163
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
163 points (77.4% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2033 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
You are correct, and I am not. I've edited my comment to reflect that.
A fancy guess is still a guess.
892 out of 160,000,000+ is a small sample size.
It isn't.
do you consider yourself pro-science
Yes, and I appreciate the scientific method, but applying it with statistics such a singular market research sampling can be dubious because it requires assumptions that aren't actually validated.
The more you learn, the more you realize we all have blindspots all overr the place. This result of the provided sample size statistics cannot be proven without iterations, which have not been done.
The politics of it are chess, while the statistics are just playing tic tac toe while discarding considerations of nuance with a wave of 'but science' hand.
Isn't 1,000 usually the benchmark?
I depends on the size of the population you’re attempting to represent.
What's the formula/ratio? Didn't know there was one like this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.