-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NBC poll: Trump continues to lead the GOP field after 1st debate
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
As stupid as he sounds saying it, Trump only goes after people that come at him first. Walker insulted Trump's campaign today, calling it a car accident (I guess train wreck has been claimed by the left -- thanks Amy), so you can bet on a response
The entire purpose of reporting the margin of error is to be able to do this.
Here is an example of NYT reporting in 2012:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/u...ying-obama-bounce-is-sugar-high.html?_r=1&hpw
Why are they "combining" margins of error "like that"?
Yeah, good point. I concede we can't assume the difference is statistically significant without seeing the data ourselves.
I'd never noticed the media treat moe like that before. Learn something new every day.
(And at the end of the day, the whole "19 of 20 times is statistically significant" threshold is ultimately an arbitrary standard anyways
... this is still strong evidence in favor of a Trump lead, however we choose to describe it.)to be fair, nobody gave a shit anyway. email server scandals are dime a dozen and boring as fuck. Same with the rest of the nontroversies they've tried to pin on her
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
It's 1.6 times the margin of error, not 2 times, for calculations like that. So, it needs to be within an 11 point difference to say it falls in the margin of error, but Trump has an 12 point lead. That large of a lead still falls within the 95% confidence range even for a margin of error that large.
It's also worth noting that even being in the margin of error doesn't mean the poll is statistically insignificant. If the lead was only half the margin of error, you'd still have a 70% confidence interval.
Of course, errors in sampling and weighing cause the realistic confidence to be much lower, but mathematically that's how it works.
http://www.danvk.org/wp/2008-09-25/how-to-read-polls/
Yeah, that's my understanding of why they feel comfortable saying Trump was leading. They chose an alpha level of 5% or maybe even 2% or 1% and the poll satisfied their alpha level. Maybe they would have worded themselves better if they weren't limited by a 140 character tweet. "(given a 95% confidence level)" is hard to fit in. Or at least it is 95% of the time.
I caught your ninja edit as you caught my edit.
Busted!
That's the only thing you can do when you report on polls though.Assuming a normal and uncorrelated distribution of errors, yes, it is more likely than not that these polling results show Trump ahead of Bush. But we don't report "more likely than not"
I honestly think there is little point in reporting on such things, they don't contribute to understanding of most people and since bias is a much much bigger issue with polling, I feel that digging too deep into these things creates an illusion of accuracy that does not exists.
SolarPowered
Member
This is the true Ouroboros. It makes the infighting after Bernie's Seattle rally look insignificant.
I wouldn't go that far. It reinforces preconceived notions about Clinton that she is not honest and trustworthy. Myself, I don't give a crap. It's freaking emails for crying out loud. We all do email, we all delete emails. We'll get access to those emails and chances are there will be something juicy but irrelevant. The problem for her is classified material. From what I can tell, she sent things that "should" of been classified. GOP will make a big hoopla about it. Sanders supporters will say this is why we can't nominate her and the
"nontroversies" as you say will continue. But I will find it funny that something as small as emails ends her candidacy.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
It's a fact now?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
The first part of the post: The 1.6 multiplier he is taking about applies to cases where you can assume perfect correlation between the errors of the two candidates (as in the case when polling is asking you a yes/no question), which we can't here. Errors on Trump or Bush's sample proportion are just as likely to come from other candidates as each other. Edit: Or is he making a claim about one-sided tails in the MoE between the two candidates rather than two-sided? He's not elaborating on his reasoning so it's difficult for me to infer much from there.
The rest of the post is basically arguing for the application of Bayesian inference to polling (which would be a good thing), but I'm not really sure about his assumptions of handling undecided voters or his decision to adopt a uniform prior for candidate support (?!), or immediately how this is applicable to a multicandidate situation.
Is what a fact?
This is how much anyone cares about these constant email controversies. Or this much. Let's not forget Sarah
Seriously, this comes up every election. Nobody cares. Hypothetical but non-real classified information exchanged is not going to change that. Ironically, whenever government emails from official servers are needed they can't be found. The GOP will get as far with this as they will with Benghazi. Sanders supporters are already living in a fantasy land. If they want to believe something as esoteric as email servers will bring down Clinton, more power to them.
