DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
OK. Semantics and weed-wading aside, cutting back to the chase,
Is the question "is the economy working for you personally" an important indicator of how people might vote?
Is it reasonable to base a column on the results from the "is the economy working for you personally" question?
My answers are yes on both.
OK. An ill-informed rebuttal to ml1 aside, I think he already answered both questions, too.
DaveSchmidt said:
Smedley said:
I was referring to how the poll results are presented to readers, not how the poll questions are presented to poll participants.
I was referring to the 37-page release that you referred to, and the information presented therein (which is in the order the questions were asked, because that’s how polling organizations present information in that form).
I'm not sure you're correct here. You say polling organizations ask questions and present the information in the same order. Ok. But in the Pew bit you excerpted it says "Demographic questions such as income, education or age should not be asked near the beginning of a survey"...yet the Marist survey report has demographics on its first page.
Smedley said:
I'm not sure you're correct here.
If you’re not sure, feel free to read up on it and think about it further until, one way or the other, you are.
Smedley said:
You criticize Thiessen for cherry-picking but you did just that in citing a half-dozen data points that work for you.
The Marist poll is 37 pages. The information is presented in an order that I don't believe is random. Rather, it's presented in approximate order of importance as the pollsters see it.
Do you approve/disapprove of Trump first. Do you definitely plan to vote for/against him next. Then (dis)approval of Trump's handling of the economy and foreign policy.
Then on page 11 -- is the economy working or not working for you personally.
Then it gets into specifics.
So Thiessen based a column on a broad stroke of the survey that is one of the most important data points in terms of how people can reasonably be expected to vote. Certainly more important than who's promising free college. I have no idea how this column is dishonest, contemptuous of the reader, and hackish.
I didn't cherry pick one question. I picked the ones relevant to Warren's policy proposals, and I even included Medicare For All, that didn't poll all that well. Frankly, it's unfair of you to suggest what I did is even remotely like what Thiessen did.
And I was specific about Thiessen's dishonesty in that column. He ignored all the questions that are specific to Warren's platform in a column that was a critique of Elizabeth Warren's platform. Instead he critiqued her chances with a general question that was not directly related to her policy proposals. If that was a paper for a college course and Thiessen was my student, he'd get an F and a note about using a disingenuous argument. And yes, he was counting on readers to be too lazy to call him on it.
Smedley said:
I'm not sure you're correct here. You say polling organizations ask questions and present the information in the same order. Ok. But in the Pew bit you excerpted it says "Demographic questions such as income, education or age should not be asked near the beginning of a survey"...yet the Marist survey report has demographics on its first page.
This is generally good advice. But "should not" does not mean "must not." If I had to guess why Marist put demos up front in that survey it might have been because it was quite long. If any respondents had bailed out before the last few questions, they'd still have the demographics for categorization purposes.
It seems that Nan was so depressed by Tulsi's poor showing in the debate that she has (temporarily) abandoned us.
oy. Just noticed that Marist poll was conducted in mid-July. Makes Thiessen writing a column citing its results in October, after Warren has risen in the polls even more questionable. If voters weren't buying what she's selling, she'd still be in the position she was three months ago.
Marc Thiessen is one of the hackiest, hackey hacks out there and this column is a pretty good microcosm of his many years of hackiness.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
I'm not sure you're correct here. You say polling organizations ask questions and present the information in the same order. Ok. But in the Pew bit you excerpted it says "Demographic questions such as income, education or age should not be asked near the beginning of a survey"...yet the Marist survey report has demographics on its first page.
This is generally good advice. But "should not" does not mean "must not."
Also, I thought it was self-evident why a pollster would consolidate the demographic information at the top (or bottom) of the results no matter where in the survey the questions that attained the demographic information were asked.
DaveSchmidt said:
Also, I thought it was self-evident why a pollster would consolidate the demographic information at the top (or bottom) of the results no matter where in the survey the questions that attained the demographic information were asked.
^This too.
Klinker said:
It seems that Nan was so depressed by Tulsi's poor showing in the debate that she has (temporarily) abandoned us.
Any Sanders or Gabbard supporters who take a break from MOL threads where they’re constantly getting heat can’t be sincere in their beliefs.
DaveSchmidt said:
Any Sanders or Gabbard supporters who take a break from MOL threads where they’re constantly getting heat can’t be sincere in their beliefs.
I figured paul and nan are a little more scarce these days because it's becoming more difficult coming up with explanations of how the Trump/Ukraine story is a lot of nothing. The "no quid pro quo" got taken off the table yesterday. It's got to be hard defending Trump when he and his minions themselves come out the next day and shoot holes in your arguments.
DaveSchmidt said:
Klinker said:
It seems that Nan was so depressed by Tulsi's poor showing in the debate that she has (temporarily) abandoned us.
Any Sanders or Gabbard supporters who take a break from MOL threads where they’re constantly getting heat can’t be sincere in their beliefs.
I have little doubt that Nan was elated by Bernie's performance.
Maybe she is just taking a break.
Tulsi the Russian Asset:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html
Thank you Hillary for putting it out there.
STANV said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Klinker said:
It seems that Nan was so depressed by Tulsi's poor showing in the debate that she has (temporarily) abandoned us.
Any Sanders or Gabbard supporters who take a break from MOL threads where they’re constantly getting heat can’t be sincere in their beliefs.
I have little doubt that Nan was elated by Bernie's performance.
Maybe she is just taking a break.
My comment was more in the way of kidding. I am sure Nan has other reasons to be away from MOL. I mean she has to watch all those videos sometime, doesn't she.
As for Bernie, whether you support him or not, his performance was phenomenal.
Bernie was solid but I saw his showing more as the first step in him transitioning to an emeritus-type role in the party. I suspect even he knows deep down the nomination has most likely slipped away, mostly due to Warren, and secondarily from his recent health issues. Of course he's not ready to announce anything anytime soon but I would suspect he has an exit strategy in mind.
Smedley said:
Bernie was solid but I saw his showing more as the first step in him transitioning to an emeritus-type role in the party.
He’s not in the party.
Smedley said:
Bernie was solid but I saw his showing more as the first step in him transitioning to an emeritus-type role in the party. I suspect even he knows deep down the nomination has most likely slipped away, mostly due to Warren, and secondarily from his recent health issues. Of course he's not ready to announce anything anytime soon but I would suspect he has an exit strategy in mind.
Sanders had $33M in campaign funds at the end of September, more than any other candidate. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/16/sanders-warren-lead-2020-democratic-presidential-primary-fundraising.html
That pays for a lot of organizing and feet on the ground in key early states. Lots of ads. His campaign has legs.
I think Bernie Sanders' exit strategy would happen months from now and be something like "I don't have many delegates, my campaign is out of money. I'm dropping out and backing ________________ instead."
I agree his support could probably put Warren over the top, and vice versa. He could also be helpful in trying to temper Tulsi Gabbard if he were to back out.
He might just stick in the race till the end and show up to the convention in July with a bunch of delegates. Then he can play queen maker in exchange for parts of his platform being adopted. Or he may just pick the candidate he likes the best and turn over his delegates to her.
If his support stays in the 15-20% range that's very feasible, especially if he keeps raising money.
jimmurphy said:
Smedley said:
Bernie was solid but I saw his showing more as the first step in him transitioning to an emeritus-type role in the party.
He’s not in the party.
Of course, all the "moderate" (conservative) independents that we are constantly being called on to cow tow to aren't in the party either.
Smedley said:
Bernie was solid but I saw his showing more as the first step in him transitioning to an emeritus-type role in the party. I suspect even he knows deep down the nomination has most likely slipped away, mostly due to Warren, and secondarily from his recent health issues. Of course he's not ready to announce anything anytime soon but I would suspect he has an exit strategy in mind.
This seems to have more to do with your hopes and dreams than with Bernie Sanders.
Smedley said:
Bernie was solid but I saw his showing more as the first step in him transitioning to an emeritus-type role in the party. I suspect even he knows deep down the nomination has most likely slipped away, mostly due to Warren, and secondarily from his recent health issues. Of course he's not ready to announce anything anytime soon but I would suspect he has an exit strategy in mind.
No, that's just wishful thinking on your part, and probably what the anti-Bernie brigade says on MSNBC/CNN/NYT/NPR/PBS, etc.. Bernie is in it to win it. Warren does not have a lock on this nomination by any measure. Bernie has a much more diverse base and raises more money with smaller average donations. The polls are far from perfect, and being run by the establishment. Warren has had a relatively easy ride until now. She had to defend herself in the last debate and it was not always a smooth ride. I'd be worried about her beating Trump. She's been meeting with Hillary Clinton lately, which makes her seem more establishment than progressive. She will never fight for Medicare for All, and you have to wonder about some of her "plans." She seems a bit too much like Obama, a guy who ran as a progressive and ended up governing like a moderate Republican.
Smedley said:
OK. Semantics and weed-wading aside, cutting back to the chase,
Is the question "is the economy working for you personally" an important indicator of how people might vote?
Is it reasonable to base a column on the results from the "is the economy working for you personally" question?
My answers are yes on both.
The economy is not working for most people. You are one of the few lucky ones.
STANV said:
I have little doubt that Nan was elated by Bernie's performance.
Maybe she is just taking a break.
I was happy with Bernie's performance at the debate and the AOC/Omar endorsement. He's having a big rally tomorrow, which, unfortunately, I can't attend. I think he is back on track to win.
I have been reading MOL, but have not had time to respond. I have been very busy doing non-MOL stuff. I do have a life outside of MOL, which may surprise some of you!
I will try to catch up as much as I can. I'm listening to some videos about this Hillary attacking Tulsi crap and I can't wrap my head around it yet. I'm just shaking my head and going "huh?" So, I have to figure that out before commenting. There's also more about Ukraine and Turkey and some other things. I'm doing a bunch of research.
nan said:
Smedley said:
OK. Semantics and weed-wading aside, cutting back to the chase,
Is the question "is the economy working for you personally" an important indicator of how people might vote?
Is it reasonable to base a column on the results from the "is the economy working for you personally" question?
My answers are yes on both.
The economy is not working for most people. You are one of the few lucky ones.
65% of adults say the economy is working for them personally. Page 11.
So yes, I’m one of the few, the lucky, the 65%.
Smedley said:
65% of adults say the economy is working for them personally. Page 11.
So yes, I’m one of the few, the lucky, the 65%.
Yeah, no. That's not an accurate poll. Any candidate that builds a strategy around that stat will lose.
A $1,000 emergency would push many Americans into debt
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/most-americans-dont-have-the-savings-to-cover-a-1000-emergency.html
nan said:
Smedley said:
65% of adults say the economy is working for them personally. Page 11.
So yes, I’m one of the few, the lucky, the 65%.
Yeah, no. That's not an accurate poll. Any candidate that builds a strategy around that stat will lose.
A $1,000 emergency would push many Americans into debt
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/most-americans-dont-have-the-savings-to-cover-a-1000-emergency.html
You think the Marist poll is inaccurate because another poll has data that you think doesn't reconcile?
That's so cute.
So, I've been reading/watching about this Hillary calling Tulsi and Jill Stein Russian assets and, frankly, I'm still shocked that she could say something so delusional and confrontational in public. Is she getting like Joe Biden? She kind of sounds like Trump with statements like that.
It's so bad, that I can even post a rebuttal from CNN!!!!!!!! That's rare, and this is bizarre.
CNN’s Van Jones Blasts Hillary Clinton: She’s Playing a ‘Very Dangerous Game’ Going After Tulsi Gabbard
nan said:
So, I've been reading/watching about this Hillary calling Tulsi and Jill Stein Russian assets and, frankly, I'm still shocked that she could say something so delusional and confrontational in public. Is she getting like Joe Biden? She kind of sounds like Trump with statements like that.
It's so bad, that I can even post a rebuttal from CNN!!!!!!!! That's rare, and this is bizarre.
CNN’s Van Jones Blasts Hillary Clinton: She’s Playing a ‘Very Dangerous Game’ Going After Tulsi Gabbard
WELCOME BACK NAN!
Just so you know, we have a special thread for discussing matters related to Tulsi.
I was referring to the 37-page release that you referred to, and the information presented therein (which is in the order the questions were asked, because that’s how polling organizations present information in that form).