Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
(However, the mean life expectancy of women is longer than that of men, so if we are grading politicians by "how likely is s/he to keel over in the next year" she should be considered even younger than her numerical age if we compare her to Trump)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIf we're still discussing the 538 piece, I think its worth mentioning that even they said it was too early to tell at the end. So we probably should not be using this early 2019 poll as the end all be all on who the best candidate is.
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
They mentioned it's too early to stick a fork in it and say it's done. They simply mentioned that the data strongly favors Biden.
And it's not just early 2019 polls. They're also looking at the early primary polls of the last forty years. That's where the idea that early polls are not "bullshit" is coming from.
Edited by M84 on Apr 26th 2019 at 12:48:11 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised
Oh, I know Biden will likely be a strong contender. However, with two years out, I'm going to hold off on saying Warren's out for the count or that Biden will remain strong forever. Remember, Jeb! was the front runner early in the 2016 primaries. Now, no one cares about him save for some somewhat trollish DSA members
.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Apr 25th 2019 at 12:48:16 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
The 538 article does cover the 2016 GOP primaries too. And they have an explanation for why the data actually foreshadowed Trump's primary win.
The point that article was making is that paying close attention to the early primary polls would have made "surprises" like Obama's win and Trump's win not all that surprising.
Edited by M84 on Apr 26th 2019 at 12:51:45 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised
Not as easily, because Democratic primaries don't elect the frontrunner as reliably as the GOP primaries. But they still do it more often than not.
Hence why Biden's chances are better than those of most of the other candidates.
Their ultimate conclusion was that even early on, primary polls are fairly reliable indicators.
Edited by M84 on Apr 26th 2019 at 12:59:06 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised@Tobias: You seem to be unwilling to accept there are people who are going to vote for Biden or Sanders because they genuinely like their ideas, not just because they're white guys or afraid of diversity. A repeat of questionable points from the last primaries...
Life is unfair...If it's any consolation, Biden's victory is not guaranteed. I've already posted a 538 article about how Biden still has his work cut out for him. If he does approach this campaign as if it's just a formality, that arrogance will cost him the win.
Edited by M84 on Apr 26th 2019 at 1:00:23 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedI do wonder if people here might be letting their personal biases influence their predictions.
Biden does seem to be doing well in early polls, but we’ll see how long that lasts.
Oh God! Natural light!
...Excepting Gabbard, I presume? I mean, I'm with you on Biden being around last, but Gabbard remains my least favorite.
![]()
I don't know how much support Biden has here, if that's what you're saying. He tends to be one of the only candidates here that get a more negative reaction that Sanders.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Apr 25th 2019 at 1:07:52 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerThe only thing which is pointed out is that it easy to look at polls in hindsight and then claim that they were correct predictions one way or another. And yet they were not predicted that way back in the day. So maybe they have found a totally new way to interpret polls based on what they have discovered now. But in order to show that, they would first need to predict it correctly this time around, and not just in the numbers but also in interpreting the number correctly. And we will only know if they did once the election is over, so the polls are something one might notice, but not something set in stone.
Also, I get the impression that democrats often vote more tactical, looking for the candidate they think is most likely to win the actual election.

Assuming that the pattern from past polling data holds up, we'd likely be looking at Biden vs Sanders by the end, and unfortunately I see Biden winning that one.
I'd still like to wait and see until the primaries start though, but looking at this data I understand why people are saying that Biden winning is likely.