| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
It only contradicts basic political common sense in your opinion.
|
Good BYE.
This is literally common knowledge that has not changed in years.
Bernie is not being attacked a fraction as much as Hillary. Many voters, especially GOP ones, still have no idea who the hell he is. There have not been ad campaigns set up to smear him by billionaire Republicans. They haven't come for his lack of foreign policy experience and lack of business acumen. They haven't come for him for his ridiculously impassable healthcare and economy proposals, they haven't come for him for the actually useless "break up the banks" crap, they haven't attacked his absurd focus on campaign finance (which will never be adequately adjusted for the express reason of the establishment benefiting from it on both sides).
Why do we have to link articles and provide proof that it is completely ignorant of political history and the political process to give any credence to primary season general election polls?
Let's take a look at what's actually IN his article:
Quote:
|
If you look at polls that tested the eventual Democratic and Republican nominees in the last two months of the year before the election, the average absolute error of the polling average is 10.6 percentage points. That’s more than five times Ben Carson’s current lead over Hillary Clinton in the Huffington Post/Pollster.com aggregate. As you can see in the table below, 12 of the 14 elections1 for which we have polling data featured an error greater than Carson’s edge.
|
Quote:
|
If you trusted the polls in late 1991, you might have thought Bill Clinton was finished in the 1992 presidential election. George H.W. Bush was ahead of Clinton by 21 percentage points at the time; Bush was basking in sky-high approval ratings after the first Gulf War. But as the Gulf War triumph faded and the economy became the focus of the campaign, Clinton would gain in the polls and eventually overtake Bush.
|
Quote:
|
Most recently, Barack Obama and John McCain were tied a year before the 2008 election. At that point in the campaign, more people cared about foreign policy than domestic issues. That changed dramatically as the global financial system collapsed, and Obama went on to win by over 7 percentage points.
|
Quote:
|
The second most recent non-incumbent election featured an even larger polling error. George W. Bush had a 12-percentage-point advantage over Al Gore in the early polls for the 2000 election, but Gore went on to win the national popular vote by half a percentage point.
|
Why does his tiny little opinion tweet even matter at all? It's not just about listening to people who are reputable in their area of expertise, it's about listening to the things that they say that are backed by science and experience and cold hard fact.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Posts: 11,566
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
That still doesn't make it a fact actually, especially since it was one point off in the last election cycle. But my original point still stands, Bernie is electable according to the respectable political analyst you linked me to.
|
You do know Bernie's poll numbers will go down once the RNC diverts from targeting HRC to Bernie. Hillary is targeted in every debate to kill her poll numbers, it will be the same if Bernie were to become the nominee.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Giselle
He made his own personal prediction. He was not basing it off of meaningless polls like you're trying to paint. |
They weren't meaningless in the last election cycle, or 2008, or 2004, etc.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
They weren't meaningless in the last election cycle, or 2008, or 2004, etc.
|
Yes they were. Completely meaningless. Entirely wrong. See above, his actual article.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 4/27/2012
Posts: 33,811
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Good BYE.
This is literally common knowledge that has not changed in years.
Bernie is not being attacked a fraction as much as Hillary. Many voters, especially GOP ones, still have no idea who the hell he is. There have not been ad campaigns set up to smear him by billionaire Republicans. They haven't come for his lack of foreign policy experience and lack of business acumen. They haven't come for him for his ridiculously impassable healthcare and economy proposals, they haven't come for him for the actually useless "break up the banks" crap, they haven't attacked his absurd focus on campaign finance (which will never be adequately adjusted for the express reason of the establishment benefiting from it on both sides).
Why do we have to link articles and provide proof that it is completely ignorant of political history and the political process to give any credence to primary season general election polls?
Let's take a look at what's actually IN his article:
Why does his tiny little opinion tweet even matter at all? It's not just about listening to people who are reputable in their area of expertise, it's about listening to the things that they say that are backed by science and experience and cold hard fact. |
LIKE  People think I'm just being a bitch (and maybe I am) with the whole "conspiracy theorist" thing but I literally DO NOT understand the constant denial of fact & precedent and the overbearing reliance on made up theories and wishful thinking 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
That still doesn't make it a fact actually, especially since it was one point off in the last election cycle. But my original point still stands, Bernie is electable according to the respectable political analyst you linked me to.
|
....
It surely makes it true. For every election since 1964 (I believe it was that far back) the GE polls this far out have not accurately predicted the outcome of the election, or even came close. They've been off. So it has low predictability
Which is why I keep saying GE polls this far out mean nothing because history has shown it has a very low predictability rate. All it can show is that people are potentially willing to consider voting for candidates that's it. Doesn't actually prove electability yet even though I personally do think Bernie can get elected
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Giselle
LIKE People think I'm just being a bitch (and maybe I am) with the whole "conspiracy theorist" thing but I literally DO NOT understand the constant denial of fact & precedent and the overbearing reliance on made up theories and wishful thinking |
I mean, clearly us Hillary supporters don't know exactly what's going to happen in the next ten months, but the fear that we're going to send Bernie Sanders into a massive loss as our party's nominee because we're so confident in these GE polls isn't exactly an unfounded one.
