• 317 Posts
  • 471 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 1st, 2023

help-circle























  • I’ve seen others online suggest that this was an intentional leak for fundraising, but I’m dubious of that for a couple of reasons

    1. The leads for dems in some of these races (though certainly not all) are larger than what you’d hope to leak to show it’s still competitive to drive donations. For instance, they show Hogan in Maryland down by 7 points and trending in the opposite direction. If they were intentionally leaking, they probably wouldn’t have mention these races or leaked an outlier poll showing it closer

    2. Why would they leak mediocre trump president numbers in this too? Trump wants to claim that he’s winning and that everything is rigged against him, but leaking something showing the opposite would undercut him and draw his ire










  • Note that you are repeating the same polls multiple times in that listing. 538 lists the same poll multiple times based on the different results from it (likely voters vs register voters) and head to head vs full field often giving 2 to 4 results per poll. These are not separate polls. The NYT only did one poll of PA recently, don’t assume those are 4 at the same time


    As an aside, some of the pollsters have gotten more partisan this cycle. That recent TIPP poll there was the most egregious where a previously reputable pollster just decided to just assume that philadelphia was going to have 1/10 of the normal turnout in their likely voter screening (look at the unusually massive difference in their likely voters vs registered voters). This is despite asking how likely they were to vote and people in philadelphia respondeded with normal numbers, not anything anywhere close to 1/10th. It wasn’t a mistake either, they replied saying they were the ones who did the likely voting screen and there were no errors, but didn’t really offer much of an explication of why they basically assumed philadelphia wouldn’t vote