The Morning Joe panel discusses recent 2024 presidential polling, including new NYT polling that has former President Trump leading President Biden in five swing states.
The Morning Joe panel discusses recent 2024 presidential polling, including new NYT polling that has former President Trump leading President Biden in five swing states.
That’s a weird flashback because the polls said she was going to win.
This exactly what I’m talking about about…
She had comfortable leads in national polls…
But state by state polls were too close.
If a candidate is up in polls by less than the margin of error, only a fool would say that’s fine and do a victory lap in California instead of campaigning in those battleground states.
Just because someone doesn’t understand how polls work, doesn’t mean they don’t work.
ICP knows they don’t understand magnets, but it’s not like they try to say that means magnets don’t work. They accept that things work even if they don’t understand it.
The DNC needs to be more like ICP
Are you saying I don’t understand how polls work…? Or is that a general statement?
I was just pointing out that everybody said she had it in the bag because of the polls. Which was largely because anytime somebody’s below like 45% people basically assume they’re going to lose
If you thought being up 1% in a poll with a marging of error of 4-5% meant she was winning…
Yes, you had a fundamental misunderstanding of how to interpret polls and it seems like you still might.
I was keeping it general instead of specific.
But yes, it appears you’re in that group that doesn’t really understand polls are just a sample and don’t translate exactly to number of votes in an election.
You have no clue what I think or what I am drawing from clearly and the patronizing tone is entirely unwarranted. 538 and other forecasters had her at a 70-80% chance of winning. Those forecasts were the results of polling and other information. I did not say individual polls favored her 70-80% against 20-30%. That would be patently absurd.
Next time instead of diving headfirst into a smug response that is completely undeserved, just ask for clarification or consider maybe you are misinterpreting me. Hell maybe I misspoke or it was ambiguous, I’m not perfect. Hopefully this isn’t how you talk to people in real life when you think they’re wrong.
Oh, Nate Silver?
The guy who was good at polls but then started letting his neoliberal opinions influence his analysis?
Like, you realize that’s what you’re talking about about right?
The polls didn’t say Hillary had a 70% chance of winning.
Nate Silver analysis of polls said she had a 70% chance of winning.
That doesn’t mean you ignore polls you don’t like, it means you stop listening to Nate Silver’s opinion.
Like, if I jumped off a roof and broke my leg, I shouldn’t blame gravity, gravity did what it would always do.
The issue was my analysis of gravity and the effect it would have on me from that distance.
It doesn’t mean gravity is fake news and if enough people clap Tinkerbell will fly me to Never Never land.
I’m sorry I can’t explain this in a way you can understand though, but if that didn’t work I honestly don’t know how to put it.
Yes it was all Nate Silver. He was the only person with an election forecast saying she had a 70-80% chance. That’s right, that’s all I follow. No god but Nate. That’s why I didn’t say “and other forecasters.” Because I trust one source only and use it for everything ever.
Jfc dude you’re just flinging shit and seeing what sticks at this point
IIRC 538 said she had a ~30% chance of losing & she did.
Closer to 20% actually IIRC but people act like anything below like 45% is basically 0 in stats for some reason. I just remind them that not only would I not play Russian roulette, I definitely wouldn’t play it with a five or (three) barrel gun. And you have a better chance of surviving that than Trump did at winning.
Lower probability is still a chance, folks!