Trump is still rising in literally every place. He is winning in every GOP primary and still rising. Underestimating him at this point based on GE polls with zero historical credibility would be a massive mistake in this election.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Good BYE.
This is literally common knowledge that has not changed in years.
Bernie is not being attacked a fraction as much as Hillary. Many voters, especially GOP ones, still have no idea who the hell he is. There have not been ad campaigns set up to smear him by billionaire Republicans. They haven't come for his lack of foreign policy experience and lack of business acumen. They haven't come for him for his ridiculously impassable healthcare and economy proposals, they haven't come for him for the actually useless "break up the banks" crap, they haven't attacked his absurd focus on campaign finance (which will never be adequately adjusted for the express reason of the establishment benefiting from it on both sides).
Why do we have to link articles and provide proof that it is completely ignorant of political history and the political process to give any credence to primary season general election polls?
Let's take a look at what's actually IN his article:
Why does his tiny little opinion tweet even matter at all? It's not just about listening to people who are reputable in their area of expertise, it's about listening to the things that they say that are backed by science and experience and cold hard fact. |
His analysis for science and his experience are what he's basing his opinion off of because there's clearly more into Bernie's electability than the GE polls, and I'm not even the one who chose that specific respectable political analyst.
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
....
It surely makes it true. For every election since 1964 (I believe it was that far back) the GE polls this far out have not accurately predicted the outcome of the election, or even came close. They've been off. So it has low predictability
Which is why I keep saying GE polls this far out mean nothing because history has shown it has a very low predictability rate. All it can show is that people are potentially willing to consider voting for candidates that's it. Doesn't actually prove electability yet even though I personally do think Bernie can get elected
|
That's exactly what I'm trying to say 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 10,514
|
Nancy Pelosi had to use quorum calls and other parliamentary shortcuts to get Obamacare passed in a Democrat-controlled House, and the GOP-controlled Congress has tried to repeal it literally hundreds of times since. What sort of logic makes anyone think the GOP would pass single-payer healthcare if Bernie was elected?
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
His analysis for science and his experience are what he's basing his opinion off of.
|
Please quote me a tweet in which he says literally this, or you have exactly zero proof.
Pollsters and analysts can have opinions based on things outside the data as well, you know - in fact, it would make more sense that his opinion is based on his own feelings and ideas than on fact, since he literally wrote an entire article on why GE polls this early don't matter at all and therefore can't contribute to anyone's predictions by way of either analysis or experience.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
His analysis for science and his experience are what he's basing his opinion off of, and I'm not even the one who chose that specific respectable political analyst.
That's exactly what I'm trying to say |
But you weren't saying that at all? You were saying Bernie is electable and used some GE polls which contrasted him and her vs the republican field to show he's more electable than her.
What I said the polls were only good for were the potential for people to consider voting for him. That isn't the same thing as him being a better nominee than Clinton because he's beating her by larger margins over the Republican field.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Please quote me a tweet in which he says literally this, or you have exactly zero proof.
Pollsters and analysts can have opinions based on things outside the data as well, you know - in fact, it would make more sense that his opinion is based on his own feelings and ideas than on fact, since he literally wrote an entire article on why GE polls this early don't matter at all and therefore can't contribute to anyone's predictions by way of either analysis or experience.
|
There's more into Bernie's electability than the GE polls, why are you acting like it's the only factor?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
When is the republican debate? Tomorrow? I feel like it's soon
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
But you weren't saying that at all? You were saying Bernie is electable and used some GE polls which contrasted him and her vs the republican field to show he's more electable than her.
What I said the polls were only good for were the potential for people to consider voting for him. That isn't the same thing as him being a better nominee than Clinton because he's beating her by larger margins over the Republican field.
|
I literally said I wasn't using the GE polls to prove Bernie's more electable than Clinton, but to prove that he's electable.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 10,514
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
When is the republican debate? Tomorrow? I feel like it's soon
|
Thursday. The Democratic town hall is tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
And why are we acting like Republicans can't lose the House and Senate in 2016, 2018, 2020 or 2022?
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 4/27/2012
Posts: 33,811
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
There's more into Bernie's electability than the GE polls, why are you acting like it's the only factor? |
You are the one who brought up that GE poll. You are the one trying to argue that the mass-accepted idea that they aren't reliable isn't true.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
There's more into Bernie's electability than the GE polls, why are you acting like it's the only factor? |
And where exactly is this "more" you're referring to?
I just want your reasons so that I can bookmark the post to bring up if he loses the general, seeing as there's a pretty decent range of reasons why his electability isn't as robust as the polls would suggest. 
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 4/27/2012
Posts: 33,811
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
And why are we acting like Republicans can't lose the senate in 2016, 2018, 2020 or 2022?
|
The Senate and the The House are two dif-...
You know what. You're right girl.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Posts: 11,566
|
Rereading through the past 3 pages im confused as to what hecking is even arguing at this point....
|
|
|
|
|
|