Another new poll came out from The Morning Consult.
http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-trump-at-32-percent-in-new-post-debate-poll/
http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-trump-at-32-percent-in-new-post-debate-poll/
Pointing out that other people did the same thing Clinton did does not prove there is not interest. In fact, I know 50% of the country is very interested for obvious political reasons. The problem for Clinton is the email server feeds into preconceived notions. The best scandals (even fake ones) are scandals that feeds into preconceived notions. I want Clinton as President. I genuinely think she's the right person for the job, but I'm not going to deny that these emails and are a thorn in her candidacy.
I think you're confusing interest and feigned outrage -- which is what I meant to point out by highlighting the hypocrisy of those 50%
Only if you believe the choice of email server is related to honesty. I haven't seen that connection made in any convincing manner. Clinton has a serious issue with the perception of her honesty or dishonesty, but every controvery doesn't automatically exacerbate that. #BENGHAZI is a far more clear connection in this regard
I am really not a fan of Hillary. I'll vote for her, but I lack any excitement for her. I just see this email controversy as a manufactured hit-job by the NYT that has failed to gain any mainstream traction. It doesn't help that they have bungled every aspect of the reporting.
Just when you think it couldn't get worse :lol
Earthstrike
Member
If one thing's for sure, we won't even know if they care or not since irrespective of whether or not people do care, it will constantly be repeated ad infinitum on fox news a la benghazi.
OuterLimits
Member
I did not think his comments would hurt him, but I honestly thought his debate performance would. I didn't think he had the worst performance in the debate but he wasn't good.
I suppose him attacking the media and especially Fox News over his belief they were trying to take him out helped maintain his polling numbers. It focused on his me vs the establishment GOP narrative.
A lot of Republicans liked Trump's performance in the debate. The most important things for candidates to get at this point in the primary are to get name recognition, differentiate themselves from the rest of the field, and to gain media coverage. Trump managed to dominate news stories post-debate by so much that he was bound to be on the upswing. Currently, the only thing that can hurt him is a lack of media attention, but that's not going to happen any time soon.
Yeah this email controversy is really dragging her down. What makes it especially bad is the rolling disclosure nature of it. There's always something new to report about it, some half truth she said earlier. When most Americans hear about Clinton in the news nowadays it's not about a new policy proposal or about an interview she didn't give, it's about these damn emails.
Black Mamba
Member
Because you have to use a different formula to compare the likelihood that the person with 24% is ahead of the person with 12%.
For instance, if Bush and Trump were going head to head and Trump was polled ahead at 56-44% to Jeb with MoE of 6.7%, Trump would win 95-97% of the time if the poll was done properly.
It doesn't matter that they're "within the MoE," which isn't the right way to look at it.
You're right in later posts that it's the individual's polling, but that isn't useful for comparisons.
This piece helps explain how to do the calculations: https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf
edit: from here, you can calculate actual probabilities of being ahead.
Also, because the probabilities of the two are so low, the MoE of the difference is barely bigger than the individual MoEs. In other words, anything above a lead of 7 is statistically significant. 12 is fucking huge.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Sanders would be considered a typical Democrat in any other developed nation.
One of the few moments there isn't an appropriate SImpson's gif but there is a wrestling gif.
OuterLimits
Member
Also, I don't understand why all the other candidates don't try and ignore Trump. I realize it is hard to not go after a frontrunner, but they seem to release a statement over every comment he makes. Right now it seems 1/4 to 1/3 of the Conservative base is in revolt against the Republican party. Many of them are supporting Trump and attacking him is only going to help him with those voters.
I still think Trump won't win the nomination, but if he can somehow maintain the support of that group then perhaps he can win. The more moderate voters could split votes between Bush, Rubio and others.
The far right voters realize Trump is actually liberal or used to be anyway on some issues. I don't think they care, and will support him because he goes after the establishment. The question is will the conservatives in revolt eventually unite behind Jeb Bush if he is the nominee or will they stay home in large numbers? They eventually gave lukewarm support to McCain and Romney, but I'm not sure they will this time.
I still think Trump won't win the nomination, but if he can somehow maintain the support of that group then perhaps he can win. The more moderate voters could split votes between Bush, Rubio and others.
