Some interesting points about the polls done by the NYT:
https://www.salon.com/2024/03/05/there-is-something-at-the-new-york-times/
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
63 points (95.7% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3792 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Every time I read about a historical article from the NYT, they always seem to be on the wrong sid.
Most recently, I read a book about the period just before the Mexican Revolution when the NYT was happy to side with and defend the brutal Diaz dictatorship that provided cheap natural resources for wealthy American investors. In another book about the comics scare during the 40s-50s, they had no problem publishing an article titled " Comics blamed in death" when covering a kid that hanged himself.
There's probably a bit of confirmation bias going on here, but it's still concerning, nonetheless.
the pollsters definitely get that landlines are old news and most people don’t even answer unknown numbers on their cell phones. The same applies to text requests for political surveys. Response rates — or, rather, non-response rates — are awful. But pollsters know all of that and they’ve come up with pretty smart ways to deal with it. Without getting too far into the weeds, it comes down to increasingly sophisticated ways of modeling the electorate, using those models to weight the results, and in so doing backing out a representative sample from the data.
Just quoting this here because I've seen this point made many times.
I do think they're trying, but its gotta be complex and error-prone to extrapolate like that, especially if there's some confounding factor that correlates to the likelihood of receiving an answer.
Yeah but that's why these people are professionals. Of course it's complicated to do this but statisticians do it all the time. If there's a known confounding factor (e.g. young people don't answer calls) then it can be adjusted for. I know polling isn't perfect but I find these points are less "I have a technical point about the problems with extrapolation/interpolation" and more "This poll doesn't show what I want so there must be a problem"
I think it is telling how difficult it can be to accurately predict based on polls and all other available data by how rare it is for a professional analyst to make an accurate prediction on something like a federal election 12 or 8 months away.
Really? What about 2020
Almost all correctly predicted a Biden win. We don't need the precise number just the general lay of the land
There were plenty of predictions that got the winner right, but the amount that accurately predicted the ~51/47 are much fewer and I believe the rarity is an indicator that accurate prediction is not as clear and straight forward as some may expect even with statistical training.
For me it's not so much about the specific number and more "Who will win" and it definitely seems like polls do that quite well, even 8 months out etc as you mentioned before.
I think expecting precise accuracy is quite a high bar. The only real test is the election if that is your stance, and by then it's too late to do anything about it
Even if Biden squeaks through a victory in November, him choosing to run again back in 2022/2023 was an act of incredible selfishness, and choosing personal ego over the good of the country.
Thing is, I don't see other Democrats doing better, especially once they've been attacked by the right wing smear machine
Damn, if only the democrats had some young enthusiastic members that have firmly refused corporate pac money.
If the DNC didn't insist on sabotaging themselves we might actually get a candidate that people wanted to vote for instead of against.
Remember that the Democratic establishment didn't want to go with Obama in 2008. Their politics are incompatible with enthusiastic support and they need to be dragged into adopting popular messages. Anything that smells like "change" means the dinosaurs who have been in office for decades haven't actually been doing the best job anyone could possibly do.
Right wing smearing is to be taken for granted. An open nomination process could have brought to the fore someone younger and with more energy to campaign. And Biden was never a terrific campaigner to begin with.
Basically, his ego got the better of him, exactly the same as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Lol what? Incumbents have a huge advantage in running. It would be selfish for him not to run.
load more comments
(17 replies)
I think just the opposite. While we all want to raise a new crop of candidates from a younger generation, I don’t see how any have developed a National following yet. Maybe it takes a presidential campaign to do so, I don’t know, but I looked around and didn’t see anyone with the name recognition to campaign against Trump. While I prefer a more Progressive platform, a moderate like Biden is more likely to catch undecideds. If Republicans went with a new candidate, fine, start from the same place, but we can’t afford to start over building national recognition, can’t afford to lose undecideds, when we’ve seen what Trump can do to divide us so we fight each other, the effectiveness and reliability of our government, our stature in the world, the very future of our society.
Trump’s rhetoric this time has been much much worse, counter to American ideals, ethics, Democracy, engagement in the world, investing in our future, human rights. He clearly comes across as the type of ruler that US generally opposes in third world countries. And he’s willing to say it out loud. We can’t afford to develop a new person, if it risks Trump being elected.
