Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 08-07-2019, 12:34 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Slacker, I think you are overestimating the strength of the correlation between winning elections and taking the positions which poll best.

It's arguably true that of the Kerry-Obama-Clinton triad, Obama was the most centrist, but (my fingers are spasming as I type this) I agree with Shodan. The reason he won and they lost was that he had more personal charisma than they did, not that voters were carefully parsing their policy proposals; the vast majority of voters just aren't that left-brained.

The obvious example is Bernie Sanders, who is much, much more popular than the abstract concept of "Socialism" is. People worry that the "S-word" will be used as a bludgeon against Sanders in the general election should he be nominated, but it's IMO much more likely that both loyal Democrats and swing voters who like Bernie's style will decide that they are now Socialists than that they will reject Bernie on that account.

Or on the other side: How many Republicans in 2014 would have agreed that enacting massive tariffs in order to provoke a trade war with China was sound economic policy? The people who liked Trump just switched their opinions in order to accommodate their desire to vote for Trump, and once he became the Party's leader, the elites did too.

I share your subjective opinion that Warren lacks the essential charisma, but if the data continues to show that Warren is getting more popular among the general public, I will go with the data over my gut.

What you say is all fair, but so far the data and the subjective impression of her lack of charisma align perfectly. And because of that, if it somehow came down to Warren versus Sanders (please, no), I would probably have to swallow hard and go with Bernie. I personally don’t find him appealing at all, but I recognize that he does seem to have more charisma with the broader public than Warren does, and he is much more popular in Vermont than she is in Massachusetts.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-07-2019 at 12:36 PM.
  #252  
Old 08-07-2019, 12:59 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Well, yes, he is. Who is your counterexample of another major party candidate since 1972 who was polling in the single digits with high name recognition in the spring before the election and went on to win his party's nomination?
See now we're having an entirely different discussion than the one that began, but to respond to your question, Donald Trump may have been the only person to enter the race with single digit polling to win the nomination, but it's hardly the only person with a substantial polling deficit to shake up the race -- that's been my point all along and I'd rather not go off tangent and move goalposts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Nobody is questioning that the polls will likely shift considerably, and nobody is claiming that Biden's victory is either inevitable or impossible.
Actually, DSeid did pretty much just what you said "nobody" did, which is why I responded to his post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
But your claim that, historically, early polls haven't been predictive of the final outcome is true only if you define "predictive" as "predictive with 100% certainty".
I never said that they weren't predictive of the final outcome, though I'm not necessarily saying they are. I'm saying "We don't know what will happen in the coming months," which seems to be a pretty reasonable position to take, isn't it?
  #253  
Old 08-07-2019, 01:03 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
I suppose, but that sounds like the position of someone who would find it a waste of time to talk about the primary race at this stage.
  #254  
Old 08-07-2019, 01:09 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,504
OK, you're sort of right. You said that the polls will likely shift significantly between now and the election, and he said that early primary polls are significantly correlated with outcomes, which...actually don't even contradict each other. What were we arguing about again?
  #255  
Old 08-07-2019, 01:35 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I suppose, but that sounds like the position of someone who would find it a waste of time to talk about the primary race at this stage.
It's not a waste of time, but the polls most likely will change. I suspect the biggest movement will be the gradual decline of Joe Biden and the gradual rise of either Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris, and I would not write Harris off just yet. Just so we're clear, I am not taking the position that Joe Biden will lose, but I do think that the race will tighten.

One problem that Harris and Warren will have to contend with, though, is how to get around the Cult of Bernie. Sanders will probably be a double digit candidate for the foreseeable future. His worshipers are going to stay with him til the end, and he has the money to run a very, very long campaign, which is going to blunt some of the momentum that Harris and Warren might need to catch Biden.
  #256  
Old 08-07-2019, 02:15 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
It should be more a problem for Warren than Harris.
  #257  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:49 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
Wrong thread

