Lion of the Blogosphere

Check out the SC exit poll

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/entrance-and-exit-polls

Going into this primary, I assumed that Sanders would win the white vote and Biden would win the black vote, but that’s not what happened. Biden beat Bernie solidly among white voters, 33% to 23%, and trounced him 61% to 17% with black voters.

The pre-election polling significantly underpredicted how well Biden actually did by quite a bit. The polling average showed Biden with a 15.4 point lead over Sanders (because of the last-minute polls trending towards Biden), but the actual results have Biden beating Sanders by 28.8 points.

I wonder if maybe Biden has benefited from the coronavirus. Perhaps in times of national crisis, people want someone in the White House who has been there before. Unfortunately, the exit poll didn’t have a question about the virus.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 29, 2020 at 11:36 PM

Posted in Politics

32 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. My theory is that smart people stayed home because of the virus thing. Nobody should go to crowded places right now, unless absolutely necessary. And not-so-smart folks probably feel an affinity to demented Biden.

    Goodstuff

    March 1, 2020 at 1:00 AM

    • I don’t see anyone staying home besides me.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 1, 2020 at 9:13 AM

    • In other words, I should avoid Penn station in NYC? Asking seriously.

      Maryk (the g-loaded guidette)

      March 1, 2020 at 11:10 AM

      • No idea, everybody has to make that decision himself. Personally, I am playing it safe without going into a full hermit mode. I have a trip planned in May and another in July, so I am also at crossroads.

        Goodstuff

        March 1, 2020 at 9:06 PM

  2. Southerners hate Yankees. Especially New York Yankees. Biden may be a Yankee but not as much as Bernie.

    Pundits, who tend to be Northerners, always underestimate the hatred southerners feel for Yankees.

    Curle

    March 1, 2020 at 1:29 AM

    • You’ve got it backwards. Yankees hate southerners. Pundits, who tend to be yankees, overlook yankee bigotry against southerners because they share it. But a lot of southerners don’t overlook it. And people don’t like people who don’t like them. That’s why southerners love Trump. He may be from NYC but he’s not a yankee.

      destructure

      March 2, 2020 at 7:00 PM

  3. FiveThirtyEight gives 60% chance of contested convention. However, even if Sanders has only 45% of the delegates he is probably going win the convention, less so and the superdelegates are going to find someone else.

    תמריץ

    March 1, 2020 at 5:03 AM

    • Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight are worthless. Silver is like the Paul Krugman of statistics. No matter how many times he is wrong he will always be deemed relevant because he has been anointed by the liberal establishment. Take his predictions with a large grain of salt.

      B.T.D.T.

      March 1, 2020 at 3:24 PM

      • Prediction is hard. Is there anyone better than him?

        תמריץ

        March 1, 2020 at 3:29 PM

      • Sorry. with all due respect, i beg to differ. Nate Silver is good. I mean really really good.

        People unfortunately misunderstand “probability”. If someone says, the chances of x happening is 10% and then if it happens, they are all like “Nate you are worthless. you said it would never happen…blah blah”.

        just fyi, i remember in 2016, day before the election, lots of pundits/pollsters were putting Hillary’s chances at 95% – 99%. No really. Nate Silver had Trump’s winning chances day before the election (or the week) at 38% !! I still see people belittling him on his blog reminding him how he said “Trump would never win”. They don’t really “grasp” the concept of something with 38% chance of happening

        I played lot of texas hold em poker (both online and live, mostly live) over last decade. No point in bragging whether I won or lost (its the internet after all and anyone can say anything). I might brag (correctly or incorrectly) that I understand probability way better than average joe or likely better than most “educated folks with degrees” .

        I really like reading his articles, even if people claim he has a “liberal bias”.

        mpt

        March 1, 2020 at 10:42 PM

      • “just fyi, i remember in 2016, day before the election, lots of pundits/pollsters were putting Hillary’s chances at 95% – 99%. No really”.

        We know.

        The unspoken consensus running up to and after the election is that those were invented numbers designed to increase demoralization in Trump’s base.

        To the end effect of a statistically significant portion of his base sitting home on election day.

