You just have to love this. The always shifting rationale as to why Trump has no meaningful chance-no more than 2 percent, etc.
For a while he was just like Herman Cain who led for a few weeks not six months.
First people weren't paying attention then when it became clear they are it was it doesn't matter whether they're paying attention or not.
Scott Walker was a great candidate because he bombed out totally.
Now it's because his national numbers are so high it will get him complacent and not do what he has to do in Iowa and New Hampshire. History shows this. Right. Mitt Romney's national numbers were terrible before he won NH. Oh wait.
For a long time Nate and friends-of which Harry Enten is a major one-were telling us that polls are simply irrelevant 'this early.' But Enten does think they matter just that in his Bizzaro world, low poll numbers rather than high ones are destiny.
"Ted Cruz is doing considerably better in polls of Iowa than he is in national polls. Chris Christie is doing better in New Hampshire than he is with all Americans. Donald Trump is doing worse in both Iowa and New Hampshire than he is in the country at large."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/to-win-in-iowa-or-new-hampshire-it-may-be-better-to-poll-worse-nationally/?fb_comment_id=1019834964703885_1020875254599856&comment_id=1020875254599856&refid=8&pos=4#1020875254599856
To say he's doing 'worse' is a nice case of framing. He's at 35 percent nationally-according to RCP averages-26 percent in NH and 27 percent in Iowa. That may be 'worse' but is still pretty darn good objectively speaking in a field this large.
I mean if Trump had weaker national numbers, Enten would therefore increase the odds he wins in Iowa or New Hampshire? So I guess at 3 percent, Jeb is a shoo-in. So maybe that should be his new strategy-figure out how to bring down his national poll numbers.
For a while he was just like Herman Cain who led for a few weeks not six months.
First people weren't paying attention then when it became clear they are it was it doesn't matter whether they're paying attention or not.
Scott Walker was a great candidate because he bombed out totally.
Now it's because his national numbers are so high it will get him complacent and not do what he has to do in Iowa and New Hampshire. History shows this. Right. Mitt Romney's national numbers were terrible before he won NH. Oh wait.
For a long time Nate and friends-of which Harry Enten is a major one-were telling us that polls are simply irrelevant 'this early.' But Enten does think they matter just that in his Bizzaro world, low poll numbers rather than high ones are destiny.
"Ted Cruz is doing considerably better in polls of Iowa than he is in national polls. Chris Christie is doing better in New Hampshire than he is with all Americans. Donald Trump is doing worse in both Iowa and New Hampshire than he is in the country at large."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/to-win-in-iowa-or-new-hampshire-it-may-be-better-to-poll-worse-nationally/?fb_comment_id=1019834964703885_1020875254599856&comment_id=1020875254599856&refid=8&pos=4#1020875254599856
To say he's doing 'worse' is a nice case of framing. He's at 35 percent nationally-according to RCP averages-26 percent in NH and 27 percent in Iowa. That may be 'worse' but is still pretty darn good objectively speaking in a field this large.
I mean if Trump had weaker national numbers, Enten would therefore increase the odds he wins in Iowa or New Hampshire? So I guess at 3 percent, Jeb is a shoo-in. So maybe that should be his new strategy-figure out how to bring down his national poll numbers.
Maybe he can kiss John McCain's ring.
"Just as during the 2012 general election, state polls and national polls disagree. And our advice this year is the same as it was then: Trust the state polls. In fact, there’s evidence the national polls may be a negative indicator once you control for the state-level survey results. If you’re a candidate who wants to win one of the first two contests, you’d rather have good state polls and bad national polls than good state and good national polls."
"How can that be? I’ll get to the math in a moment, but let me give you the implications first. According to my analysis, if Jane Doe is polling at 30 percent in Iowa and 10 percent nationally, she would be expected to win 34 percent when the final Iowa results are tallied.1 Meanwhile, if Jane Doe is polling at 30 percent in Iowa and 30 percent nationally, she would be expected to get only 29 percent of the Iowa vote."
"That dynamic is evident in real-world results too. Take the 2008 primary campaigns: Mike Huckabee averaged 22 percent in Iowa in the second to last month before the caucus but 8 percent nationally. He went on to earn 34 percent of the Iowa vote. Rudy Giuliani was polling at 13 percent in Iowa and 28 percent nationally, and finished with just 4 percent of the Iowa vote. On the Democratic side that year, Barack Obama was polling at 25.5 percent in Iowa and 22.5 percent nationally, and ended up with 35 percent of the Iowa vote."
"Sounds like cherrypicked data to me. And Enten is ignoring that Romney had consistently strong national numbers-yes he often trailed the latest boomlet-but if you were to take his numbers on a cumulative basis during the July to December period that Trump has led this year, you'd see that his numbers were the ones which were consistently strong. Yet Mitt won NH."
"So what might be going on? I can’t be sure, but the candidates who underperform in early states are often those with the highest name recognition — like Giuliani or longtime Republican frontrunner George W. Bush in 2000. (Bush was upset by John McCain in New Hampshire.) It could be that a disproportionate share of these candidates’ support in the early states is due to high name recognition, which the national polls pick up on, and not because they line up well with the state’s voters. As the voting gets closer and more voters tune in, name recognition tends to even out, and voters may decide there are better options out there."
Yes, it's all about name recognition. That must be why Jeb is struggling so much-no one has heard of him yet. And the George W. Bush example is not the precedent Harry and Nate want-he may not have won NH but he won Iowa-so it is possible to win one of these two states with strong national numbers-and of course, W won not just the primary but the whole enchilada.
I'm just saying, it's rather strange to be saying Trump has little chance by comparing him to George W. Bush.
Norm Ornstein defines the Nate Silver-Harry Enten theory in a nutshell: history always rules.
"The willful suspension of disbelief by so many political professionals and analysts had multiple roots. One part was a deep belief that history rules—since rogue and inexperienced candidates had always faltered before, it followed that it would happen again. Another was that nothing has changed in a meaningful way in American politics—there has not been real polarization, only natural “sorting,” and the establishment will rule, as it always does. A third was that there are certain characteristics expected of a president—prudence, civility, expertise—that would eventually cause Trump and the other outsiders like Carson, Cruz, and Fiorina to fall by the wayside."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/the-eight-causes-of-trumpism/422427/
For what ever reason, the boys at FiveThirtyEight have been determined to maintain the conventional wisdom when most have at least admitted it hasn't been very predictive till now.
It's almost like they see the continued dominance of Trump as an affront to their reputations or something.
I have to admit that their attitude makes me even more hope to see a Trump win in NH just to see the egg running down their Very Serious faces.
"Just as during the 2012 general election, state polls and national polls disagree. And our advice this year is the same as it was then: Trust the state polls. In fact, there’s evidence the national polls may be a negative indicator once you control for the state-level survey results. If you’re a candidate who wants to win one of the first two contests, you’d rather have good state polls and bad national polls than good state and good national polls."
"How can that be? I’ll get to the math in a moment, but let me give you the implications first. According to my analysis, if Jane Doe is polling at 30 percent in Iowa and 10 percent nationally, she would be expected to win 34 percent when the final Iowa results are tallied.1 Meanwhile, if Jane Doe is polling at 30 percent in Iowa and 30 percent nationally, she would be expected to get only 29 percent of the Iowa vote."
"That dynamic is evident in real-world results too. Take the 2008 primary campaigns: Mike Huckabee averaged 22 percent in Iowa in the second to last month before the caucus but 8 percent nationally. He went on to earn 34 percent of the Iowa vote. Rudy Giuliani was polling at 13 percent in Iowa and 28 percent nationally, and finished with just 4 percent of the Iowa vote. On the Democratic side that year, Barack Obama was polling at 25.5 percent in Iowa and 22.5 percent nationally, and ended up with 35 percent of the Iowa vote."
"Sounds like cherrypicked data to me. And Enten is ignoring that Romney had consistently strong national numbers-yes he often trailed the latest boomlet-but if you were to take his numbers on a cumulative basis during the July to December period that Trump has led this year, you'd see that his numbers were the ones which were consistently strong. Yet Mitt won NH."
"So what might be going on? I can’t be sure, but the candidates who underperform in early states are often those with the highest name recognition — like Giuliani or longtime Republican frontrunner George W. Bush in 2000. (Bush was upset by John McCain in New Hampshire.) It could be that a disproportionate share of these candidates’ support in the early states is due to high name recognition, which the national polls pick up on, and not because they line up well with the state’s voters. As the voting gets closer and more voters tune in, name recognition tends to even out, and voters may decide there are better options out there."
Yes, it's all about name recognition. That must be why Jeb is struggling so much-no one has heard of him yet. And the George W. Bush example is not the precedent Harry and Nate want-he may not have won NH but he won Iowa-so it is possible to win one of these two states with strong national numbers-and of course, W won not just the primary but the whole enchilada.
I'm just saying, it's rather strange to be saying Trump has little chance by comparing him to George W. Bush.
Norm Ornstein defines the Nate Silver-Harry Enten theory in a nutshell: history always rules.
"The willful suspension of disbelief by so many political professionals and analysts had multiple roots. One part was a deep belief that history rules—since rogue and inexperienced candidates had always faltered before, it followed that it would happen again. Another was that nothing has changed in a meaningful way in American politics—there has not been real polarization, only natural “sorting,” and the establishment will rule, as it always does. A third was that there are certain characteristics expected of a president—prudence, civility, expertise—that would eventually cause Trump and the other outsiders like Carson, Cruz, and Fiorina to fall by the wayside."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/the-eight-causes-of-trumpism/422427/
For what ever reason, the boys at FiveThirtyEight have been determined to maintain the conventional wisdom when most have at least admitted it hasn't been very predictive till now.
It's almost like they see the continued dominance of Trump as an affront to their reputations or something.
I have to admit that their attitude makes me even more hope to see a Trump win in NH just to see the egg running down their Very Serious faces.
No comments:
Post a Comment