Last edited by Boycott; 08-07-2019 at 03:50 PM.
  #258  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:55 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
Warren and Bernie occupy the progressive lane of the party but she is taking away some of his support from 2016 because I suspect she has life experience behind her viewpoints. She might come across stern or too much of a teacher but then she was a teacher. That's a better style of communicating to me than Bernie who just has the same stump speech he repeats over and over.
  #259  
Old 08-07-2019, 06:07 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
In the way that a rash is better than a burn.
  #260  
Old 08-07-2019, 08:13 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
... I read the article, and that's just a case of math geeks playing with politics. ....
Yup. 538 is JUST math geeks playing with politics. When it comes to the statistical probabilities what do math geeks know?
  #261  
Old 08-07-2019, 08:13 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Are you basing this view on the idea that reliable polls can reasonably be assumed to describe the reactions of all registered voters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Callback!
(Is there a point you're trying to make ...?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Well, I'm honestly curious why you said that to me earlier in such a way that I inferred skepticism but here you seem on board with the polls showing meaningful post-debate reaction.
(if anyone is curious, I'm calling back to this exchange in the "Democratic Debates 7/30 & 7/31" thread)
Okay, this was an argument about how many people are paying attention to the presidential race now. My position was that only a relatively small proportion of Democratic voters are paying attention at this stage of the Presidential election process. You took the opposite position: that "a wide group of people must be paying attention." Your reason for taking this position was that

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
If a significant number of people weren't paying attention, we wouldn't have seen the bumps and troughs that happened after the last debate. ...
So, basically, your claim is: 'large changes in favorability prove that a wide swath of Democratic voters are paying attention now.'

Without getting into it back then (five days ago), I was trying to suggest that your understanding of how polling works as a model of reality wasn't quite correct. To begin with, your premise was shaky: you claimed "bumps and troughs" in favorability for the various Dem candidates had occurred after a debate (the first set), and that in itself was a questionable interpretation of the data generated after that event. Certainly there were no large changes in favorability after the second set of debates. As DSeid had pointed out:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
FWIW there is a hint of data out now: the difference in the HarrisX polling results from 7/29 - 31 and 7/30 - 8/1 (most easily appreciated in the 538 poll tracker).
The difference of moving the 3 day result window into one that included a day after the second debate was ... (drumroll) ... Biden staying stable with Sanders losing 1%, Warren gaining 1%, and Harris not moving. Next rung Buttigieg dropped 1 and Booker gained 1%.
So the claim that there were large changes in people's views of the candidates was doubtful in itself. But where the claim really fell apart is the theory that bumps and troughs (even if they had happened) prove that "a significant number of people" are paying attention to the Democratic race now.

It would be perfectly possible to have large swings in the favorability of candidates at the same time that relatively few people are paying attention.

For example: A representative random sample of registered Democrats who had voted in the last election and had watched the debates might show big swings in the favorability numbers for the top candidates---but prove nothing whatsoever about the topic of contention between you and me: 'what proportion of Democratic voters are paying attention now?'

And the reason that poll would prove nothing about the relative sizes of the groups of voters (the 'paying attention now' group as compared with the 'not paying much attention now' group) is that the sample included only people who have a collection of traits that make them a minority in August 2019: they are registered; they voted in the last election; AND they watched the debates.

This collection of traits describes the narrow band of Democrats that I posit are paying attention now. It does not describe a "wide group" of people.

So you could see wide swings in favorability in a poll without being able to draw any conclusion whatsoever on the question 'is it just a small proportion of voters--'woke Twitter' and such--who are paying attention now, or is it a wide group of voters paying attention now?'

The crucial thing to know in interpreting a poll is: what's the nature of the representative random sample polled?

...and I should have said so five days ago, when we first started arguing. I guess I was some combination of short-on-time and lazy. So, anyway, here it is.







Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
He'll make it - as soon as you get off his lawn.
I don't like standing on his damn lawn anyway!
  #262  
Old 08-07-2019, 08:28 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post


... Actually, DSeid did pretty much just what you said "nobody" did, which is why I responded to his post.



I never said that they weren't predictive of the final outcome, though I'm not necessarily saying they are. I'm saying "We don't know what will happen in the coming months," which seems to be a pretty reasonable position to take, isn't it?
You really completely misunderstood my post. Reread it please.

