sense!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
I thought of another reason Bernie is the strongest candidate against Trump. When Trump points out that the Democrat-controlled Congress cleared him of all wrongdoing by not impeaching, Bernie will be able to use that as a jumping off point to criticize all of Washington. A political judo move which will position Bernie as the outsider who wants to shake things up, and Trump as the insider in the swamp. None of the other candidates could do that, so they will have no response to Trump using his unimpeached status against them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:31
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I thought of another reason Bernie is the strongest candidate against Trump. When Trump points out that the Democrat-controlled Congress cleared him of all wrongdoing by not impeaching, Bernie will be able to use that as a jumping off point to criticize all of Washington. A political judo move which will position Bernie as the outsider who wants to shake things up, and Trump as the insider in the swamp. None of the other candidates could do that, so they will have no response to Trump using his unimpeached status against them. Yeah, plus running against the millionaire/billionaire donor class of all political stripes is a pretty compelling message.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I thought of another reason Bernie is the strongest candidate against Trump. When Trump points out that the Democrat-controlled Congress cleared him of all wrongdoing by not impeaching, Bernie will be able to use that as a jumping off point to criticize all of Washington. A political judo move which will position Bernie as the outsider who wants to shake things up, and Trump as the insider in the swamp. None of the other candidates could do that, so they will have no response to Trump using his unimpeached status against them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
I observe that there seems to be some consternation about polls ITT. I ask posters to remember the commandments of reading polls: First Commandment: thou shall not rejoice, nor shall thou freak out, over any one poll, but shall look to many polls in aggregate. Second Commandment: thou shall not pick at the cross tabs of any one poll, to prove that poll should be discounted or to further a narrative, but shall consider the First Commandment. Third Commandment: Neither shall thou, upon pain of death, “unskew” any poll, attempting to speculate about counterfactual results for the poll had it used a different sample, but shall remember that pollsters weight their samples to ensure representativeness. Fourth Commandment: Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, be it a “blue wall” or a “silent majority,” and shall have no other gods before the polling aggregate of thy choice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
At least the #yanggang has actually given thought to the candidates and isn't just going off "I heard that guy's name before" like half of Biden's supporters. Talking to someone who is clearly checked out and doesn't give a poo poo is exhausting because they try to make you feel guilty for even talking about politics, as if they're somehow above it and not directly responsible for the poo poo we're in because they can't be assed to care.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think Sanders' 28 years of experience in Congress is going to make it difficult to come across as an outsider. People already view him as such.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I observe that there seems to be some consternation about polls ITT. I ask posters to remember the commandments of reading polls: These aren't the worst rules one could come up with. I think people are blaming the entire concept of "polls" for how voraciously the media devours them and throws half-baked predetermined "analysis" at them. Every time you turn on cable news they're going over one specific poll from one specific pollster and trying to use it to slam down ironclad narratives about "Warren is taking Bernie's support" and "it's a two person race", even as other polls come out the same day showing a completely different picture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
Petes gonna win based on the polling posts
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:These aren't the worst rules one could come up with. Exactly, and when "ELECTABILITY!!!!!" is such a strong factor for so many Democratic voters, it's pretty baldly cynical. (lol, "baldly cynical" in a Nate Silver-related discussion. I genuinely did not intend that)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:These aren't the worst rules one could come up with. one of the benefits of this "3-act thing" is that once Bernie's strength is so undeniable in the third act nobody will ever trust the liberal media against. They said trump can't win and now they are saying bernie can't win. ONce bernie wins even the number fuckerstain types won't trust the liberal media and we can go build our good and cool leftist media to replace them and finally give the people some non-brain destroying news to watch
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I observe that there seems to be some consternation about polls ITT. I ask posters to remember the commandments of reading polls: But the crosstabs are some of the only useful information from the polls, at least for the primary. And like joepinetree said, the primary is a somewhat unique situation in that the number of people who vote is low and results can vary drastically depending upon who turns out. It isn't "unskewing" to look at how differing turnout could impact the results (and to take into account the assumptions made when sampling for the polls).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:But the crosstabs are some of the only useful information from the polls, at least for the primary. And like joepinetree said, the primary is a somewhat unique situation in that the number of people who vote is low and results can vary drastically depending upon who turns out. It isn't "unskewing" to look at how differing turnout could impact the results (and to take into account the assumptions made when sampling for the polls). The entire method of the unskewing guy was he assumed, without good evidence, that all the polls were over sampling democrats and under sampling republicans. He then systematically reweighted all the polls to accord with what he assumed the electorate actually looked like. He was an idiot. Don’t be like him. You don’t have secret knowledge of how polls should be weighted. The polling models may be wrong (indeed, most of them have to be wrong since they don’t agree with one another), but speculation about how and in what direction they’ll be wrong is almost always motivated and uninformed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Now now, don't be pissy just because he's better at it than you. I'm a big fan of Typo's Chinaposting, in part because he actually sometimes does research for it and I learn things. His gimmickposting in this thread is decent enough I guess but it's certainly a disappointing step down. edit: joepinetree, I suspect Tulsi would be good about Latin American dictators / politics, there are hardly any Muslims there
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 03:22
|
|
