8
Biden’s Gains Against Trump Vanish on Deep Economic Pessimism, Poll Shows
(www.bloomberg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
8 points (55.7% liked)
politics
19097 readers
2950 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Obviously I knew that yes; as I already explained, that's why I asked. Have you not seen this before, someone asking a question they know the answer to as part of a debate to see the other's person's response before taking the next step in the conversation?
IDK, maybe I should change the way I talk to people on Lemmy. You seemed to be genuinely for-real confused by it and I've seen that before more than once (where people assume that I'm asking questions because I must not know anything about the topic).
I do, yes. But I think that including it (including one factor that introduces, maybe imperfectly, an impact into the poll to account for different people having different probabilities of voting, instead of treating them all as the same) is better than treating all people as equally likely to vote, when clearly they are not. You wouldn't agree with that?
There's a difference between discounting a whole demographic (we polled only whites and not blacks) and selecting particular people to poll based on criteria which make them statistically more likely to impact the election.
No?
If it was just 2020, yeah, I could see that arguement.
But a non presidential election is always going to have lower turnout.
So I don't see any worth in only counting people who voted in 2020 and 2022.
You know a big thing my graduate level statistical analyst prof told me the first day of class?
Without seeing the poll (your article doesn't link it) it seems safe to assume Newsweek looked for the highest pro Biden result, and presented as something they intentionally checked for.
It's really really not uncommon.
And to be clear, this isn't a problem with the data or polling practices, just in how sometimes the media picks their result first then hunts for the data to rationalize it.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. That's the other reason I didn't post the Newsweek article as a story. I've absolutely seen this from "the other side," but that doesn't mean that the answer is dueling cherry-picked samples. I only brought it up as a way of making the argument that failing to limit to only likely voters is a very significant flaw in OP's poll.
To me, the factual analysis of which candidate people should be supporting based on how they're performing is the main thing to look at, with how the polls are looking as sort of a distant tactical afterthought because it's obviously relevant on some level to how the election is shaping up.
But it's not a fault of the poll...
When you look at actual poll results, it's not just one percentage, all the data is broken down.
My point was the problem is Newsweek reviewing the results, finding what agrees with them the most, and presenting that as a valid result.
It doesn't mean that the poll is flawed, just that someone is intentionally misrepresenting the results.
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you think anything anyone has said in this thread means polls arent real.