2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

[nimic]

1. They don't list their methodology or make it transparent

Sure they do.

The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS April 25 through April 28 among a random national sample of 1,007 adults reached on landlines or cellphones by a live interviewer. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points, for the subsample of 411 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who are registered to vote, it is 5.9 points.

2. The data cannot be checked against objective results unlike Exit polling that can be confirmed how accurate it is

This is a non-argument. The vast majority of polling doesn't have anything to do with exit polling, so what you're in effect saying is that the entire science of polling is inherently flawed. At that point you might as well ignore any and all polling, including Trump approval rating polls.

3. There are well established statistical sampling problems with both landline calling and internet polling being inherently not representative

Good thing that they used both landlines and cellphones for their polling, then.

 

[Red Dreams]

This time around there are no super delegates though?

True.

But the MSM is in full gear to damage the credibility of Bernie and Warren.

The key will be policies which need to be explained.
Early days.
the June month end debates will be the start of clearing things up.
While the danger of Trump cannot be underestimated, the culpability of the Democratic party cannot be minimized either.

 

[Sweet Square]

Amidst all this it is helpful to remind ourselves that the (slight)majority of Democrats consider themselves moderate/conservatives.

Getting the nomination will be an uphill battle for any progressive/leftie, but it’s certainly not because of some nefarious party power play behind the scene. If you can’t connect to that audience, they will have their candidate.

Pretty much this. For all the shit the Clinton campaign pulled they did beat Bernie by over a million votes. The Democratic party base isn't left wing.

I would also say looking at some polling the second pick for Bernie voters is Biden and vice versa(A tweet earlier mentioned Dem voters wearing Biden 2020 with also AOC pins ) . Unlike say UK Labour voters where the manifesto/policy is the number one reason or even US republicans who have certain policies red lines - Abortion, fighting any gun laws etc. Democratic voters simply don't have any constant ideology/political viewpoints.

Which leads to the outcome of a man offering nothing but 2008 nostalgia beating someone offering universal healthcare.

 

[ChaddyP]

Gotta hand it to the republicans. No matter who is their nominee, the fall the feck in line and vote for that man . They see the bigger picture and know they will get core things they want like supreme court nominees, deregulation and corprate tax cuts.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Sure they do.

This is a non-argument. The vast majority of polling doesn't have anything to do with exit polling, so what you're in effect saying is that the entire science of polling is inherently flawed. At that point you might as well ignore any and all polling, including Trump approval rating polls.

Good thing that they used both landlines and cellphones for their polling, then.

They don't list percentages between landline and cellphones and how that is derived. That's the problem.

And the bold is exactly true which is why every statistic professor I had taught to look at political polling especially non-exit polling that cannot be checked with a grain of salt. And big elections like 2004 where polling got Kerry wrong or 2016 where polling got Hilary wrong are exactly why its not a "science" at least not on par with properly applied statistics in the social sciences.

I've pointed out this problem for a long time and so have others which is why Republican messaging (long developed from Luntz focus groups) has generally been far more effective than Democrat messaging (usually based around polling).

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Gotta hand it to the republicans. No matter who is their nominee, the fall the feck in line and vote for that man . They see the bigger picture and know they will get core things they want like supreme court nominees, deregulation and corprate tax cuts.

That's not true though.

The Libertarian candidate in 2016 had 3 times as many votes as Green+Bernie write ins.

 

[Red Dreams]

55% of voters will never vote for Trump.
It will be near impossible for him to win.

The Corporate DNC must know this why they are pushing their nothing candidate Biden.

 

[langster]

Little cnut is at it again. When is he going to jail?

 

[ChaddyP]

That's not true though.

The Libertarian candidate in 2016 had 3 times as many votes as Green+Bernie write ins.

interesting

 

[The Firestarter]

Little cnut is at it again. When is he going to jail?

Why is he not indicted already ?

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

55% of voters will never vote for Trump.
It will be near impossible for him to win.

The Corporate DNC must know this why they are pushing their nothing candidate Biden.

55% of the population in a random samples opinion poll. He won with a minority as well.

This time around there are no super delegates though?

There are. They just won’t matter until the 2nd floor vote in a brokered convention.

 

[Red Dreams]

55% of the population in a random samples opinion poll. He won with a minority as well.

