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.
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.
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.
You are correct, and I am not. I’ve edited my comment to reflect that.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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
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.
has absolutely zero qualifications
This is completely false.
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.
Removed by mod
Eisenhower would like a word. As would Hoover, Grant and the orange man.
Removed by mod
Eisenhower had a decorated military history, excellent for commander in chief. As did Grant.
That wasn’t the question.
You know she’s a lawyer right? That’s already more credentials than Regan and Bush (being Governor of Texas doesn’t count)
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.
That was also an AstroTurf campaign to outrage white voters.
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.
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.
I like Obama but this is a shit article for wankers.
Just stop with this GOP-astroturf “replace Biden” campaign.
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.
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.
I am always skeptical when I hear leftists echoing the same talking points as far right hacks. These are folks I would expect to be in unison on this point. They are ideologues. That’s fine, that’s their job.
Ideologically, the points are well taken. I too wish for a more progressive president. I’m not excited about Biden, either. I can live through four more years of Biden if that’s what’s to come.
Beating Trump is most important.
I’m of the firm belief that Biden can do that (he’s already done it once), and that he is the best situated to do it. That’s based on the conventional wisdom. Yes, it’s the same conventional wisdom that lost the election for Hillary in 2016, but also won it for Biden in 2020. Biden’s campaign apparatus is in place and switched on. He’s on the ballot. He’s got the backing. To try and change that now seems insurmountable.
i think you missed the point of my comment:
this is not about how progressive he has or hasn’t been. he’s actually been more progressive than a lot of presidents; honestly i thought the stuff he did for unions was impossible in the US.
unfortunately that’s not necessarily a great force for voting in the US. again, people voted for W, and it was not for his policies. plus things like that aren’t very widely or consistently publicized. and people have a short memory and attention span.
this is about how he looks and presents himself. and the reality is that he doesn’t look old. he looks dead. there are people older than him that look and act like they might have been his children.
and also: beating TFG is most important. but that’s why people on the left think he should step down. you may be of the firm belief that he can do it, but polls don’t reflect the same confidence. you might believe the polls or not, but that’s what we have.
also he’s not officially the candidate until the convention. so he’s not on the ballot yet. that’s why people are asking for a switch.
Is the GOP actually the ones wanting us to replace Biden at the moment? If anything, there’s a very good reason to believe the GOP would want Biden to remain: he’s a quite unpopular president for whom the overwhelming majority of Americans have concerns about his age and mental fitness. Further, he has a ton of political baggage, and is highly contentious amongst Democrats.
Personally, I genuinely think Gretchen Whitmer (with Pete Buttigieg as running mate) would be much more likely to win in November, at least according to post-debate polling from this leaked internal memo: https://puck.news/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/SUNDAY_Post-Debate_Landscape_2024_06_30__1_-1.pdf
Your citation of Hasan as a non-tankie made you immediately lose all credibility.
Hasan has dumb positions and goes a bit too hard on “america bad” but calling him a tankie is disingenuous. also even if you disagree, saying that negates all the other things i said would just be bad faith.oops, sorry i just checked your comment history. funny you should mention credibility.
A spouse of a former president running against Trump? That can’t possibly go wrong.
That would be one hell of a thing.
I can see the “actually we still havent had a woman president” “jokes” from here (through time)
Removed by mod
Yeah me too. Better than the alternative.
Her der spite her face…
Better than the alternative… is to prove the alternative….
Worst we can do is literally what is happening now!…. So terrible…
We should hate what’s happening now… makes us suddenly more aware…
What
Shhh, just get the nurse
Removed by mod
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.
Yeah this just looks like a name recognition poll. Kamala’s chances of beating trump aren’t any better than Biden’s.
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?
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.
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
Time to put in Big Mike, coach!
Nothing against Michelle, but I highly doubt she wants to run for POTUS.
