A (sad) tale of two polls. Actually, of one poll.

[DanTex]

So there are two OPs now, about the same PPP poll. One of them claims that it shows very liberal voters approving of Hillary Clinton by an overwhelming 91-5. The other one claims that 47% of the party base disapproves of Clinton. Both are getting modestly recced.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026281310
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026281485

What's going on here? Is each side just picking the numbers they want to see?

Actually no, it's not that at all. You see sometimes one side of an argument is right, and the other is just plain wrong. For example, the "climate" debate. One side is driven by ideology, the other by science. So who is driven by ideology (and innumeracy) in this instance? You be the judge:




The question is, are we going to fall into GOP style poll trutherism simply because some people don't like certain candidates?

Thanks Agschmid for scraping the images out of this pdf.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_22515.pdf

[leftofcool]

1. OMG! 91% of very liberal people favor Hillary and 79% of Dems favor Hillary.

But she is just so not liked and she voted for a war and blah, blah, blah!

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. Thats what I keep trying to point out to the Left Leaning Independents on this board!

Hillary DOES have the support....they are NOT representative of Liberal Democrats!

[NYC_SKP]

2. Ask children who makes the best hamburger and they'll say McDonalds.

It's all about branding and name recognition, not the quality of the product or the ingredients.

PPP didn't poll DU or the outcome would have been significantly different!

[DanTex]

5. You have a pretty low opinion of liberals, it seems.

I think liberals are pretty well informed, and can answer for themselves, intelligently, how they feel about certain potential candidates.

[NYC_SKP]

9. No, I have a pretty low opinion of Public Policy Polling and people who put stock in their polls.

Check this out:

PPP surveyed 691 registered voters, including 310
Democratic primary voters, from February 20th to 22nd.

The margin of error for the overall survey is +/- 3.7%, and for the Democratic primary
component it’s +/-5.6%.

This survey was conducted through automated telephone interviews and
interviews over the internet to voters who don’t have landline phones.

Automated telephone surveys of 691 voters, only 310 of whom were Democratic primary voters.

If your n is 310 for a national automatic survey, your results are crap.

Liberals are WAY smarter than that.

[Agschmid]

12. Well maybe not?

Check it out yourself...

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

We can discuss the math behind it but the sample size isn't that far off.

[NYC_SKP]

23. Those figures assume a well designed survey, am I right?

We don't know if an automated phone survey is going to produce a representative sample.

You know there are a lot of factors involved, but I'll admit that if the sample is representative and the questions are objectively written and all other variables controlled for, that a sample size of 600 could provide meaningful data.

I don't believe that this is the case with this poll.

[Agschmid]

24. Ok.

Thanks for that, I didn't read how it was conducted but I doubt at this point anyone is really willing to pay for an in person poll.

[DanTex]

25. Why don't you believe it to be the case? And what variables haven't they controlled for?

Oh, and I've noticed that you don't think that the survey is so poor that it prevented you from reccing the thread that blatantly misread the numbers...

I think I see what's going on here.

[NYC_SKP]

27. Phone polls are cheap to conduct but notoriously unreliable.

Landlines versus cellphones, caller ID, working and busy people versus people doing nothing sitting at home, or getting far more homebound retired folks, any number of problems can really screw with the outcome of a phone poll.

Then there's the matter of how the questions are asked.

And what qualifies a person as a "liberal" versus a registered Democrat? Is that a self-identification thing?

Do people ever lie during phone interviews? I know I have.

Abraham J. Wyner, Wharton professor of statistics, notes that “while the value of a good answer is worth the cost to get it,” it’s becoming more expensive to do a proper poll at a time when “the population is indifferent.” For instance, telephone polls are considered among the most reliable when it comes to following statistical models and obtaining a scientific random sampling. “But in the era of Caller ID, many people choose not to answer their phones if they see an out-of-area number on their machines.”

Indeed, a study conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2004 found that “more Americans are refusing to participate in telephone polls than was the case six years ago,” due to a growing number of unsolicited telephone calls and because potential respondents “are armed with increasingly sophisticated technology for screening their calls.” A typical survey that employed standard techniques used by opinion polling organizations obtained “interviews with people in fewer than three-in-ten sampled households,” representing a decrease of about nine percentage points from the late 1990s, the study reported.

The American Association of Public Opinion Research, an organization of public opinion and survey research professionals, points out that the survey research typically conducted by political and marketing polls is not covered by the recent “Do Not Call” registry, which was established by the Federal Trade Commission in June 2003 to meet the requirement of the Do Not Call Implementation Act. The law made it illegal “for telemarketers to call consumers with whom they did not have a prior business relationship. The FTC exempted survey and opinion research because it is a critical part of making and monitoring policy decisions.”

While pollsters have always grappled with the person who refuses to answer questions after they pick up the phone, today’s pollsters are dealing with what Johnston calls “the silent refusal” — the person who just decides not to pick up the phone. And it’s a big problem. “Willingness to answer the phone, to a great extent, is quite independent of other characteristics, which includes being interested in politics,” says Johnston. “The kinds of people who answer political surveys now, compared to 40 years ago, are the more interested stratum. You got more apathetics, more marginally interested people 40 years ago than you do now.”

more at: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/polling-the-polling-experts-how-accurate-and-useful-are-polls-these-days/

[DanTex]

30. Which explains your rec of the "47%" thread...

Sure, the numbers may be off by 5%. Or 10% percent. None of that changes the basic fact that an overwhelming percentage of liberals like Hillary Clinton. Sad to see Dems resort to the kind of denialism I associate with Republicans when they don't like the data.

Here's another poll showing basically the same thing, but I'm sure you'll "unskew" that one also.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/rxpblhtc5h/econTabReport.pdf

[Joe Turner]

126. "overwhelming percentage of liberals like Hillary Clinton"

Presumably "Liberal" now stands for supporting corporations over people, wall street over main street and regional wars forever. Because that is Hillary's long-standing MO and she has the votes and money to prove it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. That's why it's wise to look at all the polls available.