The far right voters realize Trump is actually liberal or used to be anyway on some issues. I don't think they care, and will support him because he goes after the establishment. The question is will the conservatives in revolt eventually unite behind Jeb Bush if he is the nominee or will they stay home in large numbers? They eventually gave lukewarm support to McCain and Romney, but I'm not sure they will this time.
Minor candidates want media attention. Picking a fight with Trump is a good way to get it. Yeah, at this point probably that means they hurt themselves, but if they do nothing they probably never get close to the nomination. It's a good risk.
Trump interview with Chicago Tribune Editorial board, dropping his showman gimmick and talks about some economic/trade policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=12&v=h6P6MvMdC8I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=12&v=h6P6MvMdC8I
I agree completely with this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/opinions/obeidallah-donald-trump/index.html
The media are going at this all wrong. They assume he is a fly-by-night who will drop out in a couple of weeks. He's not. Ask him policy questions and see where he stands.
Good! I'll watch it after work.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/opinions/obeidallah-donald-trump/index.html
The media are going at this all wrong. They assume he is a fly-by-night who will drop out in a couple of weeks. He's not. Ask him policy questions and see where he stands.
Good! I'll watch it after work.
tearsintherain
Member
How long until one of the other candidates starts bringing up the Anti-Christ stuff with Trump? It was pretty popular in 2008 against Obama but then kinda dropped off. His hair alone should be good for some bible quotes.
.. thinking back I think I remember my friend trying to pull this shit on me. I'm a religious person myself, but his thought process was just out there.
OuterLimits
Member
Yeah, I agree. If Trump starts winning a couple states early, I could see candidates dropping quickly and supporting Jeb Bush, Rubio, or whoever else is in second place. They obviously don't want Trump to win, so there will be extreme pressure put on candidates to drop out so Trump voters don't win him the nomination.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Damn, he actually sounds reasonable as hell in this interview.
Trump = SJW confirmed
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/280812064539283457
Where is your God now, Trump clergy?!?
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/280812064539283457
Where is your God now, Trump clergy?!?
Big Green Anus
Member
He's not lying. I'll admit that he can say silly things, but he's quite attractive. I wish I look like him
bodyofanamerican
Member
Any highlights or timestamps? I feel like he's just saying the same nonsense ("take back our jobs", "here's how we take down ISIS") at a lower volume. Am I missing something?
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Nobody cares about the emails or Bengazi, except Republicans. People want to hear about student loads, parental leave, affordable health care, protecting the environment, helping small businesses, overloaded prisons for petty offenses, etc.
edit: On topic, Trump isn't that crazy. He has issues, he has an attitude that you'd expect from a rich white dude who is also a celebrity, but he'd be a better president than any Republican candidate, for real.
edit2: That woman behind Trump is nice.
Yes, he seems knowledgeable on the issues. It was worth watching.
no flag lapel pin smh
also it looks like he got a suntan while wearing Robin's mask
In all seriousness though, he whines a lot about the media coverage (despite this being a few weeks old) but other than that he makes some pretty good points, and he has a better handling of the issues than I've given him credit for
He even shits on the Gaming (Casino) business
also that ringtone lol
OuterLimits
Member
Trump has been attacking Rand Paul on Twitter. He attacks most of the candidates and Hillary of course.
Yet he just praised Ted Cruz on Twitter saying he had a very good debate and did much better than Rand Paul. Rand seems to be his favorite target today.
Yet he just praised Ted Cruz on Twitter saying he had a very good debate and did much better than Rand Paul. Rand seems to be his favorite target today.
Trump and Cruz have had a bromance going on for awhile now
Still listening to him to see what he says about the actual issues. However I did want to say I don't get why people think hes some kind of idiot who don't know jack...The dude has accomplished a lot in his years, he can't be that stupid. Obviously that doesn't mean he'd be a good president, but he does carry some cred in his potential ability. Personally I'm holding judgement till I hear him on the actual issues, with details, etc. All we been getting is surface PR and marketing for the most part...
Yeah, not a surprise, everything else so far was in line with a guy like Lieberman.
He's not lying. I'll admit that he can say silly things, but he's quite attractive. I wish I look like him
But you're a big green anus. Not much of an improvement.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked