FL-Cherry Communications: Scott +3?

[Arkansas Yankee]

Something odd about the article.

The first paragraph say Scott leads by 3%.

The second paragraph says Scott leads 48% to 43%.  That is a 5% lead!

As far as I can tell the discrepancy is not explained.

[Arkansas Yankee]

Like this result or not, but Scott is, by any account, running a smart campaign.

lol...who wins an election is basically 95% national environment (barring some giant scandal). nobody in Florida cares about Rick Scott's ''smart campaign.'' Had Hillary won in 2016, Scott would of won without running a single ad or hosting a single campaign event

Jason Kander outperformed Hillary by 15 points, and it had nothing to do with the "national environment". Roy Blunt was not inundated with scandals, as well.

who cares...he still lost. I will grant you that Scott will come closer than anyone before him in defeating Nelson but what does it matter in the end when he still loses.

As you know, elections are not binary "win/lose" contests. People vote for candidates and each one receives a certain percentage of the vote. And although whether a candidate gets 51% or 70% they win, that difference is extremely important as it provides the basis for basically all political modeling, analysis, and punditry. Jason Kander shows he can outperform the democratic presidential candidate by 15 points in a horrid national environment for Democrats, even if he lost. Rick Scott, running in a much more evenly divided swing state, can similarly outperform what is likely to be a bad national environment for Republicans and beat the incumbent. It's logically incoherent to say "this candidate still lost while outperforming therefore any outperformance isn't enough to win".

Kander came close to winning because he looked better than Roy Blunt....not because he had better ideas or policy positions. Sure...a good candidate on paper will come closer than a totally terrible candidate but they still lose under an unfavorable nation environment. Look at Feingfold choking in WI in 2016 for proof.

Like this result or not, but Scott is, by any account, running a smart campaign.

lol...who wins an election is basically 95% national environment (barring some giant scandal). nobody in Florida cares about Rick Scott's ''smart campaign.'' Had Hillary won in 2016, Scott would of won without running a single ad or hosting a single campaign event

Clearly they do care if he's doing this well, you hack.

Scott isn't doing well at all when the poll is using 2014 demographics (the lowest turnout in midterm history since the 1940s) yet still within the margin of error.

No way I'm a hack here because I readily admit that Nelson would be BTFO under a Hillary presidency

There as no cross tabs.  The article does not set out the demographics of the sample. The article only says 1/2 the voters will vote. That would mean more voters than in 2014.  The article fails to provide the partisan break down of the voters.

[Arkansas Yankee]

So Scott will win if turnout is like 2014. Can't argue with that.

It did not say the electorate would be the same.

It said 1/2 the electorate turned out in 2014.  It said 1/2 would turn out in 2018.  It is my assumption that turnout will be greater.  Have not large numbers of Puerto Rican’s probably registered.  In 4 years new voters turning 18 will have been added.  Old white guys in my age group will have died. The 1/2 will be different.  The article has no crosstabs.  So we do not now in what ways the pollster determined it would be different.  All it said was 1/2 would vote.