RealClearPolling is a very conservative, almost propagandist website. Granted, conservative doesn’t have to mean inaccurate – but in this case the above is a good indication. U…
RealClearPolling is a very conservative, almost propagandist website. Granted, conservative doesn’t have to mean inaccurate – but in this case the above is a good indication. Unlike 538 or Nate Silver, they do not rate or weigh the pollsters – and RealClearPolling throws an astounding number of bad polls into their average.
Today, many pollsters are really not in the polling business at all. Instead, they have found extremely cost-effective ways to influence the media narrative! That disturbing fact gets far too little media attention.
Back to Montana...
Aaron, as you point out, there is a paucity of public polls for Montana. The two Republican-leaning polls you cite favor Sheehy; another previous poll showed Tester with an advantage. This race is close to a tossup, at most lean Sheehy. Jon Tester could definitely use some help, but I still think he has a reasonably strong chance of winning re-election. (And let’s not write off Deb Mucarsel-Powell in Florida!)
A more fitting comparison is North Dakota in 2018, another race where Republican-leaning polls went unanswered. I recall some clever but ridiculous spin coming from Heitkamp backers in 2018 that counterpunched the polling showing Cramer leading without actually producing numbers that showed a different outcome. Tester's people have yet to stoop to that level of spin, which tells me they either don't plan to insult our intelligence or can't even find a starting point to base any possible spin about Tester's standing. I projected a double-digit Tester loss late last year and the tea leaves continue to point in that direction. It's impressive that he was able to defy gravity as long as he did.
Gift subscription to the website? Is that even a thing? What's the value of it? I don't really care to get into the business of Romney-style "bets" on political predictions but I bet you'd have been just as confident predicting that Heitkamp and Bullock wouldn't have lost by double digits, so you may want to rethink your oveconfidence. Plenty of people on this site still owe us the "shoes" they promised to eat if certain outcomes materialized that actually did.
Thanks but no thanks. I'm not gonna be goaded into placing bets over every election prediction I make. If you want to gamble, I'm sure there's an establishment within a short driving distance of your home that will whet your appetite.
It’s not goading, it’s putting your money where your mouth is. I often add a comment on here about whether I would put money on something because that helps to differentiate between what I want to believe and what I really think will happen. You’re a good bit more conservative / pessimistic than most people who post here (I think you’ve actually stated that so don’t think it’s controversial to say) so asking you to bet on it is more trying to hammer out whether you really think that’s the most likely scenario, or if it’s just a default response. I don’t believe you actually want Tester to lose, but a double digit loss is a bold prediction considering there have been no polls showing that result and it is against the conventional wisdom. It could certainly happen, but to me it comes across as more of a “here’s my contrary guess for the surprise result of the election” than a true belief.
I definitely want Tester to win. He's one of my favorite Senators, but seeing how things ended for Bullock in 2020 when running with Trump heading the ticket and reading all of the tea leaves pointing to Montana getting increasingly conservative, I think a 10+ point defeat for Tester is more likely than not. And I don't want to set the precedent of "placing bets" on political predictions here. As I said, too many people vowed to eat footwear over the years and got humbled. I know I'm gonna be humbled on plenty of occasions (I already have) and don't see predictions of election outcomes as being appropriate fodder for anything above and beyond verbal statements.
And let's be clear, you have zero knowledge about my gambling history; so your take about my supposed 'overconfidence' does not even reach the level of 'pure speculation'
Remember the 2022 Midterm Elections? RealClearPolling’s Senate prediction was 53 Republicans, a gain of three seats! How did that work out?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/elections-map-rcp-projection.html
RealClearPolling is a very conservative, almost propagandist website. Granted, conservative doesn’t have to mean inaccurate – but in this case the above is a good indication. Unlike 538 or Nate Silver, they do not rate or weigh the pollsters – and RealClearPolling throws an astounding number of bad polls into their average.
Today, many pollsters are really not in the polling business at all. Instead, they have found extremely cost-effective ways to influence the media narrative! That disturbing fact gets far too little media attention.
Back to Montana...
Aaron, as you point out, there is a paucity of public polls for Montana. The two Republican-leaning polls you cite favor Sheehy; another previous poll showed Tester with an advantage. This race is close to a tossup, at most lean Sheehy. Jon Tester could definitely use some help, but I still think he has a reasonably strong chance of winning re-election. (And let’s not write off Deb Mucarsel-Powell in Florida!)
A more fitting comparison is North Dakota in 2018, another race where Republican-leaning polls went unanswered. I recall some clever but ridiculous spin coming from Heitkamp backers in 2018 that counterpunched the polling showing Cramer leading without actually producing numbers that showed a different outcome. Tester's people have yet to stoop to that level of spin, which tells me they either don't plan to insult our intelligence or can't even find a starting point to base any possible spin about Tester's standing. I projected a double-digit Tester loss late last year and the tea leaves continue to point in that direction. It's impressive that he was able to defy gravity as long as he did.
I think we agree that we want more polls – and more reliable polls – of this Montana race.
Agreed on all except double digits, which there's no evidence for so far.
How much will you bet?? Double digits?? Make the wager
I'll bet you a gift subscription to this site right now; do we have a wager?
Gift subscription to the website? Is that even a thing? What's the value of it? I don't really care to get into the business of Romney-style "bets" on political predictions but I bet you'd have been just as confident predicting that Heitkamp and Bullock wouldn't have lost by double digits, so you may want to rethink your oveconfidence. Plenty of people on this site still owe us the "shoes" they promised to eat if certain outcomes materialized that actually did.
It is definitely a thing; I will gift you a yearly subscription if I lose the bet; pretty simple actually; is it a bet or not?
Thanks but no thanks. I'm not gonna be goaded into placing bets over every election prediction I make. If you want to gamble, I'm sure there's an establishment within a short driving distance of your home that will whet your appetite.
It’s not goading, it’s putting your money where your mouth is. I often add a comment on here about whether I would put money on something because that helps to differentiate between what I want to believe and what I really think will happen. You’re a good bit more conservative / pessimistic than most people who post here (I think you’ve actually stated that so don’t think it’s controversial to say) so asking you to bet on it is more trying to hammer out whether you really think that’s the most likely scenario, or if it’s just a default response. I don’t believe you actually want Tester to lose, but a double digit loss is a bold prediction considering there have been no polls showing that result and it is against the conventional wisdom. It could certainly happen, but to me it comes across as more of a “here’s my contrary guess for the surprise result of the election” than a true belief.
I definitely want Tester to win. He's one of my favorite Senators, but seeing how things ended for Bullock in 2020 when running with Trump heading the ticket and reading all of the tea leaves pointing to Montana getting increasingly conservative, I think a 10+ point defeat for Tester is more likely than not. And I don't want to set the precedent of "placing bets" on political predictions here. As I said, too many people vowed to eat footwear over the years and got humbled. I know I'm gonna be humbled on plenty of occasions (I already have) and don't see predictions of election outcomes as being appropriate fodder for anything above and beyond verbal statements.
And let's be clear, you have zero knowledge about my gambling history; so your take about my supposed 'overconfidence' does not even reach the level of 'pure speculation'