Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: I am beginning to hate the word "pragmatic." [View all]Gothmog
(145,558 posts)71. Because according to Nate Silver these numbers are worthless
Hypothetical match up polls are worthless in part because the margin of error for these polls are so high and in part because the candidate has not been vetted. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/
Head-to-head polls of hypothetical general election matchups have almost no predictive power at this stage of the campaign, but for what its worth, Trump tends to fare relatively poorly in those too. On average,2 in polls since Nov. 1, Trump trails Clinton by 5 percentage points, while Clinton and Marco Rubio are tied.
See also http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/
Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. Thats especially the case for candidates who arent even in the race and therefore havent been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.
Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.
No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
108 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
yes. and he compromises instead of fighting from a much higher starting point.
Karma13612
Jan 2016
#85
We were talking about Pragmatism. HIllary will be a continuation of Obama's Pragmatism.
Ferd Berfel
Jan 2016
#88
To fight them the party needs money and Sanders refused to raise a dime for the party.
hrmjustin
Jan 2016
#9
Screw that stupid argument. He fights with the truth and people want to hear it.
Punkingal
Jan 2016
#11
Yes - this was proven false a couple of weeks back. yet some here keep repeating it over and over
kath
Jan 2016
#75
If you have weak ideas, you need a lot of money to convince people their great ideas.
aikoaiko
Jan 2016
#37
Ideologues always do hate pragmatism. So much easier to fantasize and throw stones.
KittyWampus
Jan 2016
#21
I think you're confusing with "idealist" with "ideologue." Either way, it's inaccurate.
senz
Jan 2016
#24
Exactly, that's why I'm so happy to have a real liberal to vote for. He works for us not against us.
haikugal
Jan 2016
#32
Only if you believe that the Kochs will not run $300 million of negative ads against Sanders
Gothmog
Jan 2016
#53
I wouldn't need to if people would look at things instead of accepting whatever they are told. Sad.
Punkingal
Jan 2016
#64
Why don't you check out the national head to head match-ups with Bernie and the Republicans?
Punkingal
Jan 2016
#69
Matchups have no predictive power on who will win the general election, but they may
JonLeibowitz
Jan 2016
#76
I don't believe Enten makes a single comment about comparative analysis, only about predictions
JonLeibowitz
Jan 2016
#86
Your post is excessively rude. I wasn't advocating ignoring polls or facts.
JonLeibowitz
Jan 2016
#91
Talk to DWS. Say "hi" and tell her "thanks" for her moment of candor re: Bernie. nt
antigop
Jan 2016
#74
Funds are necessary for competing but not necessarily sufficient for victory
Fumesucker
Jan 2016
#87
Name me one major election a Democrat has won by moving to the right...
Still In Wisconsin
Jan 2016
#54
Your definition is fine...I'm afraid the Clinton people don't define it that way.
Punkingal
Jan 2016
#60
How fitting with Hillary invoking the name of Truman and tying it to the ACA. Something about
Ed Suspicious
Jan 2016
#83
There's a superiority with pragmatism, which says I'm the grown up, the realist.
EndElectoral
Jan 2016
#67
The way HRC is using the term, "pragmatic" means "Settling for less than nothing".
Ken Burch
Jan 2016
#89