I saw a few things in that poll that seemed a bit off but none were so egregious at to make me throw out the entire sample.


As to the efficacy of polls, guys like Silver, Wang, and Linzer crunch polls, using the "law of large numbers" principle, and nail races with a incredibly high degree of accuracy.


To ignore polls is knownothingism at it's finest.

[NYC_SKP]

39. Lets also remember how early it is, and how "meaningful" these things were in early 2007. (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Polls are snapshots. You will get no debate from me./NT

[dsc]

115. actually in the case of Hillary's support

the early polls were actually pretty good. What happened was the race became more like a partisan race than a non partisan one. She got around what the polls said she would but she wasn't able to get very many of the people who had chosen other candidates as those candidates dropped out. It became more like the race Landrieu had in LA than a primary.

[Cosmic Kitten]

58. Great article and link, NYC_SKP

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. If you do the research you will discover PPP's findings...

If you do the research you will discover PPP's findings aren't (that) out of line with other findings; Hillary is hugely popular among rank and file Democrats and is leading her presumed Democratic challengers by massive amounts and her GOP challengers by substantial amounts.

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. even better...let em try this one....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

[pnwmom]

15. The results aren't crap. As long as you have results beyond the 5.6% margin of error

(or 3.7% for the overall survey) they are statistically significant.

[DanTex]

16. You're right, the number could be as low as 73.4% approval from Dems. Or as high as 84.6%.

How drastic!

[sharp_stick]

17. Of course you do

it doesn't say what you want it to say.

You could always set up shop with the unskewed polls guy, he didn't like them either.

[dsc]

114. this is a very well respected firm

and yes, an automatic phone call survey can produce a representative sample. The size of the sample, which was your main complaint in this post, is why the MOE is much higher for the Democratic primary than for the overall survey. Again, this is a very well respected polling firm.

[SidDithers]

8. "PPP didn't poll DU or the outcome would have been significantly different! "

Yup. President Kucinich can attest to that.

Sid

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. ^^^THIS^^^^

Love ya Sid.....you get to the point even better than I do!

[NanceGreggs]

107. Perfection, thy name is Sid Dithers! n/t

[SidDithers]

136. Thanks, Nance...

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

134. Stop it Sidney! You're killin' me.

[pnwmom]

13. I bet DUers were polled in proportion to their existence in the population.

It's just too easy from inside here to think we're representative of Democrats in general.

[NCTraveler]

38. If the poll was conducted properly....

One would conclude that du is represented in it as a percentage of the population. If it was just du it would be significantly different and significantly insignificant.

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. Or if one were to believe in fairytales...one might believe that DU is just like the rest of the

Democratic Party....

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. OH so you are claiming Democrats are all children....its the

Left Leaning Independents on DU that are the adults..... that what you are trying to say Democrat?

Yeah significantly different AS DU is not representative of the Democratic Party in general....Left Leaning Independents are just a vocal minority...

[NYC_SKP]

88. DU as children or childish, never! I mean that some democrats are gullible like children.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. It's simultaneously sad and comical how many recommendations the specious thread got./NT

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. Am I correct in reading that "Base" is the raw data from those who answered the poll?

and "Ideology" and "Party" are self definitions of those they polled?

[DanTex]

6. Yes. Base is the whole surveyed population. Ideology and party are subsets

based on self-description.

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. Thanks. That clarifies what I've seen in both posts.

And it brings to mind the saying about "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. Its all they have....they are so desperate...they now are using the exact same tactics

the Far Right does!

[LondonReign2]

10. It isn't the Democrat(ic) or Republican numbers that are the trouble

It is Independent/Other.

[Agschmid]

11. Your welcome for the images...

Good post, so far at least.

[DanTex]

20. By the way, what's the easiest way to do that? Just screengrab and crop?

[Agschmid]

22. Yup.

I'm always on an iPhone or iPad so I just take a screen shot, crop it, then upload to tiny pic so I can post it.

Makes it easier for everyone to see the data.

[SidDithers]

14. Why would 20 people rec a thread that, deliberately or accidentally, misrepresents polling data?...

Sid

[Agschmid]

18. Some people said they rec'd to point out the idiocy being displayed...

[SidDithers]

19. Ok. But from the names in that rec list...

I'd suggest that's not the case for most of those reccers.

Sid

[Agschmid]

21. Agree.

[DanTex]

33. My favorite reccers are the ones that are now complaining about PPP.

Apparently PPP polls are great as long as you read the data off of the wrong column...

[Cosmic Kitten]

54. Why are EXIT POLLS WRONG during elections

[SidDithers]

55. What does that have to do with you misrepresenting the polling data?...

Was pretty funny seeing you get your ass handed to you, tho.



Sid

[Cosmic Kitten]

59. Really, my ass handed to me?

And here we are... all discussing polling?

Funny how that worked out, eh.
Now people are talking about the reliability
or unreliability, and the validity of polls.

Huh, yea, I took it tough, Sid.
ok, you win...
Just don't throw me in the briar patch, M'kay

[Agschmid]

62. 100% of DU'ers polled said "Please Staph!"

Sample size 1, this poll was conducted on the Internet.

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. Yes...there's your ass in your hand!

Lies and damn lies indeed....no better than Faux News misrepresenting the facts!

Hilarious that QUITE the opposite of your premise is in fact the truth!

BUSTED!!

[Cosmic Kitten]

89. Hillary's unfavorables are higher than repubs

How dare you suggest anyone is lying.

Just because the poll shows Hilary
in very unflattering light is no reason
desperately resort to smears or distortions.

Tomorrow we can discuss the republican "unfavorables"

Did you notice that Hillary is within the margin of error
of LOSING against Rick Perry! RICK PERRY?!
Hillary is BARELY ahead of Rick Perry and...
Rick has a LOWER UNFAVORABLErating, with 32% unsure!

WOW dead heat, according to the poll!

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. YOU keep clinging to that if it helps....

How about YOU tell US....when any of YOUR candidates have a poll that puts them double digits ahead of all Republicans....

and YOU want to risk a President Walker on THAT..

[Cosmic Kitten]

95. I'm not the one "clinging" to anything

And the idea that it's either support Hillary
or else SCOTUS!!!1! and REPUBLICANS WIN!!!!111!
isn't a winning message.

Vote Hillary or REPUBLICANS WIN is "clinging"

Did you notice Elizabeth Warren is competitive with Jeb Bush?!
And Elizabeth isn't even running!

[Agschmid]

98. Okay at some point you need to decide if you feel the sample size is representative...

You can't have it both ways.

[MADem]

26. Let's cut to the chase--PPP isn't all that accurate all the time.

THAT's the issue here--not the results of this poll or that.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/25/public-policy-polling-controversy

....Many professional pollsters have long thought that Public Policy Polling's methods were suspect. Nate Cohn's recent expose confirms for many their suspicions. That said, in a world in which polling data can be hard to come by, there's no real sign that usage of PPP's data has or will slow, as long as their polls continue to be seen as accurate.

[DanTex]

28. LOL. Poll truthers strike again.

It's funny, the Hillary-haters didn't seem to mind the PPP poll when the numbers were being blatantly misread to support their argument.

But by all means, blame PPP. Here's an Economist/YouGov poll with basically the same results

85% of Dems are somewhat or very favorably towards Hillary, as are 77% of liberals.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/rxpblhtc5h/econTabReport.pdf

[MADem]

36. Well, I am not a hater, but if one polling company can come up with such diverse results,

my only conclusion -- and it's not like I'm the only one coming to it -- is that the polling company is a bit, well, fucked up.

I don't think polling companies have a handle on how to poll in this modern age--between cell phone users being cut out of the equation (PPP didn't use those in the last Presidential election), and people using Call Block to get rid of these annoying calls during election season, to people "fucking with the system" by answering Robocall Surveys (which PPP used) with the opposite of what they believed, it's hard to know what's accurate and what's not. Last cycle, I got a LOT of calls and I didn't answer them--I am the epitome of a "Likely Voter" (PPP did use voting lists) because I even get off my ass for little, local elections.

I do think that most Democrats are favorably disposed towards HRC...of course, I mostly associate with Democrats who are very active voters, but my experience is that they'd vote for her if she was the nominee.

The only place I hear this "Waah, I'll stay home/I'll vote third party" crap is ... here! On a "Democratic" site! Go figure...!

[DanTex]

37. What diverse results? Did you even read the OP?

There are no diverse results. All the polls have basically the same results.

The only "diversity" is that the other OP read the numbers off of the wrong column. Yes, if you read the numbers wrong, then you get diverse results.

[MADem]

42. The other OP didn't take the meaning of the term "base."

But it doesn't really matter, anyway. They're reading it to suggest that 47 percent of All Of America doesn't like HRC, and that makes them believe that they only need a few more points to "win" with a candidate who isn't running.

Unless PPP is using cellphones now, and not robocalling, they're going to get a slanted view of the scene with biases inherent that won't necessarily be detected until AFTER the election being polled happens, when they do their postmortems.

And people here are going to snatch at "poll results" --even from pollsters that have failed miserably at their charge, even from pollsters like Gallup with massive GOP biases--if they make "their" point.

It's all bullshit. If you like your candidate, support that candidate, GOTV, and Full Speed Ahead. The people who are continually tearing down a candidate with "gotcha" moments from twenty years ago, a candidate who hasn't even announced yet, are the ones with a problem--what the hell are they afraid of, I wonder? They can't support their pick without tearing down? That suggests that their pick isn't as strong as they might like, so they're going to take a poll from a source that has incomplete methodologies and say "AH HA!!! Ya see? Ya see?" when all I see is numbers that might--or might not--suggest something.

It's too fooking soon. We'll probably have to wait until next fall before we start seeing trends that matter. Right now, it's just disruptive pissing and moaning, fighting for the sake of fighting, and it means little-to-nothing. But whatever--page clicks for DU, food on the table and shoes for the admins' kids...it's all to a good cause at the end of the day--which is a nice stick in the eye to anyone who works to pull down this site!

[DanTex]

44. Of course it matters. It's blatantly misreading a poll.

The only point I was making is that a huge majority of both liberals and Dems have a positive view of Clinton. There is no diversity in this result. All the polls say the same thing.

This is hard for some people to hear, because on DU the line is that by nominating Hillary, the party would by thumbing its nose at liberals. Which is obviously wrong, since liberals are the people who like Hillary the most.

You see what happened in the other OP. Even when the obvious error was pointed out, it wasn't deleted, and people kept reccing it. This is a sign of people blinded by insular belief and unwilling to accept inconvenient truths.

I agree, a lot of people are trying to attack Hillary with "gotcha" moments, and all sorts of other stupidity. But that's not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing the (all to common) belief that "real liberals" aren't supposed to like Hillary, that supporting Hillary is somehow incompatible with being a progressive.

[MADem]

45. I'll bet if you look around you can find a wingnut poll that says the opposite.

And you may even find one that says Warren is the spawn of Satan, too.

I do see what is happening with these posts about these polls--it's a bunch of pig wrestling, nothing more. It's divisive, it's stupid, it's a waste of everyone's time. About the only benefit is to the DU admins, as I said--Google will pay them because people fight on their site about absolutely nothing of import.

There won't be any post deleting, there won't be any "accord." There are people here who are motivated towards dissent and disruption, who don't want to speak in positive terms, who prefer to pull down and denigrate. It's easier than being positive, apparently. It's pointless, but it empowers those who get some odd satisfaction from this kind of stuff.