        A perspective that was founded on the observation that the media was prone to inventing anti-Trump narratives that were created seemingly for the same hopeful effect.

        It likely worked to some degree.

        Given the result and the unbalanced probability offered by the media that contrasted with the result of the election, Trump supporters continue to feel vindicated in their opinion that the polling and Trump’s win probability were deliberately falsified.

        Nate Silver is caught in that net, like it or not. Though, I would offer that it is deserved.

        Assuming that Silver wasn’t a knowing participant in fraud, which is not certain anymore than it is for the MSM in my opinion, a statistician worth his salt would catch data collection methodology flaws that would be the only plausible explanation for being so wrong about Trump’s election. Doing so is a core part of his job.

        Controlling for variables in the data is also Silver’s job, or otherwise pointing out data collection methodology weaknesses when he can’t control for variables post data-collection.

        In summary, Silver was responsible for evaluating the data and being much more accurate in regard to the election outcome prediction.

        “I played lot of texas hold em poker (both online and live, mostly live) over last decade. No point in bragging whether I won or lost (its the internet after all and anyone can say anything). I might brag (correctly or incorrectly) that I understand probability way better than average joe or likely better than most “educated folks with degrees” .

        Poker probabilities and election outcome probabilities are not the same math. Election outcome probabilities should not reflect as much random chance and should be much more predictable than four of a kind based on pre-election polling.

        That election outcomes should be much more predictable than poker hands is reflected in the media narrative of a 99% chance of a Hillary win, which should not have been a wrong prediction if fraud was absent and their data analysis was capable.

        A less convicted prediction (say 51/49) would have looked better after the election, but would have been strange given the ability to predict election outcomes with much greater accuracy given adequate data collection methodology.

        In summary, a 99% prediction is more in line with what is theoretically possible with adequate data collection.

        Poor data collection is possible in smaller races, but should not have been in 2016 given the attention and importance given to the election. Bad data should have been rooted out by better data because it would have looked inconsistent over time. Instead, fraud looks like what occurred (either in intentionally poor collection methodology or the intent to ignore it and the flaws in the data that resulted).

        A result that contradicts a high probability win prediction and supposedly good data also makes the prediction look fraudulent.

        A more evenly split prediction is more honest absent adequate data collection, but it is basically an admission of poor methodology.

        This higher level of predictability was not reflected in Siver’s 38% prediction, and he should have earlier pointed out data issues if he wasn’t trusting of it. No one did that, including Silver.

        Therefore, Silver gets thrown in the pot with the fallout from the fraudulent looking prediction by the MSM that could have effected voting turnout (making people angry at that potential effect).

        If the MSM was correct and Silver wrong, he likely wouldn’t have fared as poorly in the public eye. But since the MSM looked corrupt in their prediction, then anyone offering a decisive probability for the loser to win also looks corrupt.

        Again, election outcome probability and poker probability can’t be compared to the other. Election data isn’t shuffled and chosen at random, and stringent collection methods and variable control math can be applied toward what should be close to a 100% probability prediction. Both the MSM and Silver’s prediction were wrong in different but both strangely egregious ways. Nate’s didn’t state that his prediction was in light of weak data.

        Nate Silver is not good. Nate Silver has the equivalent job of a major network weatherman and predicted a huge winter storm that shut down the city but never came (you can use the inverse metaphor if it works better for you).

        His reputation is damaged forever as a result. Some weatherman who have similar results at some point often lose their jobs. (see John Bolaris for one). Its an issue of public trust for an event that had big stakes. Those are the social rules. Nate Silver can be wrong small, but this was big. Similarly, most MSM outlets have not recovered their reputations (which they do not seem to be concerned with).

        Micah

        March 2, 2020 at 5:32 PM

  4. This is proof that Democrats cannot win the 2020 election.

    The type of people that vote for Joe Biden will not vote for Bernie Sanders if Sanders wins the primary, and the type of people that vote for Bernie Sanders will not vote for Biden if Biden wins the primary.

    This is the catch-22 of the Democrat’s identity politics policy. Blacks will simply not vote for a non-black candidate. Since Obama, all the Democrats had to do is run a black candidate and then they could win the elections, but they insist on having their fringe coalitions “represented” with female or hispanic or gay candidates. Blacks will stay home.

    And the only reason why so many blacks voted for Biden is because he is a white man who will subordinate himself to blacks.

    map

    March 1, 2020 at 1:38 PM

    • This doesn’t even take into account how much of the white vote the Democrats have lost.

      map

      March 1, 2020 at 1:39 PM

  5. Biden has a reputation as a bumbling gaffe machine but that understates his strengths. I was just watching a town hall he did in South Carolina where he talked with a black pastor who’s wife was killed by the white supremacist church shooter in 2015. Biden was on top of his game. He has a gift to express emotion and seem like a human more than a politician.

    I think Biden would be a surprisingly strong competitor against Trump in the general. He could win back some of the rust belt for the Dems, especially Pennsylvania. But Sanders should win most of the states that don’t have huge black populations and his supporters will be furious if Biden (or any centrist) is the nominee. Dems being divided will help Trump.

    Jay Fink

    March 1, 2020 at 3:29 PM

    • Biden has always been the Democrat’s best shot at beating Trump.

      Lowe

      March 1, 2020 at 8:52 PM

    • Jay Fink,

      “I was just watching a town hall he did in South Carolina where he talked with a black pastor who’s wife was killed by the white supremacist church shooter in 2015. Biden was on top of his game. He has a gift to express emotion and seem like a human more than a politician.”

      This just means Joe Biden is a Boomer. In his mind, it’s always “lunch counters” and “fire hoses.” To Biden and Hillary, it’s always 1968.

      To Bloomberg, it’s always 1968 in Westchester.

      map

      March 2, 2020 at 8:25 PM

      • He’s actually a silent not a boomer but I get your point.

        Jay Fink

        March 3, 2020 at 12:12 AM

  6. You have to remember also that since his first win and the debates Bernie became much more known to the average white and hispanics and so did his crazy opinions about many subjects. Many people just realised that they are going to loose a lot if he comes into power.

    Hashed

    March 1, 2020 at 4:14 PM

  7. Buttsex was my dark horse, but I never bet on him. I’ve learned some Predictit lessons. I only bet against things that can’t happen. That guy was too much of an unknown. My current bets are Biden and Warren not to drop out before Super Tuesday, and Bloomberg not to win. So far I’ve only made money.

    I’ll probably cash out all three this week.

    MoreSigmasThanYou

    March 1, 2020 at 7:37 PM

  8. Yeah … that’s essentially was going to be my comment. I grew up in SC & GA and while I would have guessed that by now the only whites voting there in a Democrat primary are transplants, there’s a strong cultural aversion to know-it-all, lecturing, condescending Yankees in the south. And by yankee I really mean New England yankee, the sort of hectoring, moralistic busy body who is the intended audience of bumper stickers that read I Don’t Care How You Do It Up North. Sanders & (especially) Warren are likely toxic in the South. (I moved from GA to CT in high school so the cultural differences were stark & immediately noticeable.)

    Milestone D

    March 1, 2020 at 8:08 PM

    • And Bloomberg. Years ago I was shooting a match in North Carolina. Afterward, I heard the guy who owned the range casually talking with a friend about someone he was having difficulty with. The owner used the phrase “and he’s a Yankee”. He said it the same way you would say that someone was an “asshole”, except he used with a sense of scientifically factual certainty. Like saying “she’s a model”, instead of “she’s attractive” or “he’s a registered sex offender” instead of “he’s a creep”.

      Bloomberg is from NYC not Connecticut, but to someone from the South, I think that’s worse; like saying “he’s a level three sex offender” instead of just “he’s a sex offender”.

      MoreSigmasThanYou

      March 1, 2020 at 9:50 PM

      • Both Biden and Bloomberg recently attended services at a historic black church in Alabama. Biden was very well received while Bloomberg was not. A group of church goers turned their backs on Bloomberg to protest his visit. I think that’s funny. He can buy millions of dollars of advertising but he can’t buy love.

