Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter


  • ***


« "Can't Anybody Here Play This Game [Honestly]?" | Main | Trump's desperation is rising »

August 20, 2019


FiveThirtyEight may assign an "A-," but not shown here is the admitted 6.1% error rates. That makes this pretty worthless.

That's only for "the subset of 402 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents." The smaller the universe in polling, naturally, the higher the MOE. "Results for the full sample [more than twice the subset's size] have a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.7 percentage points."

Sounds like Dr. Jill Biden is promoting the winnable aspect over the popularity aspect as a case for voting for Joe. Whatever works.

OK thanks.

That's really what this is all about. Who can beat Trump. Without electability, the rest doesn't matter. In fact policy won't matter either if the Republicans still hold the senate.

Warren drew 12,000 to a rally in Minnesota last night. Biden couldn't draw 12,000 if he advertised free beer.

Well...maybe if he advertised free beer.

What makes folks think Biden is more electable than other Dems is anybody's guess.

Well, in Jill Biden's case, I guess it's understandable. Not like she has much of a choice. But anybody other than Dr. Jill, I mean.

It's just like the many truisms spouted about our last Dem Trumpslayer...President Hillary Clinton. Completely bereft of any pretense of intellectual substance, it's just something pundits say to seem all-knowing, and people swallow it whole and beg for more. Amazing.



I rather like Warren myself. She is smart. Probably would be doing better if she wasn't in the War of the Immaculate Policy with Sanders. The current assault via surrogate, Susan Sarandon in particular, is that Warren used to be a Republican! Here that Anne? A Republican. Mind you if we count her time in service as a Democrat she beats Bernie by approximately 1.6 kilometers. That's a mile to you guys.

The small donation cash train keeps rolling in so they will be at it hammer and tong for the foreseeable future. And panic is starting to set in a bit on that part of the political spectrum. Not being in the policy war limelight was supposed to be lethal to Joe but wasn't. On the contrary as current polling shows. But this one is a humdinger courtesy of Matt Yglesias:

"About 15 months ago @DLeonhardt reported on experiments done by Priorities USA suggesting that messages emphasizing Trump’s racism demoralizes black voters rather than encouraging them to turn out."
Furthermore this same progressive think tank found that making things about Trump Trump Trump was a losing proposition. This was not polling mind you but some sort of experiment that showed why Joe Biden's strategy could not possibly be a winning one. With a side order of progressives don't do very well with Black voters. But it very clearly is a winning strategy isn't it?

It is pretty worthless, Max. This poll only surveyed 1,001 REGISTERED voters, across all 50 states.

I'm not a big believer in national polls taken six months before the first statewide caucus, as you know. But news organizations pay for registered voter polls only so they can put some fresh numbers/charts up as visuals behind the talking heads.

What I found interesting about this particular poll was that Biden was the choice of 39% in April, and his support is now at 29%. If Dr. Jill, or anyone in the Biden campaign, thinks that's good news for Joe, I'd be very surprised.

Don't the polls show that just about any Dem with a pulse beats Trump?

Those polls mean absolutely nothing, in my opinion. We don't even know yet who the third and fourth party candidates are.

August, 2019 polls are just fantasies about a head-to-head race that's never going to happen. Nothing more than made-for-TV pseudo data, so they have some numbers to put up behind the talking head while he calls the horse race.

Susan Sarandon has her head up her privileged butt. I'm sure that when Elizabeth Warren was a republican it was a very different party back then. It ain't the team colors you wear it's who you bat for that counts.

It's been a long time since grad school but I took a course on this. I do remember concluding these reliability metrics can be easily quite off the mark. It takes a ton of money, large sample sizes and other things to get anywhere near the reliability they claim. The campaigns do spend the money. That's why the Intons knew they were in trouble in Pa. the weekend before the Election - although the national polls missed that. Nineteen Eighty with Carter and Reagan is the most famous example. The day before that election the national polls concluded a toss-up, while at the same time Cater was told he lost and Reagan was told he won. But as I noted to do this is hideously expensive.

The comments to this entry are closed.