This is simply a new tactic, a new way to poopfling, using different tools. Instead of "gotcha," it's Let's Play With Polls--like they mean anything. They don't. Not now, certainly. The best polls are the ones we never see--the candidates' own internals--those get down in the weeds and reveal the deepest truths, warts and all.

[DanTex]

47. Evidently you tried, and weren't able to. Hence the "I bet if".

The difference between the actual poll results and a blatantly false misreading of them is not just "pig-wrestling." Neither is the difference between global warming scientists and deniers. One of them is right, the other is wrong.

Now, if you think that polls are all worthless, that's fine. This argument has been made a lot in the past, most notably by the GOP right before the 2012 elections. I would argue that they are worth something, and they've been shown to be reasonably accurate, if imperfect, measures of public sentiment.

But even if you disagree about that, surely you can understand the difference between posting a poll result, versus posting something completely false.

[MADem]

49. No, I didn't try--my point is that this whole exercise is foolishness.

So "evidently" you have come to a conclusion with "facts" not in evidence.

You're insisting that a poll with sketchy provenance is right or wrong. I'm saying it's all bullshit. Cough up a poll saying Sanders will win in a walk, or Warren is the Second Coming of Jesus H. Christ, and I'll say the same damn thing.

Look, I happen to support HRC's candidacy and I believe she will be the nominee. But this IS pig wrestling. It is all bullshit.

You can gripe that someone deliberately took the forty seven percent figure to mean something other than what it means, and they did. Surprise, surprise! But the other "side" (how stupid on a D board) could--if they were clever, and apparently they weren't--could poke holes in the accuracy of PPP's results all the live-long day to pull this poll apart in other ways. They probably don't want to do that, on the distant chance that they may need them (and their bias to the left) to boost their arguments for their candidate(s), should a miracle happen and they make it out of the gate.

[DanTex]

50. Well, maybe you should. Because then you'll realize how wrong you are.

Find me an equally reputable poll showing that Bernie Sanders will win. Or even a junk poll. Then we'll talk. I have no idea why you think the two polls I linked to have "sketchy provenance" but your fantasies about the kinds of polling results out there are just that.

Yes, when someone blatantly misrepresents/lies about data, I'm going to call them out on it. I don't see why you object. Yes, "they" could have gone the poll truther route instead of the blatant lie route, but "they" didn't.

The only point I was trying to make is that most liberals like Hillary, and the belief that you can't be liberal and also a Hillary fan is false. I was defending liberals who like Hillary from the scorn rained down on them daily here, and using nothing but facts to do it.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you disagree?

PS I personally am definitely a liberal, I "approve" of Hillary, but I'm still ambivalent about her. But the daily torrent of stupidity hurled at her and her supporters is pushing me to defend her.

[MADem]

63. My point is that NONE of them are "reputable" at this stage of the game. It's all bullshit and talk.

And PPP leans way left, just like NEWSMAX leans way right. Here's what NEWSMAX was saying a year out, about the election in 2012:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Romney-defeats-obama-poll/2011/10/21/id/415329/

And here's what PPP was saying, just a couple of weeks before the election, about the IOWA race where the hog castrator won:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/league-of-conservation-voters-bruce-braley-ppp-ernst

Here's another--and guess who's governor of Maine, today? Not the PPP "frontrunner"--that's for sure: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ppp-poll-michaud-leads-lepage

Polls mean nothing at this point in time. It really doesn't matter if someone deliberately takes a piece of data and lies about it--it's like arguing over the color of the tooth fairy's wings. It's just all nonsense. Especially so far ahead of any primary.

Here's the poll that counts--the one that is held on election day. To be playing "gotcha" and suggesting that a bunch of numbers from partisan polls thrown up by partisan elements actually mean something, when the putative candidate that people are cheering/denigrating hasn't opened her damn mouth yet is asinine. It's an exercise in shitflinging. Sadly, that's something that there's no shortage of expertise in, here at DU.

I KNOW that most liberals like Hillary. How do I know this? I conduct my own polls, when I'm giving rides to the polls, of people who cast their first ballot for FDR, some of them, and they adore her. I know they vote--unlike some of the people wailing here on DU--so I'm inclined to believe them over some of the gripers I hear here.

Whatever happened to "disagree without being disagreeable?" We're all (supposedly) on the same team--all this fake dividing just seems idiotic to me. I'm voting for the Democratic nominee no matter who she, or he, is. I don't understand why people feel the need to "hate" on me and call me names because I happen to prefer one candidate right now. If that candidate bows out or loses a primary, I'll fooking ADJUST--like I did last time.

After all, the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican--and anyone who thinks otherwise can't say "Supreme Court" three times without tripping over their tongue.

[DanTex]

64. OK, so no polls showing Bernie Sanders ahead. As I thought. One check in my column.

More importantly, I wasn't citing the poll to show that Hillary was going to win any election. I was citing it to show that the vast majority of liberals like Hillary Clinton! That was the only point I was making!

Do you disagree with that?

The thing is, reading DU, you'd get the impression that liberals hate Hillary and that nominating Hillary would be a big FU to the liberals in the party.

Do you disagree with that?

Well this myth -- that Hillary is the "anti-liberal" candidate -- is indeed a myth. According to the data. Imperfect as it may be. The poll may be off by a whole 20 points, and still, most liberals would be pro-Hillary. You wouldn't have guessed that from reading GD. But it's true.

[Agschmid]

66. You and MADem are essentially arguing the same thing.

Not worth it on either end IMO, you both actually agree on the issue at hand.

[MADem]

72. I give up!!!!!

Because I'm not mad at the idiotic and perhaps deliberate misinterpretation of a completely meaningless poll, this far out from any primary, I'm now an enemy combatant.

It's tiresome.

[MADem]

70. Who said anything about Sanders? What are you ON about?

And then, you pat yourself on the back? As you thought? One check in your "column?" You're the only one "keeping score," here. Get over yourself!!!




Yes, that poll does say that the vast majority of liberals who were polled using their (left-leaning, biased to the left) methodologies like Clinton--my "personal poll" agrees with that result. Whoopeeeee! That and a cup of coffee will get you ... a cup of coffee.

She hasn't even declared yet. Any poll that says this one or that one is "best" and a shoo-in is meaningless.

The anti-Hillary bunch took that poll and fixated on a number to draw a false conclusion. The pro-Hillary bunch takes a poll that is too far out to matter and uses it to say "Ah ha!" It's all meaningless--all we're doing is arguing over the color of the tooth fairy's wings.

Hillary is not "anti-liberal." She wanted UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE for EVERYONE, fachrissake. And that was back when she was "just" First Lady.

She wanted it before some of the latest "liberal darlings" wanted it. She wanted it when at least one of the latest liberal (cough/not/don't check that national defense posture) darlings was still a registered Republican.

Again--it's all CRAP. Meaningless. Shit to fight over. Something to get gonads in an uproar. Pointless. When people make stuff up, when they lie about what things mean, you need to just CONSIDER THE SOURCE instead of going into a wet-hen dance about it. Ask yourself WHO is saying this shit, and then ask yourself WHY they might be saying it. It's not always because they're "the most liberal." It's not always because the point they claim to be making is the point they actually want to make. It might be the very opposite.

Some people like to shit-stir. No need to feed their enthusiasm.

[DanTex]

77. You did. Right here:

Cough up a poll saying Sanders will win in a walk

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6283415

See, the thing is, there is no such poll, so that's a nonsense hypothetical.

The anti-Hillary bunch took that poll and fixated on a number to draw a false conclusion. The pro-Hillary bunch takes a poll that is too far out to matter and uses it to say "Ah ha!" It's all meaningless--all we're doing is arguing over the color of the tooth fairy's wings.

1) They didn't "fixate on a number". They falsified a number. Why is it so hard to just say, yes, it was a lie.
2) Again, I'm not saying "Aha!" I'm just saying that most liberals like Hillary. Something you agree with. Why are we arguing? I post a credible poll showing something we both agree with (and another poll to back it up), but that many or most DUers don't, and here you are taking me to task for it. What gives?

Look, this is a discussion board. Everything that happens here is "meaningless crap" in a sense. But, if anything is worthwhile, surely pointing out truths and calling out falsehoods, which is exactly what I did, would fit the bill. Right?

[VanillaRhapsody]

87. its not many or most Duers....its just a vocal minority of Left Leaning Independents...

that is all!

the Democrats on this board far outnumber them...

[daredtowork]

117. Thank you

This has been confusing me about this entire discussion. Most people I know that identify themselves as "liberal" mean "progressive" in terms of freedoms (say medical marijuana, gay marriage, reproductive rights). They tend to be economically in the center, and even "Third Way". They define themselves AGAINST the "angry Left", and their constant struggle to appear the reasobable ones who represent the "middle class" ONLY has led to the Overton Window constantly dragging to the Right, and social needs left in a shambles.

So the ones against Hillary are thise to the Left of her policy stances. I don't know why you throw Independent in there unless it's because Bernie Sanders is doing a better job articulating policy interests of the Left. But otherwise, why not simply say Left-leaning Democrats? Some of the Union-supporters would even point out they were former Center Democrates, but the Overton Window border crossed them.

This constant invocation of the word "Liberal" is a strawman. It's used in many different ways - you can never be sure what people mean when they use the word Liberal to describe themselves.

However, Left is a lot more clear, and it's voters to the left of Hillary - WHO STILL SEE THEMSELVES AS DEMOCRATS - who are grasping around for other alternatives. You also don't have to go very far (i.e. all the way to the socialists) left, as the vigorous Draft Warren effort shows. Warren is about reigning in Wall Street - middle class main dish with a side of Left regulation.

IMHO, DanTex is just muddying up the matter by injecting the word Liberal.

[VanillaRhapsody]

118. Because YOU are mischaracterizing ME.....

"I" am a Left Leaning Democrat...and I am LOYAL to my fellow Democrats....I not only support them...I trust them. And others that claim to be Democrats on DU obviously DON'T!

[daredtowork]

121. Huh?

I was thanking you for clarifying the "Liberal" issue, not characterizing what kind of Democrat you are. I don't tend to lay snap judgments on other Democrats for who they support for a Primary.

However, your own reply shows people on the Left who object to Hillary - who hasn't even announced yet - are rapidly categorized as "disloyal". Also, despite the hand-wringing over voter turn out in recent elections, Left DEMOCRATS can't even suggest it's because we're running unappealing candidates/platforms without similar screeds about party loyalty and aspersions on our character. It occurs to no one that their failure to acknowledge the existence of others will come back and haunt them in the end.

So again: thank you for clarifying on the use of the word Liberal, and that's all I said about YOU.

[Agschmid]

124. Blind loyalty to the "D" is not something to proud of...

[VanillaRhapsody]

125. No....loyalty to THE people....not the letter...

the Party is made up of PEOPLE! Just like I said...some don't seem to trust their fellow Democrats....now some seem to not even know they exist.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

119. What Democrats on DU? You've told the majority of us we aren't Democrats, remember?

I've never seen anyone with such a single-minded penchant for accusing others of lying about being Democrats. I guess we got reinstated by a The Decider.

[VanillaRhapsody]

120. No I didn't tell the Majority of them....

the MAJORITY of them....support Hillary Clinton!

Or at least say they WILL vote for her in the end...

OMG Delusions of Granduer!




With this one post....you have just proven every point I ever wanted to make....that if you just ignore a few rabble rousers....pretty soon.....they start to think they own the joint!!!!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

122. You're a little off.

[VanillaRhapsody]

123. No I am spot on!

[MADem]

131. Oh, for heaven's sake--I didn't mean ACTUALLY DO IT...

Now you're not reading contextually. Go back and look at the rest of the doggone sentence ...and I'll say the same doggone thing. The "same thing" is that they don't matter. And you're trying to suggest that I dragged out polls like that like they DO matter? Good grief.

One more time--I'm telling you that polls like that Do. Not. Matter. This HRC poll is a cheery little "They Like Me--They Really, Really LIKE ME!!!" poll--and nothing more.

This is a circular discussion. It's going nowhere.

Who cares if people are bullshitting and fudging? You're playing THEIR GAME. Laugh and move on--this poll MEANS NOTHING at this point in time. We know people like the idea of Clinton as a candidate, that they like her as a person, that they're comfortable with her, she's a known and trusted quantity--it's why people are throwing small, individual--not corporate-- donations at her by the millions at RFH.

I'm not "taking you to task" I'm telling you to chill out and don't get wrapped around a pointless axle of a disruptive sort. There's nothing some people like better here than to argue about bullshit that is meaningless. Don't play the game. Look how upset you're getting about something that's just...POINTLESS. And I'll bet more than a few people are chortling at your upset. Don't give 'em any joy. Laugh and move on. They read the number wrong, they made an assertion about it that is incorrect, they're doubling down on it to piss you off... and so what? They'll figure out how bad they fucked up on election day, when their favored candidate isn't the winner or even on the ballot. No need to give them fuel to light their poutrage bonfire--just leave it.

It just doesn't matter.

[VanillaRhapsody]

86. the POINT is....that misrepresenting the facts in order to substantiate a narrative...

is exactly what Fox News does....

are you really defending this?

[MADem]

132. When someone on Fauxsnooze talks out their ass, I laugh at them, too.

That's what I'm suggesting happen here--sure beats getting mad about nonsense. Because that IS the hoped-for reaction.

It's not a question of "defending" anyone--it's noting that this poll, no matter WHAT it says, at this point in time, simply Does. Not. Matter. And if people want to make shit up about what it says, let them Dream On. They'll come down to earth like Mitt Romney did on election day.

Polls this far out are more about who is known/not known. We already know that most Democrats and many independents like and trust HRC. That's unlikely to shift much, even if any one of the two "favored liberals" popular on this site enter the race (and I doubt the one from MA will, so we're left with the Vermonter, who has already said he won't run if he can't win...so...whatever). Even if a cadre of people here on this tiny little website gripe and complain and whine, they don't represent the mainstream of the party. It doesn't MATTER if they try to "muddy the waters." Or "lie." Or whatever you want to call it. That's on them. What's on those of us who find their comments absurd, or wrong, or erroneous, is how we react to them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. Right that is the OTHER tactic...

when you have been proven wrong by polls....claim it means nothing!!!!





right!

[MADem]

138. Well, regardless of whether or not the person started that other thread on the basis of a

misinterpretation, or a deliberate misreading, it doesn't matter.

This far out, polls are telling us very little to nothing--they're more about name recognition. To the extent that they determine generic "likability" they might have a bit of utility, but really, the whole purpose of that 47 percent thread wasn't about imparting information, it was about getting people upset. To that end, it was a "successful" thread for the thread starter--at least for a bit...!

[NYC_SKP]

41. You, according to the OP, are a "Poll Truther"!

[MADem]

43. Actually, what I am is a person who is mightily sick of the bullshit tearing down I am seeing on DU.

Like I said elsewhere--if you like your candidate, support your candidate. Please note, my use of "your" in this post is generic--I am not singling "you" out, mind. And I'm also not singling out any candidates, here, either.

If a key element of your support for your candidate is referencing another candidate, and carping, whining, crying, criticizing, and denigrating that other candidate, then maybe there's a problem with your candidate in the first place.

A good candidate sells themselves, through their accomplishments, experience, and stated platform. If supporters have to incessantly tear down opponents with out-of-context, woefully dated material, instead of talking about their own choice's vision on a wide variety of national and international issues, then maybe their choice hasn't given them enough material -- and that might be for a reason.

[freshwest]

48. Agreed. Decided that was a failure long ago.

But some prefer bitterness.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. I need to get in here somewhere

There is a difference in dismissing the efficacy of this poll or that poll and dismissing the efficacy of polls in general. Social scientists and statisticians rely on compiling a myriad of polls and can predict the election results with uncanny accuracy.

Folks like Nate Silver, Sam Wang, and Drew Linzer called the 012 presidential race to a tee...

[MADem]

133. Nate Silver admitted he got lucky.

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/22/nate_silver_mostly_i_was_getting_credit_for_having_pointed_out_the_obvious_and_most_of_the_rest_was_luck/

Nate Silver: “Mostly I was getting credit for having pointed out the obvious — and most of the rest was luck”
My “perfect” 2012 forecast was fortuitous -- but contributed to the perception that statisticians are soothsayers
NATE SILVER

...I worry that certain events in my life have contributed to the hype cycle. On November 6, 2012, the statistical model at my website FiveThirtyEight “called” the winner of the American presidential election correctly in all 50 states. I received a congratulatory phone call from the White House. I was hailed as “lord and god of the algorithm” by The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart. My name briefly received more Google search traffic than the Vice President of the United States.

I enjoyed some of the attention, but I felt like an outlier – even a fluke. Mostly I was getting credit for having pointed out the obvious — and most of the rest was luck.

To be sure, it was reasonably clear by Election Day that President Obama was poised to win reelection. When voters went to the polls on election morning, FiveThirtyEight’s statistical model put his chances of winning the Electoral College at about 90 percent. A 90 percent chance is not quite a sure thing: Would you board a plane if the pilot told you it had a 90 percent chance of landing successfully? But when there’s only reputation rather than life or limb on the line, it’s a good bet. Obama needed to win only a handful of the swing states where he was tied or ahead in the polls; Mitt Romney would have had to win almost all of them.

But getting every state right was a stroke of luck. In our Election Day forecast, Obama’s chance of winning Florida was just 50.3 percent – the outcome was as random as a coin flip. Considering other states like Virginia, Ohio, Colorado and North Carolina, our chances of going 50-for-50 were only about 20 percent. FiveThirtyEight’s “perfect” forecast was fortuitous but contributed to the perception that statisticians are soothsayers – only with computers rather than crystal balls....

[Motown_Johnny]

29. The Independent/Other number is what bothers me.

being upside down by 25% in the favorable/unfavorable with (I)s is a real issue.

(D)s will vote for her, (R)s against her. The (I)s are the swing voters that make up that ~3% that decide an election (along with turnout).


The (R) attack machine has a head start if those numbers are accurate.

[hedda_foil]

34. The term "base" in this poll does NOT refer to the Democratic base.

It appears to be the raw number of respondents before it's broken down by party, ideology, or anything else.

[DanTex]

35. Exactly. Now try explaining that to the people cheering on the 47% number.

[Logical]

46. You whine a lot! nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

51. Not exactly the correct premise

The other one claims that 47% of the party base disapproves of Clinton

My thread does NOT say THE PARTY BASE.
It simply says BASE.

What anyone reads into that post is their own bias...
which of course is the point of the OP in question.

People see what they "want"... or "don't want" to see.
Then they use statistics, PERCENTAGES, to make their arguments.

DUers need to stay awake and not subscribe to meaningless percentages...
unless of course someone wanted to lull people into a false sense of "certainty"

[DanTex]

53. The percentages aren't meaningless unless you read them incorrectly. On purpose.

[Cosmic Kitten]

56. Reading comprehension

The DU community would be well served
it the members scrutinize ALL polling results.

When someone shouts out blah blah blah 70%
it's meaningless if it's not scrutinized.

What's the sample size, what are the demographics,
what are the questions, who's doing the poll,
who's paying for the poll etc etc etc.

DU needs to REALLY scrutinize polling and what it reports.
Otherwise, we are just lemmings with confirmation bias.

[DanTex]

57. A first start would be to not get the numbers wrong. On purpose.

It would be great if you went "poll truther" instead of "blatant misrepresentation". That would have elevated you to the Karl Rove/Dick Morris level of honesty. But you didn't. You went even lower, by saying things that were obviously false.

So now you own it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

60. What was "false"?

47% of those polled have an unfavorable view of Hillary?
yes/no...circle one

[DanTex]

61. Had nothing to do with the party base. That was the entire electorate.

As you well know.

[Rex]

65. Where does the poster mention the party base? All I see on that document is 'base'.

IS that incorrect then? SO '47% of people in this poll said they did not like HRC' is false?

[DanTex]

67. Umm, when he/she said "47% of the base".

Yes, 47% of the electorate disapproved. But not of the Democratic base.

[Rex]

68. How is that wrong? TO be wrong it would be, "47% of the Democratic base." Yes?

I didn't see 'Democratic base' mentioned in that other thread by the OP, but maybe I missed it.

[Agschmid]

69. The OP's post was misleading on purpose.

As that person as now essentially admitted, basically they wanted to cause strife.

Class act, huh?

[Rex]

73. Okay I did not know they admitted to purposely disrupting.

HRC seems to set some people off.

[Agschmid]

74. Sure does.

[Cosmic Kitten]

91. NEVER made and such admission.

It's dishonest to suggest that....

that person as now essentially admitted,
basically they wanted to cause strife.

Those are your words not mine

[Agschmid]

94. Oh so when you posted this emoji...

You weren't trying to "teach us all a lesson"...

[Cosmic Kitten]

96. Every day is a school day for me

I learn something new everyday

Did I misuse or misrepresent the common
understanding and use an emoji too??

[Agschmid]

97. It's your fail not mine. You decide.

[Cosmic Kitten]

105. My fall? Did you see the last election results?

The Democratic party is getting CRUSHED.
Did you read the "Victory Task Force Report"?
They think "re-branding" the 3rd-Way is a winning idea?!?!
Hillary is on the WRONG side of Public opinion.

It's not my fall, it's the party that's falling.
So you gonna help or push it further in the ditch?

[Agschmid]

106. *fail.

You can't possibly compare a midterm to a general, they just aren't the same thing.

[Cosmic Kitten]

108. So you don't see the party is losing ground?

Did you read the Task Force report?
Did you see the party losses since 2008?

We have suffered devastating losses
at all levels of government since 2008 including:
- 69 House Seats
- 13 Senate Seats
- 910 State Legislative Seats
- 30 State Legislative Chambers
- 11 Governorships

That didn't happen in ONE MIDTERM election
Even the DNC is alarmed...
It's just too bad the Iron Law of Institutions is defining DNC

[Agschmid]

109. Sure I see it, I'm stuck with Charlie Baker as my governor...

You'd have to blind to not see it.

But again you simply can't compare midterms to a general election, there is no comparison.

[DanTex]

71. LOL. Seriously, trying to slide on word games?

Tell me with a straight face (or a straight-faced smiley) that you don't think "the base" was intended to imply "the Democratic base" and then we'll be done here. Here's the quote.

In the latest PPP poll Hillary is seen
UNFAVORABLY by 47% of the BASE
when measured by PARTY.

Go ahead. Tell me that "the BASE" means something else.

[Cosmic Kitten]

93. The crosstabs reflect EXACTLY what I posted

Hillary is at 47% unfavorable in the base.
Her Party numbers are better,
but the BASE is ACCURATE.

[Cosmic Kitten]

99. Would you agree that presenting percentages is a kind of game?

Surely you can appreciate how citing a percentage
as support or proof without disclosing the raw numbers
is a game of deception and misrepresentation?

Is 7 out of 10 voters, or 70% of voters, more persuasive?

If someone told you 70 people out of 100 will vote republican
or 70% of people polled will vote republican...which is more influential?
What is the inference of 70% of voters?

[Agschmid]

101. The raw numbers were disclosed and were a representative sized sample.

So...?

[Cosmic Kitten]

103. Not the "sample" numbers. The UNWEIGHTED crosstabs.

[MADem]

75. A deliberate omission, I suspect.

The idea is for the reader to fill in the blanks and come to a (wrong) conclusion.

Then there would be a lot of chortling and "Boo-YA"ing like that fricken matters. By the time the boo-yaers realize they've been played, they'll just move on to the next Great Outrage and hope no one notices.

Consider the source. When people misrepresent, and disruption and drama follow ... consider that source.

[Rex]

78. Here is the entire post

47% of BASE see Hillary as UNFAVORABLE!
In the latest PPP poll Hillary is seen
UNFAVORABLY by 47% of the BASE
when measured by PARTY.

That should alarm every Democrat
and "left-leaning independent"!!!11!!1!

Hilary's "favorable" is only 45% of the base???

What is there to fill in the blanks with? Everyone can look at the poll and see libs/moderates are giving her solid support. You mean the OP was hoping nobody would look at the polling data?

I guess.

[Cosmic Kitten]

102. Actually I am COUNTING on people looking at the data

If no one look critically at what any poll actually reports
we will continue to be herded like sheep to the voting booth.

The 2014 "polls" showed Democrats losing to republicans...
and we had a historically low turnout!

Imagine if Democrats get lulled into believing Hillary cant lose!
Confident voters are complacent voters.
Obama didn't win because he was a "sure thing".

[MADem]

130. Obama was guar-ON-TEEEEEEED to lose BIG to RMoney--Guar-ON-TEEEEEEED, I tellya!!!!!

That's what the polls in 2011 were insisting--he couldn't lose!!!!

Problem was, the Emperor wore those clothes all the way to election night--the dumb ass didn't even bother to write a concession speech, he was so SURE his pollsters were right.

The only poll that counts is the one that happens on election day.

My point is fighting about polls at these early stages is like arguing about NOTHING. There's no question that a lot of people -- many of them avoid DU, certainly, and I can't blame them because they'd get nothing but shit and negativity here -- like Hillary Clinton. A LOT.

If she wins the primary and becomes the "D" candidate, it will be "game on" and we'll have to hope she wins against whatever piece of shit the GOP ends up throwing against the wall....because if a Democrat doesn't hold the White House, we're pretty much screwed. The GOP will be cloning Scalia, and that court will make decisions that will screw Americans for generations to come.

[MADem]

129. Base of what? Base of a lamp post?

It's not "base of party." It's base voters surveyed. That would include the GOP and the independents.

But it doesn't matter.


It's all bullshit, anyway. Anyone who takes a snapshot poll from a left-leaning polling organization as gospel at this stage of the game is high, and anyone who wants to argue about said poll like it means anything just wants to play "Seinfeld Fight" and argue about absolutely nothing.

[MADem]

135. If you start with a false premise, the blanks are filled in after one does the math.

We're told that 47 percent of the (Democratic/not) base sees HRC as unfavorable. That would mean that only 53 percent, tops, "like" her at all, and if her "favorable" is only 45 percent of the (Democratic/again, NOT) base, well, then OOOOOH NOOOO--she's SCREWED because MOST Dems would see her as (waaaah) UNfavorable ...if that misreading of the data were true.

I mean really--that post looks like performance art. It's like a cape before a bull, it's so obvious.

The !!!11!!1 treatment is right out of the wingnut playbook!

It's just silly.

[Cosmic Kitten]

100. Isn't a poll citing 60% of... a game of "fill in the blanks"

Polling is a game of "fill in the blanks".

Question MADem:
Why don't networks broadcast exit polls during election?

[Agschmid]

104. Here is a good answer to that...

First, an exit poll is just a survey. Like other polls, it is subject to random sampling error, so differences of a few percentage points between the candidates in any given state sample are not terribly meaningful … Second, the networks almost never "call" truly competitive races on exit poll results alone. The decision desk analysts require very high statistical confidence … They usually only achieve that confidence for relatively close races after the exit pollsters obtain the actual vote results from the randomly selected precincts at which interviews were completed (and from other larger random samples of precincts) and combine all of the data into some very sophisticated statistical models.

Even then, if the models project that the leading candidates are separated by just a few percentage points, as pre-election polls suggest they will be in all of the key battleground states, the networks will usually wait until nearly all votes are counted to project a winner.

Third, the initial results of the exit poll interviews have had frequent problems with non-response bias … Those of us seeing leaked data, however, see neither the running calculations of the precinct errors nor the levels of statistical confidence associated with the vote numbers. We see only precise-looking percentages and are oblivious to the potential for error ... [Exit pollsters now] hold back the data from their news media clients in a sealed quarantine room on Election Day until 5 p.m. Eastern time. The quarantine means that any numbers purporting to be "exit polls" before 5 p.m. are almost certainly bogus.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6100048

[Cosmic Kitten]

110. What is that an answer to? What I asked MADem?

I asked WHY networks don't broadcast exit polls during elections.

The idea that they don't report number because they are "bogus"
is completely unconvincing to any critically thinker.
The MSM thrives on BOGUS infotainment.

Think again there is another answer.

[Agschmid]

112. FFS...

I'm done, go on with your bad self.

I'll keep single handedly destroying the party.

[Cosmic Kitten]

113. Whatever. You posted something that didn't make sense in context

You seemed to be answering someone elses question?

Carry on

[MADem]

128. Answer: Because people lie. nt

[prayin4rain]

52. So true. n/t

[L0oniX]

92. You're for the oligarchy candidate. We get it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

111. Based on the two crosstabs posted Hillary is seen unfavorably by more "VOTERS"

[JI7]

127. and most of them are right wing leaning

[wyldwolf]

116. poll-truthers.