All the more reason then for a candidate that actually supports policies people will want to turn up to vote for.

 

[Cheesy]

Gotta hand it to the republicans. No matter who is their nominee, the fall the feck in line and vote for that man . They see the bigger picture and know they will get core things they want like supreme court nominees, deregulation and corprate tax cuts.

I think the problem is that there's ultimately a much bigger ideological chasm between Dems than there is Republicans.

All Republicans really want (when you get down to it) is extreme tax breaks for the rich and lower taxes in general so that rich people can make as much money as they want unregulated. The extreme conservatives within the party will partially sacrifice their ideals to achieve their economic aims, and the more liberal Republicans will turn a blind eye to all the regressive policies provided they get their tax breaks. Hence most fall in line with Trump even if they detest him.

Whereas Dems vary from proper leftists to mild fiscal conservatives. Which is a much bigger gap. And so they aren't really trying to reach the same end goals economically.

 

[Cheesy]

They don't list percentages between landline and cellphones and how that is derived. That's the problem.

And the bold is exactly true which is why every statistic professor I had taught to look at political polling especially non-exit polling that cannot be checked with a grain of salt. And big elections like 2004 where polling got Kerry wrong or 2016 where polling got Hilary wrong are exactly why its not a "science" at least not on par with properly applied statistics in the social sciences.

I've pointed out this problem for a long time and so have others which is why Republican messaging (long developed from Luntz focus groups) has generally been far more effective than Democrat messaging (usually based around polling).

I completely agree that it's wrong to base your campaign off polling alone, because you have to push for what you believe in if you actually want it to poll well, and I think it's fair to take polls with a pinch of salt, but I also don't think that invalidates the literal information being presented to us in polls either - if it's from a reliable pollster and it's saying Biden's comfortably in the lead, then it indicates he's doing well. Whether that will translate to a general election is another matter but it's clear that, for now, he retains a certain level of popularity within the party due to being a big name associated with a president a lot of the party still long for to a certain extent, even if the tide is gradually shifting.

 

[nimic]

They don't list percentages between landline and cellphones and how that is derived. That's the problem.

And the bold is exactly true which is why every statistic professor I had taught to look at political polling especially non-exit polling that cannot be checked with a grain of salt. And big elections like 2004 where polling got Kerry wrong or 2016 where polling got Hilary wrong are exactly why its not a "science" at least not on par with properly applied statistics in the social sciences.

I've pointed out this problem for a long time and so have others which is why Republican messaging (long developed from Luntz focus groups) has generally been far more effective than Democrat messaging (usually based around polling).

The error-margin of polling in 2016 has been greatly exaggerated. The national polls were off one or two points, no more. That's pretty good, as far as polling goes. If you want to use an example, use Brexit, which was far worse. Although Brexit polling was mainly British pollsters, which haven't been as accurate as American ones.

 

[Cheesy]

The error-margin of polling in 2016 has been greatly exaggerated. The national polls were off one or two points, no more. That's pretty good, as far as polling goes. If you want to use an example, use Brexit, which was far worse. Although Brexit polling was mainly British pollsters, which haven't been as accurate as American ones.

Aye, if anything the polling that's gone 'wrong' in key elections and votes is still an indication of how reliable polling is when it's generally not been that far out. Even a lot of polling when it came to Brexit still indicated it'd be a close vote, and plenty in the months leading up to the vote indicated strong levels of support for Brexit.

 

[Red Dreams]

needs to be updated

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Third poll from a reliable pollster showing a similar top line number. Basically Biden sucking off support from everybody else except Warren.

 

[Red Dreams]

I suppose everyone hates Medicare for All.

 

[Eboue]

I think what's beyond any doubt now is that Biden would have won easily in 2016. But instead Obama cleared the field for Hillary

 

[George Owen]

I suppose everyone hates Medicare for All.

The few that owns/control the media can create any narrative they want.

 

[The Firestarter]

I think what's beyond any doubt now is that Biden would have won easily in 2016. But instead Obama cleared the field for Hillary

...was her turn.

 

[Red Dreams]

The few that owns/control the media can create any narrative they want.

that was my point.

wait till they debate health Care and Biden talks up the huge deductibles v Medicare For All.

 

[sun_tzu]

Why is he not indicted already ?

True... Wasn't he Mr surefire intelligence trying to get false Meuller accusations as well...
Seem to remember avanetti having something to do with a case as well...

 

[Raoul]

I suppose everyone hates Medicare for All.

I doubt any one policy will be regarded as important as getting rid of Trump this next cycle.

 

[Red Dreams]

I doubt any one policy will be regarded as important as getting rid of Trump this next cycle.

Its not enough to be anti-Trump.
My point is we can have both.
Simply run on policies which people need and obviously Trump has stated will make worse.
Health Care is a big one.
Climate Change and Living Wage.
Free Tuition.
Expanding Social Security.

These are all policies Trump opposes.

 

[ChaddyP]

I doubt any one policy will be regarded as important as getting rid of Trump this next cycle.

I think trump and Bernie are equally poised to defeat him Albeit with different voter types. So it really should be mostly about policy when they both are inevitably the ones left in the race

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I doubt any one policy will be regarded as important as getting rid of Trump this next cycle.

Dems have been making this argument for 25 years though. No policy is ever important to them as beating Bush, beating McCain-Palin, beating Romney.

It become crystal clear they just care about winning rather than doing anything to help the country.

 

[Red Dreams]

Dems have been making this argument for 25 years though. No policy is ever important to them as beating Bush, beating McCain-Palin, beating Romney.

It become crystal clear they just care about winning rather than doing anything to help the country.

They Are interested in helping the corporations. That is why they do not stress on specific policies...just in case they are held accountable.
Of Course the convenient out is the Republicans will block any policies in the Senate anyways.
And we wonder about low voter turnout.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

If only I could run for President.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

The error-margin of polling in 2016 has been greatly exaggerated. The national polls were off one or two points, no more. That's pretty good, as far as polling goes. If you want to use an example, use Brexit, which was far worse. Although Brexit polling was mainly British pollsters, which haven't been as accurate as American ones.

The problem was most polls were reported telling people HRC had between 80-95% chance of winning. Then when she didn't win they acted like the polls were still "mostly accurate" because margin of error. But this view obfuscates the nuance of what is really going on.

If two polls were both within margin of error but one had HRC with a 90% chance of winning and the other had HRC with a 46% chance of winning, those polls were not equally accurate. One was much more accurate than the other despite both being within their margin of error. When we start looking into how and why the mainstream media polls mostly got it wrong the answer is actually due to the subjective factors in polling not the data itself as USC/Dornsife poll reveals:

"As of Tuesday morning, the poll's final forecast for the election showed Trump leading by a little over 3 points, 46.8% to 43.6%.

"The biggest difference between the Daybreak poll and most other surveys involves what pollsters refer to as weighting, the process of adjusting a poll's data to make sure it properly represents the diversity of the population. The Daybreak poll uses a weighting plan that is more complicated than most other surveys — perhaps too complex, critics said.

"As Ernie Tedeschi, a Washington-based economist and former Treasury Department official, has shown, if you take the Daybreak poll's data — which USC made available to the public — and weight it more in line with the usual system pollsters use, you get results that largely match the polling averages.

"Some of the worst failures of polling have come about because pollsters, whether deliberately or not, converged on a single view of an election, in what is often referred to as "herding."

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-latimes-poll-20161108-story.html

 

[berbatrick]

Amidst all this it is helpful to remind ourselves that the (slight)majority of Democrats consider themselves moderate/conservatives.

Getting the nomination will be an uphill battle for any progressive/leftie, but it’s certainly not because of some nefarious party power play behind the scene. If you can’t connect to that audience, they will have their candidate.

Ideological breakdown of Bernie is roughly even across Dems by self-defined ideology (I posted a few polls showing this). Biden is favoured by conservatives while Harris is favoured by liberals.
Bernie's main divides (at least in the March polls which I looked at most) was age (as usual) and education (Bernie does badly amongst college-educated people by a big margin). THere was no gender divide, and (these were polls that grouped all non-whites together) there was no race divide. He was doign marginally worse among white people, and quite badly among >$100k/year.

 

[Red Dreams]

If only I could run for President.

heck if Cruz can run you can mate.

 

[Raoul]

I think trump and Bernie are equally poised to defeat him Albeit with different voter types. So it really should be mostly about policy when they both are inevitably the ones left in the race

I’m sure there will be plenty of policy debates but voters are more interested in getting rid of Trump. If they can’t do that then policy won’t matter anyway since we’ll simply get treated to another four years of Trump’s antics.

 

[Eboue]

If there arent substantive policy chances the next trump will be even worse

 

[nimic]

The problem was most polls were reported telling people HRC had between 80-95% chance of winning. Then when she didn't win they acted like the polls were still "mostly accurate" because margin of error. But this view obfuscates the nuance of what is really going on.

If two polls were both within margin of error but one had HRC with a 90% chance of winning and the other had HRC with a 46% chance of winning, those polls were not equally accurate. One was much more accurate than the other despite both being within their margin of error. When we start looking into how and why the mainstream media polls mostly got it wrong the answer is actually due to the subjective factors in polling not the data itself as USC/Dornsife poll reveals:

"As of Tuesday morning, the poll's final forecast for the election showed Trump leading by a little over 3 points, 46.8% to 43.6%.

"The biggest difference between the Daybreak poll and most other surveys involves what pollsters refer to as weighting, the process of adjusting a poll's data to make sure it properly represents the diversity of the population. The Daybreak poll uses a weighting plan that is more complicated than most other surveys — perhaps too complex, critics said.

"As Ernie Tedeschi, a Washington-based economist and former Treasury Department official, has shown, if you take the Daybreak poll's data — which USC made available to the public — and weight it more in line with the usual system pollsters use, you get results that largely match the polling averages.

"Some of the worst failures of polling have come about because pollsters, whether deliberately or not, converged on a single view of an election, in what is often referred to as "herding."

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-latimes-poll-20161108-story.html

First of all, you're conflating different things there. That poll didn't give Trump a 46% chance of winning, it gave him 46.8% of the vote. Secondly, while that article pats is own back based on their poll which had Trump up by 3%, claiming that it was "at least as accurate as the majority of surveys that found Clinton ahead by 4 or 5 points" , in the end Clinton actually won the popular vote by 2%, meaning those nameless other polls were more accurate than their own poll.

I'm surprised you let this slip by you, since you're so concerned about the verifiability of polls. These numbers were easy to verify, but you picked a self-congratulatory article written before all the votes were counted.

 

[Raoul]

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

First of all, you're conflating different things there. That poll didn't give Trump a 46% chance of winning, it gave him 46.8% of the vote. Secondly, while that article pats is own back based on their poll which had Trump up by 3%, claiming that it was "at least as accurate as the majority of surveys that found Clinton ahead by 4 or 5 points" , in the end Clinton actually won the popular vote by 2%, meaning those nameless other polls were more accurate than their own poll.

I'm surprised you let this slip by you, since you're so concerned about the verifiability of polls. These numbers were easy to verify, but you picked a self-congratulatory article written before all the votes were counted.

No I am talking about two different things. I am making a general point about polling not being equally accurate - pick any two numbers you want 95% and 50% and the point stays the same. Its misleading to simply talk about polls being accurate because margin of error when the way the pollster subjectively weighs the data can greatly impact the end result. Not all "accurate because margin of error" polls are equal in information value is my point. If 538 gives HRC a 65% of election, NY Times give HRC 85% and Princeton EC gives HRC 99% chance of winning, even if they are all within margin of error, they are not all equally accurate polls. Clearly the methodology is superior in some to others.

And popular vote over-focus is exactly one of the flaws of those mainstream polling systems because popular vote is not how President is elected. The point is the much more nuanced and complex USC/Dornsife poll was empirically more accurate than the mainstream polling based on older methodology.

We also know there were systemic flaws "But Trump voters were notably less comfortable about telling a telephone pollster about their vote. Voters who backed a third-party candidate were even less comfortable responding to a poll. Women who said they backed Trump were particularly less likely to say they would be comfortable talking to a pollster about their vote."

 

[nimic]

And popular vote over-focus is exactly one of the flaws of those mainstream polling systems because popular vote is not how President is elected. The point is the much more nuanced and complex USC/Dornsife poll was empirically more accurate than the mainstream polling based on older methodology.

It wasn't. It was empirically less accurate. You can't post a reply based off of an article about a poll which specifically cites a popular vote prediction, and then claim that your point didn't have anything to do with the popular vote.