        Jay Fink

        March 2, 2020 at 5:24 AM

  9. Hillary Clinton “had been there before,” albeit in a semi-official capacity. There was no crisis à la covid-19, but the Trump candidacy was a severe threat to the nation.

    Anthony

    March 1, 2020 at 10:18 PM

  10. In before everyone here..

    Pete Booty IS OUT !!

    mpt

    March 1, 2020 at 10:45 PM

  11. .I’m sure all the news shows will say Bidens strong showing with blacks in South Carolina is critical to the Democratic party. I would say that it’s important, but any black person knows that blacks in the South are not the same as blacks in the MidWest, the West Coast, or the East Coast, they are much more conservative and religious on average. Most white talking heads on TV see blacks as a big black bloc [because they associate with no black people socially EVER outside the studio, at least not blacks who are socially and culturally just like them], and are always looking for something to “represent those blacks” but in reality those same white people don’t ever look for someone to represent all white people. They don’t attribute the same diversity to minorities as they do to themselves.

    It’s the same in Nevada, Bernie did better with blacks (getting 25%, Biden only getting 35%), and Bernie got the vast majority of Latinos, but those Latinos are mostly Mexican Americans, many service workers in unions. In Florida I am sure Bernie will do bad with Cuban Americans. There is no one Latino population either.

    Also keep in mind turnout, it was lower than Hillary vs Bernie in 2016 and Obama v Hillary in 2008. In fact every time it turnout of blacks dropped. So although Hillary got more of the black vote in 2016 than Obama got in 2008, less blacks showed up to vote, this year it was even worse.

    No one is excited about Biden, and if blacks don’t turn out in Detroit, Philly, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Tampa, Miami , etc. in LARGE NUMBERs, similar to 2008, uhm…Trump is going to get a second term.

    I don’t believe Bernie or Biden can do that.

    GrassMudHorse

    March 2, 2020 at 9:06 AM

    • Trump is now predicted to win a much larger share of the black vote than any past Republican in history. Trump does not put on any fakeness and “keeps it real”. Blacks I honestly think have more respect for authentic racists than for phony whites. (Not implying Trump is racist, I meant in general).

      Red pill aspie

      March 2, 2020 at 11:34 AM

      • Black people expect older white people to or have been openly racist in some fashion, until proven otherwise.

        I think most black people, especially older ones, this does not preclude them getting support. It is more about the nature of the racism, how long it was ago, and what they have done in that time.

        Lets put it another way, most black people I know, especially most people over 50, don’t expect white politicians to love them; they just want white politicians to do right by them. That is a very practical way to look at things – at least in 2020.

        It’s hard to speak for 40+ million people. Obviously everyone doesn’t agree. That is more people than the average European nation, and most of them have half a dozen political parties.

        GrassMudHorse

        March 2, 2020 at 1:30 PM

      • Not just blacks. Everyone has more respect for racists, or people they suppose may be racists.

        Respect is for people who warrant it, not people you like, necessarily. Not being a racist to some degree means a person is child-like. Can you imagine respecting a child?

        Lowe

        March 2, 2020 at 8:32 PM

      • Lowe: LOL That’s is not even close to what I said. Excepting a certain level of racism as unavoidable is not the same as respecting overt racists.

        GrassMudHorse

        March 3, 2020 at 11:13 AM

      • I wasn’t agreeing with what you said. I think you’re wrong, really.

        Nobody does a cost-benefit analysis when deciding to respect someone, or weighs up the right and wrong that person may have done.

        Respect is a gut level response closely related to fear. You don’t choose whom you respect.

        Lowe

        March 3, 2020 at 3:45 PM

    • Also it doesn’t really matter who blacks in the South like because those states are going to vote for Trump anyway. The fact that whites aren’t excited about Biden in states like Iowa and New Hampshire could be problematic for Democrats.

      Jay Fink

      March 3, 2020 at 12:15 AM

  12. This is so boring. Semi-senile morons running for president of the US. Look how much fun are Israeli elections in comparison. She was the Minister of Justice and the press called her a fascist.

    Ad by an anti-feminist party:

    Yakov

    March 2, 2020 at 11:42 PM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: