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.
Democrats have been beating polls, nationwide, by 9+ points since Roe v. Wade was overturned.
The GOP has lost 17 of their last 20 special elections, even in so called “Red” states.
This has been going on long enough that either pollsters aren’t capable of adjusting their polling methods for the new reality or they are targeting polls on purpose to maintain a “horse race”.
That’s nice.
Just to be on the safe side, better vote blue anyway.
Democrats all the way down the ticket, national, state, and local. The Democrats are the party of human rights. That means reproductive rights, the right to privacy, the right to free expression and bodily integrity, the right to be free from government interference in one’s person and home, the right to vote, the right to criticize the government, the right to be paid a day’s wage for a day’s work and the right to bargain collectively for it, and the right to believe and practice or not practice the faith of your choosing, even if it offends the fascists in your local church.
Vote blue and save the Republic, polls be damned.
Absolutely.
they are targeting polls on purpose to maintain a “horse race”.
This one right here. Maintaining a horse race makes people think the candidates are struggling against each other and increases eyeballs and engagement, which is more money for them.
When it comes to media, follow the money and Occam’s razor for the answer to questions like that.
Special elections have a smaller turnout that skews towards the more politically active, which means it skews towards the more educated, which means it skews Democrat. And some of these special elections had literally less than 10,000 people voting.
It doesn’t explain everything, but I would not look at the special elections as a bellwether for the general.
I’m not discounting their importance, but we need to put them in context
It’s not an article, it’s a 10 minute long video.
I tried to watch it, but I just kept getting flashbacks to 2016 when they told us to ignore polls because there’s no way Hillary could lose…
Dumbasses even stopped to brag about how Biden is winning nationwide polls…
Which would be great if we lived in a democracy where popular vote meant anything.
But we don’t, we have the electoral college so what matters is the state by state polls which trump is winning.
And apparently no one is taking them seriously, and just fucking laughing about it?
Polls aren’t votes, but this race is probably going to be tighter than 2020, we can’t just laugh shit off because we don’t like it.
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
Are you saying I don’t understand how polls work…? Or is that a general statement?
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.
538 and other forecasters had her at a 70-80% chance of winning.
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!
It’s almost as if they don’t want Biden to win. There’s no sense of urgency, no self-awareness.
apparently no one is taking them seriously, and just fucking laughing about it?
If Trump wins they’re not the people who are going to suffer, this is all just a silly little game for them
Not initially, no. They think they’re a few Neimollers away from no one speaking for them.
People really need to take these polls seriously, and some misunderstanding of the win probabilities really contributed to everyone’s shock in 2016 and I think their disbelief in current polls.
A 70% chance based on the summation of multiple polls per five thirty eight was Hillary’s chance of winning. Considering the end result was an extremely slim electoral college victory only for Trump, that’s pretty reasonable. I think the problem here is just a misunderstanding of 70% probability, a lot of people thought that implies something way more sure than it actually does. That’s just a slight favoring of Clinton, closer to a 50/50 chance than a sure thing. A 30% chance is like saying, I’m going to get at least three heads when flipping a coin four times. Or pretty close to getting a pair on the flop in poker. It’s really not that unlikely, happens all the time.
It was the NY times upshot trying to copy five thirty eight that had some really bizarre math creating numbers way up in the high 90s of percent that clearly couldn’t be right and especially didn’t help with the false confidence.
It also doesn’t help that those win probabilities often get mentioned in the same breath as polling numbers. 70% in a poll is an insane advantage that would translate to a basically 100% win probability, while a 70% win probability is just a slight edge. I think some people that see those numbers close together can’t help but unconsciously conflate them.
Another important thing to consider is when polling errors happen, they tend to be correlated with each other, not independent. And it just so happened that the polls across multiple upper Midwest states were consistently underestimating Trump’s support. Not to mention a bunch of last minute news events that took place after many of the last polls that could have moved them.
Anyways, it still would be much better to be up in battleground polls than down. We shouldn’t be complacent when there’s in actuality only a slight advantage, and we definitely shouldn’t be complacent when we’re down. These numbers should be a cause for major concern.
Right now, the only votes that mater are 12 people who live in New York and legally can’t be polled until after the trial is over.