My objection is to characterizing this as at most the second inning ... it is much farther along than that. (And personally I'd pay more attention to Iowa polls than anything else in that regard.) Seventh inning down (or up, depending on your perspective) by 3 is much more like it. THINGS CAN STILL CHANGE. Fortunes turn when that's the score in the seventh ... but not all that often.

Even using your Obama Clinton example, how it was in August '07 (Clinton +6 in Iowa) was about the same as it was a month before the Iowa caucuses (Clinton +6) ... was a month before also "early in the game" for Iowa? Same for that matter for national polls. Same lead for Clinton in December as it had been in August.
  #263  
Old 08-07-2019, 08:43 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
What about Kerry in ‘04 or McCain in ‘08?
  #264  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:01 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
GOP '08 interestingly saw the same thing as Dem '08 did. Early '07 polling was quite tightly correlated with late '07 polling. It wasn't until Iowa was imminent that it was in that sense no longer "early". So I'll concede that until Iowa's eve it can be considered "early" ... now no more so than four months from now though.

Again, 538 is talking about probabilities ... not absolutes.

And one must note that the same 538's analysis can be spun another way: Biden, by those metrics, is both by a good measure the candidate most likely to become the nominee and more likely to not be the nominee than to become it. Well known at 30% average polling (say) is at, what a 40% chance of being the nominee. That is 60% chance not. Sanders and Warren well known both under 20% each with something like a 10% chance and Harris less well known at 10% something like 25% chance (by this metric only, not paying attention to her directionality, and calling her not well known, which is a subjective call at this point). That would leave the rest of the field together a 15% chance.

Obviously reality is that each election is not an average of all past elections but its own special case to be pled ...
  #265  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:31 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Good analysis.
  #266  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:54 AM
WillFarnaby is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Interesting party line.

It might not get far without actual evidence, though. Or can you provide citations from anything more reputable than Breitbart and the like?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...arents-truancy
  #267  
Old 10-03-2019, 03:35 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
This thread has been dormant for almost two months - reflecting her poll numbers.

Tulsi Gabbard, the candidate who didn't qualify for the last debate, seems to have totally derailed Harris with that attack in Debate 2.
  #268  
Old 10-03-2019, 04:00 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
This thread has been dormant for almost two months - reflecting her poll numbers.

Tulsi Gabbard, the candidate who didn't qualify for the last debate, seems to have totally derailed Harris with that attack in Debate 2.
I don't think that was it. I think she just failed to capitalize.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #269  
Old 10-06-2019, 04:48 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
So you cannot see those who voted for Obama voting for a person of color? Interesting position tom take.
She'll be much like Obama, a disappointment to those she can manage to fake her way past and an evil woman of color after the fweedumbs of the victimy downtrodden white male; but the donor class will be nicely rewarded and no one will advance education and/or healthcare under her watch. There will be plenty of "leftyish" noncommittal rhetoric that goes absolutely nowhere for the unsubstantial people. This is after all the role of a president and the political system itself; illusion.

Last edited by Fentoine Lum; 10-06-2019 at 04:50 PM.
  #270  
Old 10-06-2019, 04:52 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
This thread has been dormant for almost two months - reflecting her poll numbers.

Tulsi Gabbard, the candidate who didn't qualify for the last debate, seems to have totally derailed Harris with that attack in Debate 2.
The system is not going to allow for Gabbard's continual outting of the military/surveillance/militarist/corporate police state/industrial complex.
  #271  
Old 10-06-2019, 04:59 PM
Ulfreida is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
<snip>

Whether progressives like to admit it or not, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have been the most successful progressive politicians over the past 40 years. </snip>
They were successful, but they weren't progressive. You could call them moderates or even liberals. To me progressive implies decidedly left wing, which they were not, except by the standards of neofascists like the new Republican party.
  #272  
Old 10-06-2019, 05:30 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
I read it as accomplishing the most in that direction. That’s the paradox. Center Lefts have moved the ball down the field more than hard Progressives have.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017