The Dems have a bench of pretty impressive governors, who could have risen to prominence by going through a primary campaign. It's hard to think of Biden as the best possible hope against Trump, given that he has a 38 percent approval rating, a bit lower than Trump at this point and 10 points below Obama...
Unfortunately Biden polls better against trump than Witmer/Newsome. I really hope we can get Witmer/Shapiro/Newsome on the ticket in 28'.
Obama had no national following. He was an up and coming candidate that actually got a chance. Candidates that have a decade on the national stage aren't always the only option.
They are now. The party will never let another Obama through the primaries.
Not American, just a rabid follower of US Politics.
I think Dems are at a tactical disadvantage having had no one primary Biden. If god forbid anything happens between now and election day they have no one that the public knows well as backup. I watched Kamala Harris speak at Selma on the weekend; I support her as the first woman in her role but I am incredibly skeptical of her ability in any way shape or form to carry a general election.
Now Republicans have solved that problem by having a clear backup: Nikki Haley. I see there are reports right now that she is dropping out. She is, however, a viable and well-known backup due to her tenacity in staying in the race. If the GOP needed to rally behind a new candidate the cutover to her would be smoother because she has stayed in the spotlight.
When candidates drop out in our races, they often tell their supporters (including any delegates they may have accumulated) who to support instead. It looks like Haley will just "suspend" her campaign, and not give any endorsement at all to Trump.
This mainly gives her the upper hand in case Trump eats one hamburger too many between now and the Convention. As the only other candidate with pledged delegates, it makes it easier to gain the nomination when the delegates will be on their own to negotiate what candidate to nominate.
Even if Haley were to drop out and tell her delegates to support Trump, I don’t think the GOP would have issues rallying back to Haley if anything were to happen? Although Republicans also in shambles lately with infighting (Michigan Republican Party drama).
If Biden has to drop the Dems basically don’t have a campaign.
I think we’re saying the same thing but I don’t see Haley’s endorsement or lack thereof of the winning nominee as a roadblock for the GOP looping back around to her if they need to pivot quickly.
It has more to do with the arcane rules surrounding delegates, which are different between the parties. In the event Trump wins enough delegates to secure the nomination but is unable to accept due to an untimely event, Haley may be in the best position to take advantage of that if she is the only other candidate with delegates of her own. Most Republican primaries are winner-take- all, so Haley winning even a single State is significant. (By contrast, if Democrats worked by the same rules, then the "uncommitted" vote would not have earned any delegates.)
The entire Primary process puts a thin veneer of Democracy over what is very much an internal party process to select a candidate.
skeptical of her ability in any way shape or form to carry a general election.
Right, that’s the thing, who else? I’m sure there are great candidates, but they’re starting with much lower name recognition, much less national stature .
- I really wanted it to be AOC, but she was vilified and fizzled out
- Harris would be fine, but I don’t think her time as VP has helped her national status
- who’s Buttegeig (and how do you spell his name?)?
While a Democratic Primary would have helped these other candidates, it could only hurt Biden.
I’ve followed more elections than most people here on Lemmy, and have always been able to say that I agree with one candidate more and disagree with the other more. But I’ve never before felt there’s a candidate that needs to be avoided at all cost, a candidate that is clearly un-American, a candidate that will do harm to pretty much whatever he touches, a candidate so self-centered and corrupt, a candidate so clearly unfit for anything more than reality show huckster
load more comments
(5 replies)
Republicans have used a pretty successful system that generally picks a loser from the previous primary as the winner for the current one. Democrats seem to entirely abandon losing candidates.
Welcome to super liberal Reddit where the facts don't matter and Bernie is still in the running.
I truly don't understand the Bernie thing. I campaigned for him. He straight up lost. All the fuckers screaming about the Democrats not putting up better candidates didn't show up to vote. It's not some grand conspiracy against progressives. We don't show up and then complain when we aren't represented.
I like Bernie, but I would never vote for him simply because the razor-thin margins that Democrats need to win make any other choice unrealistic. There simply isn't enough room for a third candidate when the Republicans keep promoting fascist nutters. Luckily, Biden has proven more progressive than anyone anticipated, so you kind of got a win in the end.
Bernie wasn't a 3rd party candidate. I wouldn't vote for a 3rd party candidate until we get away from FPTP elections.
view more: next ›