163
submitted 5 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 98 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

EDIT: I am wrong about the sample size. Yes, the sample is a little small, but not too far off. They're registered voters rather than likely voters, which is not quite as good, but, again, no terrible.

The poll surveyed 892 registered voters and has a margin of error of 3.2%.

As FiveThirtyEight would say, that's a bad use of polling. That's a very small sample size, and there's no indication that it's representative in any meaningful way.

Even more important, Obama has said she has no interest in being the president; she's not willing to run.

[-] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It is most certainly not a small sample size. It's what allows for a margin of error of ±3.5%* at the 95% confidence level. Here's a graph of the margin of error vs sample size for 95% confidence interval.

With an 11 point margin, there's a clear separation of the upper limit bar for Trump and lower limit bar for Obama. For a single poll, assuming the rest of it was well designed and executed, this is an important spread. And the reasons are obvious if you look at the report. She's able to get 10% more Democratic support and 20% more independent voter support.

Ipsos is a high quality polling company. They don't make rookie mistakes like sample size. There may be other reasons beyond my reasoning that make this a bad use of polling, but sample size is not it.

* The source incorrectly reported the margin of error for the full survey, both registered and unregistered participants.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

You are correct, and I am not. I've edited my comment to reflect that.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

Isn't 1,000 usually the benchmark?

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

I depends on the size of the population you’re attempting to represent.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

What's the formula/ratio? Didn't know there was one like this.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

There are multiple ways. Statistical significance is largely used to determine whether a sample size is representative but it’s flawed on its own for some sample sizes as small effects can get exaggerated the larger the sample gets. Look up the methods for determining effect sizes and confidence intervals to determine the best route to go to see what minimum sample size is necessary to both have high confidence in the accuracy of the hypothesis and to ensure that the results have enough statistical power to detect the effect in question.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

It looks like most Ipsos polls are a little over 1000, and most of them seem to use likely voters rather than registered voters.

I have edited my comment to reflect that I'm wrong.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

Anyone that doesn't want to be President should automatically win. If you want it, you should be locked in a cold, dark room until the election is over. And maybe slapped a few times for good measure.

[-] nightofmichelinstars@sopuli.xyz 5 points 5 months ago

Can we draft her? Can we run a candidate against their will? I'm just kidding. Idk there's a lot of crazy shit happening.

[-] d00phy@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

It’s kind of possible, yes. Basically it would have to be a coordinated effort at the convention to elect her as the party’s candidate. That makes it incredibly unlikely. Also, the person elected at the convention still has to accept it.

Since she was FLOTUS, she hasn’t shown much interest in participating in the dirty politics of governing. Instead, she quickly said she wanted to focus on social issues. That made me kind of sad because she’s incredibly intelligent and I think she would be a talented political leader. She just doesn’t seem interested in that.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

After seeing all the shit that Barack had to go through, is it really surprising that Michelle wants nothing to do with it? I wish she would, but she's simply not been interested in politics in that way.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 49 points 5 months ago

She has zero interest in the gig and, other than being first lady, has absolutely zero qualifications... but then... neither did Trump.

Whatever happened to the "Draft Oprah" movement?

[-] massacre@lemmy.world 80 points 5 months ago

Fuck Oprah. She's an out of touch Billionaire who's commitment to junk science set Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil loose on the world and gave Jenny McArthy a platform for her anti-vax autism bullshit. She's absolutely not who we want running for president.

[-] cmbabul@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

She’s far more qualified than Trump but according to her husband’s book she didn’t even want to be First Lady. And as much as I don’t hold what I view as Barry’s presidential shortcomings against her, we have had far too many political family dynasty’s in this country. Let’s not have another

[-] itsnotits@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

family dynasties* in this country

Yup, but I take it as a good indication just how desperate the electorate is for someone who is just generally seen as a good, competent person.

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

has absolutely zero qualifications

This is completely false.

[-] Delusional@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Yeah she is definitely way more qualified than trump is. He's not qualified to do shit except cause problems for anyone for personal profit. I wouldn't trust him with any fucking job let alone being president.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

While I do not believe she ahoukd run, unlike Trump, she is qualified. She has degrees from Princeton and Harvard and is an attorney. And more importantly, she is wicked smart.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

That was also an AstroTurf campaign to outrage white voters.

[-] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 45 points 5 months ago

Please stop dragging her into this.

She'd never want to be President. I'd argue we wouldn't like her very much if she was the kind of person that did.

[-] vga@sopuli.xyz 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

She’d never want to be President.

Paraphrasing Douglas Adams, that would make her the best candidate. But in real life, perhaps not so much.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 41 points 5 months ago

I like Obama but this is a shit article for wankers.

[-] son_named_bort@lemmy.world 39 points 5 months ago

A spouse of a former president running against Trump? That can't possibly go wrong.

[-] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago

That would be one hell of a thing.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 12 points 5 months ago

I can see the "actually we still havent had a woman president" "jokes" from here (through time)

[-] RadicalEagle@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

As long as she's willing to put up with that nonsense I'd love to see her as president. But I can certainly imagine a person in her position not wanting to rock the boat and subject herself to that.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 points 5 months ago

Yeah me too. Better than the alternative.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 18 points 5 months ago
[-] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

I'm also wary of any poll that shows such a strong showing for Kamala Harris. Not saying it's wrong, it legitimately looks like it's got a lot of good data, but every other poll I've seen has been fairly unfavorable to the idea of her running against Trump.

[-] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

Yeah this just looks like a name recognition poll. Kamala's chances of beating trump aren't any better than Biden's.

[-] AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Well it does seem that more people would vote for trump against her as well as more people vote for her. So maybe it's legit?

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

Just stop with this GOP-astroturf "replace Biden" campaign.

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

I've been slamming Russian/tankie "both are bad" commenters for a while here; check my comment history before you judge my response here:

I don't know about a campaign but the sentiment is hardly astroturfed. A lot of leftist (not liberal or tankie, actual leftist) pundits and influencers think Biden is a bad look for normies and certainly doesn't energize voters. This includes people from all varieties, who are not always in agreement otherwise; like Emma Vigeland from Majority Report (and probably more people from that show), Hasan Piker, Vaush, Cenk from TYT... Whatever you may think about any or all of them, they're all in agreement on Biden being replaced.

These people are hardly part of an echo chamber, they regularly come at odds with one another, and none of them are part of an astroturf, and definitely not from GOP.

Note that all of these people would still advocate for voting Biden as long as he's the candidate. But their concern is about voter turnout after his horrible performance in that debate. This is a country who elected W. Bush, because they'd like to have a beer with him. How they look and come off unfortunately matters, sometimes more than the content of their messages and even accomplishments.

[-] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

This is what many don’t understand. JFK won his election because he was handsome and Nixon tanked that debate he was sick. This is a similar scenario in that Biden looks like shit and everyone can tell except Biden. He needs to accept that his age has caught up to him.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

In polling there's a piece of wisdom that journalists don't listen to. Ignore the outlier polls. If there's multiple polls saying one thing and one poll saying something else then there's far more likely to be something wrong with the one outlier. But clickbait machine goes brrrrt.

https://am11.mediaite.com/med/cnt/uploads/2024/07/Screen-Shot-2024-07-02-at-5.06.44-PM.jpg

Okay looks like Clickbait Machine goes brrrt for a different reason here. The upshot is that many respondents skipped the follow on questions. So assuming any amount of campaigning is competently done then the 12% Don't know/skip category is likely to shrink closer to the 4% of the Biden-Trump match up. Then you can see that 40% of the respondents just answered Trump no matter what. In fact the Democrats percentage goes down nearly in lockstep with, Don't Know/Skipped. So, in my opinion, there's a really good chance the Democrats could actually pick up most of that column for Beshear or Pritzker.

[-] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

~~Are there raw results published anywhere? The most recent IPSOS I can find is from May 2024 and based on this, it seems Biden and Trump are unchanged at 40% each between surveys.~~

EDIT, nevermind the July 2024 raw survey is here

[-] Potatisen@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Time to put in Big Mike, coach!

[-] sturmblast@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Nothing against Michelle, but I highly doubt she wants to run for POTUS.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
163 points (77.4% liked)

politics

19165 readers
686 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS