Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, April 25, 2019

Over the past few weeks, FiveThirtyEight has explored who led in early primary polls of presidential cycles from 1972 to 2016 and who went on to win the nomination. And what we've seen is that national surveys conducted in the year before a presidential primary are relatively good indicators of which candidates will advance to the general election.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

lol... the Poll Hater's Nightmare.

Statistical predictability is anathema bias confirmation.... it just isn't as much fun.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2019-04-24 02:18 PM | Reply


Interesting that he doesn't use the polling numbers directly, but applies some analysis to the numbers to come up with something he says is is meaningful, though he doesn't seem to put any numbers on "meaningful."

View from 30,000 feet:

Good name recognition and good poll numbers early in the primaries = good (voters know you and like you)

Good name recognition and bad poll numbers early in the primaries = not good (voters know you and don't like you)

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-04-24 02:27 PM | Reply

I am sure the polls have it right.......... Why have an election in 2020?

#3 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-04-24 06:38 PM | Reply


@#3 ... I am sure the polls have it right... ...

I don't agree with your opinion that the polls have it right.

Indeed, the article uses words like "decent," "relatively," etc., and not words like "100% accurate," "definitive," etc.

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-04-24 09:46 PM | Reply

The 538 rehabilitation campaign is underway.

#5 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-04-25 04:39 PM | Reply

It's goofy to reduce this to Biden vs. Bernie already. The same logic said Jeb Bush was a GOP front-runner in 2016 and Obama had no shot in 2008. Front runners often fade.

#15 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2019-04-25 08:35 AM | REPLY

#6 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-04-25 04:47 PM | Reply

Chomsky thinks 2 years Democrats flapping their lips about Russia, followed by the Mueller Report has put them in a very poor position. Contrary to Pelosi's strategy, impeachment is necessary now to right the ship. It doesn't matter that the Senate will not cooperate. But there are so many other stories to unfold by 2020, this poll is of little value.

www.truthdig.com

#7 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-04-25 06:57 PM | Reply

Screw polls. Talking about them is a waste of time. The media will spend more time talking about polls than they will about candidate's policies and trump's record.

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-04-25 09:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The media will spend more time talking about polls than they will about candidate's policies and trump's record.

The media will talk about whatever generates advertising revenue.

#9 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-04-25 09:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


@38 ... Screw polls. Talking about them is a waste of time. ...

Polls are a representative snapshot of a specific time. The problem arises when too much is read into them.

538 is trying to get around that fact of life, by attributing a special ~analysis~ (his "special sauce") to the raw poll data to make the poll data more predictive.

I remain to be convinced, at this point.

Probably the best comment I've read on polls in a long, long time is:

Campaigns move polls. The polls at the beginning of a campaign are not like the polls at the end of a campaign.
- Stephanie Kelly

In other words, campaigns are designed and intended to change the polls as the campaign season progresses.

Having said that, and having worked for decades in the marketing research industry, I have some other opinions on polls, which I've posted from time to time.... :)

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-04-25 11:32 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

The 538 rehabilitation campaign is underway.

#5 | POSTED BY BEN_BERKKAKE

Nate Silver wrote many times during the 2016 election that people were reading too much into their "percentages". He pointed out that even though (I think at that point) they had Hillary with an 80% chance of winning, that still meant that in five elections, Trump would still win one of them.

Republicans hate Nate Silver because he uses science, and Republicans hate science.

But he was one of the people saying most strongly that TRUMP COULD STILL WIN.

He isn't trying to rehabilitate. He is just doing what he always does. Trying to translate statistical analysis into terms that the common person can understand.

But Republicans don't like what the statistics and science tell them, so they (as usual) rely on ad hominem attacks to attack the messenger instead of the message.

#11 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-04-26 08:49 AM | Reply

The 538 rehabilitation campaign is underway.

#5 | POSTED BY BEN_BERKKAKE

What rehab campaign?

They were right in 2016. Right in 2018. Like scary right.

So far, Nate Silver and 538 has been scary accurate.

#12 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-04-26 11:31 AM | Reply

"Republicans hate Nate Silver because he uses science, and Republicans hate science."

Here, let me correct that for you..."...and Republicans hate science that Democrats cling to, just like Democrats hate the science that Republicans cling to."

There you go. Like most people who only know partisan hate, you refuse to realize how much science has allowed us to be the military power we are today, which acts as a deterrent for other countries to not attack us. Dems want America to fail so they don't want this science to be done, so one could very easily say Dems don't like science, either. Additionally, the amount of science that does into our cyber defensive capabilities is staggering, something that Dems also don't like (Reps as well but they at least see the war offensive benefits from it so that makes them interested). See how easy it is to generalize based off of partisan hate?

In reality, just like every other possible topic, both sides have their own opinions about things and the partisan haters on each side use what they like for their benefit and use what they don't like to spread partisan hate against people who don't agree with their opinion.

#13 | Posted by humtake at 2019-04-26 12:19 PM | Reply

There you go. Like most people who only know partisan hate, you refuse to realize how much science has allowed us to be the military power we are today, which acts as a deterrent for other countries to not attack us. Dems want America to fail so they don't want this science to be done, so one could very easily say Dems don't like science, either. Additionally, the amount of science that does into our cyber defensive capabilities is staggering, something that Dems also don't like (Reps as well but they at least see the war offensive benefits from it so that makes them interested). See how easy it is to generalize based off of partisan hate?

#13 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

I acknowledge the science behind improvements in methods of war and killing people... I just don't like how we USE it. Just because I don't like killing people, and understand that killing people does not lead to a long term solution, does not make me hate science. To pull from a Republican trope and paraphrase what you are bragging about... "Science doesn't kill people, Republicans using science kill people."

Republicans, on the other hand, are all about DENYING science. Be that climate change, statistics, economics, or psychology.

Look at gun control. Republicans forbid the CDC from even gathering data on gun ownership, violence, or deaths. THAT is hating science. Science is the messenger. Republican's favorite logical fallacy is the ad hominem. You attack the messenger (science) because you know you stand know chance of arguing against the message.

#14 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-04-26 12:55 PM | Reply

And I will point out that my comment was in RESPONSE to an ad hominem attack on the 538 blog. Instead of attacking the actual SCIENCE on the merits (methodology, uncertainty, etc) he attacked the blog, basically saying that it has been wrong in the past (which is actually false, and I made that point in my response), thereby implying that it would be wrong in the future.

I am sorry that you are offended (snowflake) that I pointed out that your party hates science. But it is a fact. You will not change the definition of "hating science" like you did for "fake news" so that you can say "everybody does it". You have aligned yourself with ignorance... accept it.

#15 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-04-26 01:06 PM | Reply

Uhm, does anyone consider the black box flipping to be of any statistical value? BushCo installed itself.

#16 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-04-26 08:18 PM | Reply

Nate Copper is terribly bad at what he does. What's the message we're supposed to receive from the image linked above, especially given that there are over a dozen blue team primary candidates, most of which enjoy >5% support? Everything in the bottom-left quadrant of this figure is pretty much non-informative, and the rest of the chart isn't doing so well, either.

#17 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-04-27 01:28 AM | Reply

ALso, linear fit? Bad dataset, bad model, bad bad bad.

#18 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-04-27 01:33 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort