Is two days really enough time to be sure? Granted, the fact that the shooter seems to have not had political motivations probably makes a post-shooting boost less likely, but it seems wrong to...
Is two days really enough time to be sure?
Granted, the fact that the shooter seems to have not had political motivations probably makes a post-shooting boost less likely, but it seems wrong to count it out just yet.
I think everyone is trying to use polling as a tool to support their intended narrative. There were articles the day after the debate saying that a shift in polling within the margin of error...
I think everyone is trying to use polling as a tool to support their intended narrative. There were articles the day after the debate saying that a shift in polling within the margin of error meant that Biden was 100% doomed, and now these new polls see a tiny shift back towards Biden, and then there'll be a new poll in a few days and all of the political analysts will rush to tell you how these are the numbers that will answer the election, until the next poll comes out...
Practically, all we can do is look at longer trendlines, and vote, but neither of those get the adrenaline going the way the poll of the day will.
This is what I’m most sick of in this day and age. Every media outlet is drawing the wildest conclusions from the tiniest amount of info and it’s all to try and grab people’s attention for clicks...
This is what I’m most sick of in this day and age. Every media outlet is drawing the wildest conclusions from the tiniest amount of info and it’s all to try and grab people’s attention for clicks and dollars. It’s exhausting getting boomeranged back and forth.
I also wonder if yesterday's news -- the dismissal of the documents case in Florida, and him picking Vance as his running mate -- kinda drowned out the shooting. Of course, not everyone follows...
I also wonder if yesterday's news -- the dismissal of the documents case in Florida, and him picking Vance as his running mate -- kinda drowned out the shooting. Of course, not everyone follows the news cycles like some of us do, so maybe that's not as big of a factor.
Other thing I was thinking about is that it's not like Trump suffered serious bodily harm. He was obviously well enough to attend the RNC. The only thing that showed he was injured at all was some gauze on his ear, where the bullet grazed him.
I feel like if he were more seriously injured, underwent surgery, was still in the hospital, etc., I feel like that might've elicited more, I don't know, sympathy? People might be thinking about him more and that might cause the needles to move a bit more. But, again, he seems fine, so not really any need to worry. Back to business as usual.
For Biden, all the news focused on Trump over the last several days seems to have stopped all articles about his debate performance and mental faculties. Guess we'll see how it all it plays out for both of them.
Kind of makes me wonder why they did not push the VP announcement back to ride the wave of the shooting a little longer. Though I have no political acumen to speak of, I do find that often the...
Kind of makes me wonder why they did not push the VP announcement back to ride the wave of the shooting a little longer. Though I have no political acumen to speak of, I do find that often the motivations behind decisions made by these campaigns seem murky at best.
My intuition is that a shooting would cause a quick change in the polls that would dissipate quickly over time unless he/his staff campaign stay on it to keep it alive. I'm not an expert, I do not...
Is two days really enough time to be sure
My intuition is that a shooting would cause a quick change in the polls that would dissipate quickly over time unless he/his staff campaign stay on it to keep it alive.
I'm not an expert, I do not know.
I mean, no, it's not enough time. And polls all have at least 3-4% margin of error that always gets glossed over in these "reports". Plus, polling quality has declined steadily since the rise of...
I mean, no, it's not enough time.
And polls all have at least 3-4% margin of error that always gets glossed over in these "reports".
Plus, polling quality has declined steadily since the rise of cell phones and the Internet — both of which have contributed to increasing sampling bias.
And most significantly, at this stage of polarization, 98% of voters in both camps require little more than a heartbeat from their chosen candidate. A little thing like dementia or an assassination attempt is not going to move the needle, certainly not enough for a poll to notice.
Actually checked just now. This (singular) poll claims a 2% margin of error. Sorry, but I just flat-out do not believe that. No. Damn. Way.
Yeah, agreed. I feel like they rushed this out to make Democrats feel better. I realize that we consider this significant in the world of polling, but a number that small feels unreliable for...
Yeah, agreed. I feel like they rushed this out to make Democrats feel better.
2,045 registered voters
I realize that we consider this significant in the world of polling, but a number that small feels unreliable for finding undecided voters.
It's been awhile since I did college statistics, but that number should be fine so long as it's sufficiently random sampling and not limited to one locale. For the US population, that's something...
It's been awhile since I did college statistics, but that number should be fine so long as it's sufficiently random sampling and not limited to one locale. For the US population, that's something like a 2% error margin (findings are +/- 2%) and a 95% confidence level (surety of the error margin). Very reasonable if the methodology is sound.
As I understand it, isn't that the power of statistics? Being able to infer a significant amount of info about the population from a small sampling of data? On the other hand our brains aren't...
As I understand it, isn't that the power of statistics? Being able to infer a significant amount of info about the population from a small sampling of data? On the other hand our brains aren't equipped well to handle statistics intuitively so I think scrutiny is always good to bring because there's plenty of people ready to sell bad stats and hope people don't look too close.
Given the doom and gloom of the past few days, for once I don't mind. The initial reaction to the shooting was just seemingly everyone saying Trump was guaranteed to win, which... To call it...
Given the doom and gloom of the past few days, for once I don't mind. The initial reaction to the shooting was just seemingly everyone saying Trump was guaranteed to win, which... To call it disheartening is an understatement. That air of doom and gloom was everywhere online, the future felt so unspeakably bleak.
That sort of barrage of negativity can just lead to people prematurely accepting defeat. They'd still vote for Biden, but they won't be as vocal about it since they expect all the fence sitters to vote for Trump no matter what now.
This poll is definitely premature, but this is one of the first rays of hope I've seen since Saturday. I think it can help reinvigorate people and remind them that the fight isn't over yet. There's still time to avoid the worst-case scenario, and we need to fight tooth and claw to make sure Trump doesn't get into office.
I have a hard time seeing many people swayed by this. Pro Trump voters will vote for him regardless. Anti-Trump voters will vote against him regardless. Undecided voters hate both Biden AND Trump...
I have a hard time seeing many people swayed by this.
Pro Trump voters will vote for him regardless. Anti-Trump voters will vote against him regardless. Undecided voters hate both Biden AND Trump so either of them getting shot at by some psycho might not come as a surprise to them.
After seeing the polls remain pretty much unchanged after President Biden's bad debate and Felon Trump's shooting, I'm considering the same thing myself: that most of the voters are locked into...
After seeing the polls remain pretty much unchanged after President Biden's bad debate and Felon Trump's shooting, I'm considering the same thing myself: that most of the voters are locked into their decision at this point.
It does seem like that, yeah. I suspect that at this point the deciding factor is going to be which candidate motivates their base to vote better, rather than which candidate successfully appeals...
It does seem like that, yeah. I suspect that at this point the deciding factor is going to be which candidate motivates their base to vote better, rather than which candidate successfully appeals to the middle.
Believe it or not, there are still undecided swing voters. Then there is turnout. There are people who will simply not be inconvenienced to vote despite having a preference in candidates.
Believe it or not, there are still undecided swing voters.
Then there is turnout. There are people who will simply not be inconvenienced to vote despite having a preference in candidates.
This should probably have been posted in the megathread.
This should probably have been posted in the megathread.
This thread is posted weekly - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.
The findings also reveal that Trump's lead has narrowed slightly since the firm's previous survey, conducted between July 12 and 14, which put Trump two percentage points ahead with 44 percent to Biden's 42 percent.
Is two days really enough time to be sure?
Granted, the fact that the shooter seems to have not had political motivations probably makes a post-shooting boost less likely, but it seems wrong to count it out just yet.
I think everyone is trying to use polling as a tool to support their intended narrative. There were articles the day after the debate saying that a shift in polling within the margin of error meant that Biden was 100% doomed, and now these new polls see a tiny shift back towards Biden, and then there'll be a new poll in a few days and all of the political analysts will rush to tell you how these are the numbers that will answer the election, until the next poll comes out...
Practically, all we can do is look at longer trendlines, and vote, but neither of those get the adrenaline going the way the poll of the day will.
This is what I’m most sick of in this day and age. Every media outlet is drawing the wildest conclusions from the tiniest amount of info and it’s all to try and grab people’s attention for clicks and dollars. It’s exhausting getting boomeranged back and forth.
Institutionalized gossiping
Plus we know that polling has been a garbage metric these last 10 years.
Plus Gen z probably isn't captured in those polls
Polls have always been used to support political
liesnarratives. They are rarely worth looking into for most people.I also wonder if yesterday's news -- the dismissal of the documents case in Florida, and him picking Vance as his running mate -- kinda drowned out the shooting. Of course, not everyone follows the news cycles like some of us do, so maybe that's not as big of a factor.
Other thing I was thinking about is that it's not like Trump suffered serious bodily harm. He was obviously well enough to attend the RNC. The only thing that showed he was injured at all was some gauze on his ear, where the bullet grazed him.
I feel like if he were more seriously injured, underwent surgery, was still in the hospital, etc., I feel like that might've elicited more, I don't know, sympathy? People might be thinking about him more and that might cause the needles to move a bit more. But, again, he seems fine, so not really any need to worry. Back to business as usual.
For Biden, all the news focused on Trump over the last several days seems to have stopped all articles about his debate performance and mental faculties. Guess we'll see how it all it plays out for both of them.
Kind of makes me wonder why they did not push the VP announcement back to ride the wave of the shooting a little longer. Though I have no political acumen to speak of, I do find that often the motivations behind decisions made by these campaigns seem murky at best.
The VP had to be announced at the convention.
Ah, that makes sense.
What happened to all that talk of dementia? It's gone quiet on that front, maybe because we're just used to his ramblings now.
My intuition is that a shooting would cause a quick change in the polls that would dissipate quickly over time unless he/his staff campaign stay on it to keep it alive.
I'm not an expert, I do not know.
I guess we will both find out together.
I mean, no, it's not enough time.
And polls all have at least 3-4% margin of error that always gets glossed over in these "reports".
Plus, polling quality has declined steadily since the rise of cell phones and the Internet — both of which have contributed to increasing sampling bias.
And most significantly, at this stage of polarization, 98% of voters in both camps require little more than a heartbeat from their chosen candidate. A little thing like dementia or an assassination attempt is not going to move the needle, certainly not enough for a poll to notice.
Actually checked just now. This (singular) poll claims a 2% margin of error. Sorry, but I just flat-out do not believe that. No. Damn. Way.
Yeah, agreed. I feel like they rushed this out to make Democrats feel better.
I realize that we consider this significant in the world of polling, but a number that small feels unreliable for finding undecided voters.
It's been awhile since I did college statistics, but that number should be fine so long as it's sufficiently random sampling and not limited to one locale. For the US population, that's something like a 2% error margin (findings are +/- 2%) and a 95% confidence level (surety of the error margin). Very reasonable if the methodology is sound.
Oh I understand that statically it is fine. It just feels weird to go off such a small number.
As I understand it, isn't that the power of statistics? Being able to infer a significant amount of info about the population from a small sampling of data? On the other hand our brains aren't equipped well to handle statistics intuitively so I think scrutiny is always good to bring because there's plenty of people ready to sell bad stats and hope people don't look too close.
Yes and yes
Given the doom and gloom of the past few days, for once I don't mind. The initial reaction to the shooting was just seemingly everyone saying Trump was guaranteed to win, which... To call it disheartening is an understatement. That air of doom and gloom was everywhere online, the future felt so unspeakably bleak.
That sort of barrage of negativity can just lead to people prematurely accepting defeat. They'd still vote for Biden, but they won't be as vocal about it since they expect all the fence sitters to vote for Trump no matter what now.
This poll is definitely premature, but this is one of the first rays of hope I've seen since Saturday. I think it can help reinvigorate people and remind them that the fight isn't over yet. There's still time to avoid the worst-case scenario, and we need to fight tooth and claw to make sure Trump doesn't get into office.
I have a hard time seeing many people swayed by this.
Pro Trump voters will vote for him regardless. Anti-Trump voters will vote against him regardless. Undecided voters hate both Biden AND Trump so either of them getting shot at by some psycho might not come as a surprise to them.
After seeing the polls remain pretty much unchanged after President Biden's bad debate and Felon Trump's shooting, I'm considering the same thing myself: that most of the voters are locked into their decision at this point.
It does seem like that, yeah. I suspect that at this point the deciding factor is going to be which candidate motivates their base to vote better, rather than which candidate successfully appeals to the middle.
Believe it or not, there are still undecided swing voters.
Then there is turnout. There are people who will simply not be inconvenienced to vote despite having a preference in candidates.
Trump: "I could shoot someone and I wouldnt lose support."
The Universe: "Someone could shoot you and you wouldnt gain support."
This should probably have been posted in the megathread.