"How Cable News And The Polls Reacted To 2020 Campaign Announcements"

[Hortensis]

Most got the bounce expected for announcement coverage, but some got less coverage and more bounce while others got less bounce from a lot of coverage. 538's take on this:

?w=575

And the candidates who did not get much media attention generally did not get much of an increase in public support. But there were some candidates who didn’t quite fit this pattern. Kamala Harris, for example, had a much bigger polling increase than we’d expect based on her media coverage, while Beto O’Rourke and Elizabeth Warren both had smaller polling bumps than expected. (As you can see in the chart, three of the four candidates who got a bigger polling bump than we’d expect from the amount of media coverage they received are the nonwhite candidates.) ...

But what could be behind the media’s high level of interest in O’Rourke (and his underperformance in the polls)? ...

[rgbecker]

1. Here's a link to the 538 article. Thanks for this post.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-cable-news-and-the-polls-reacted-to-2020-campaign-announcements/


Yeah, what is all the media interest in O'Rourke?

[Hortensis]

2. Whoops, thanks for catching the sucker before it got away. :)

[Laelth]

6. Thank you for the link. n/t

-Laelth

[mcar]

3. Kick!

[NYMinute]

4. Very interesting article nt

[Honeycombe8]

5. I think O'Rourke's poll nos. were affected by Pete.

I think that explains that. There is only so much support to go around for the new kid on the block.

So...it looks like there isn't as much correlation between polling numbers and media attention as we thought.

What MAY affect the numbers is the type of coverage, and when it occurs. If people don't see it, it didn't happen. But it's probably true, that old maxim, that bad coverage is better than no coverage.

[Laelth]

7. Agreed.

They are both excellent. Let the people choose. I would be happy having either of these fine citizens as President or Vice President.

-Laelth