aGDevil2k
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,342
Didn't they just release more details though?Not a new poll — same one they released at the beginning of September.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Didn't they just release more details though?Not a new poll — same one they released at the beginning of September.
New analysis but the top line numbers are still the same they previously reported based on now slightly stale data.Didn't they just release more details though?
I figure it's a continuation of the Times-Biden feud that's been going on for 5+ years. As you'd expect, there's been some petty bullshit on both sides but I come down mostly on Biden's side of things. This is a pretty good look at it.They 100% did. That's why folks have been digging into it and finding some big flaws. The evangelical % is ridiculous. What on earth has happened across the NYT over the last decade????
That’s as good a guess as anything. The Times is really compromising its reputation with its coverage of this election.I figure it's a continuation of the Times-Biden feud that's been going on for 5+ years. As you'd expect, there's been some petty bullshit on both sides but I come down mostly on Biden's side of things. This is a pretty good look at it.
Seems unlikely to me Nate Cohn would knowingly sanction a poll with obviously slanted sampling.That’s as good a guess as anything. The Times is really compromising its reputation with its coverage of this election.
Nate's always been in the "well you release what you get and it evens out over time" kind of mindset. Which is fair...but also why one poll can just seem soooo off. Polls never were supposed to be a media story (not a singular poll). But alas....Seems unlikely to me Nate Cohn would knowingly sanction a poll with obviously slanted sampling.
The risk of NYT polling is that, unlike most major polling companies, it gets an enormous built-in platform and an aura of authority because of the NYT’s (well-deserved) reputation. If this were a Gallup or Ipsos poll, nobody would struggle with seeing it as an outlier within the MOE. But because it has the NYT imprimatur, it gets outsized attention.Nate's always been in the "well you release what you get and it evens out over time" kind of mindset. Which is fair...but also why one poll can just seem soooo off. Polls never were supposed to be a media story (not a singular poll). But alas....
It also happens as polls are getting worse because no one answers them. Not only are landlines basically gone, but now with screening people arent answering unknown numbers or texts.
Also the MAGA celebration of the NYT poll is really interesting. They are celebrating like it's all over
Indeed. Not coincidentally, I can't find anything obviously slanted in the poll sample. The 56% evangelical number was BS. The 45% "too liberal" versus 9% "not progressive enough" is exactly what you'd expect. Most of Trump's supporters are going to view her as too liberal, so 45% is a good estimate. 9% of "not progressive enough" also seems about right, given that the majority of these people are saying they will vote for Harris. The vast majority of her supporters said she was the right ideology, which isn't surprising given that they are going to vote for her.Seems unlikely to me Nate Cohn would knowingly sanction a poll with obviously slanted sampling.
Agree. It’s basically just one poll that’s on the lower side of the MOE. If anything, it suggests the 2-4 point national lead for Kamala reflected in the modeling is probably about right. That number needs to be 5 or 6 for everyone to sleep well on election night, but she has a much better chance of getting to that margin than Trump does of bringing it down to 1 or 2.Indeed. Not coincidentally, I can't find anything obviously slanted in the poll sample. The 56% evangelical number was BS. The 45% "too liberal" versus 9% "not progressive enough" is exactly what you'd expect. Most of Trump's supporters are going to view her as too liberal, so 45% is a good estimate. 9% of "not progressive enough" also seems about right, given that the majority of these people are saying they will vote for Harris. The vast majority of her supporters said she was the right ideology, which isn't surprising given that they are going to vote for her.
Why would selecting Shapiro as VP “guarantee” a win in PA but Shapiro campaigning even more frequently in PA on Harris’s behalf while not on the ticket, not guarantee it?Polling is always sketchy, especially for Trump support. I think the Kamala campaign is probably at least a little concerned at this point. You'd have to wonder if she regrets not selecting Shapiro, which would have all but guaranteed a win in the state.
Yeah, I’m having a hard time finding the support for that statement by Nate.Trump trailing = mediocre results for Harris. I love the spin.
Walz has been a home run. Shapiro is working his tail off to help in PA, and it wouldn’t make the slightest difference if he was on the ticket.Why would selecting Shapiro as VP “guarantee” a win in PA but Shapiro campaigning even more frequently in PA on Harris’s behalf while not on the ticket, not guarantee it?
I don’t think you have to wonder at all if Kamala regrets her VP pick. Her selection of Tim Walz has been even more resoundingly spectacular of a success than even the most hopeful and optimistic Democratic partisan could have envisioned.