MA-Emerson College/WGBH: Baker+6

[Tender Branson]

45-39 Baker/Coakley

http://wgbhnews.org/post/emersonwgbh-poll-charlie-baker-6-points-over-martha-coakley

[KCDem]

LOL

[Roemerista]

"John Chapman has a 5-point lead over incumbent Democrat Bill Keating."

err, what?

[Zanas]

LOL

Go away, shoo!



Seriously, this poll, which seems to have something like a 4 pt margin of error, means that there is a 95% chance that Baker's score falls between 41 and 49, and a 95% chance that Coakley's score falls between 35 and 43.

The race is probably somewhere like Baker 43, Coakley 42 at this point. So I'm not saying this poll is any good, but it is in the range of this supposed reality, just as the other poll showing Coakley at 41-39, with a 4.4 margin of error, which means Coakley with 95% between 36.6 and 45.4 and Baker with 95% between 34.6 and 43.4.

Don't forget margins of error when reacting to polls. Variations in one poll often mean very little. One poll that seems to be an outlier could still very well be in the range of probability.

The appreciation you make about the state of the race stays entirely yours, of course, but not the reality of what the poll actually says, according to the mathematical rules of statistics and probability.

[Free Bird]

Will the real poll stand up?

[New_Conservative]

Must be a GOP-biased poll if it shows Baker in the lead.

[Flake]

Must be a GOP-biased poll if it shows Baker in the lead by such a large margin.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Must be a GOP-biased poll if it shows Baker in the lead.

Polls in non-"red states" (I guess places like AR, KY and WV are no longer purple because Presidential politics in the Obama era are all that matter?) that show Republicans are leading are considered jokes.

[GaussLaw]

Must be a GOP-biased poll if it shows Baker in the lead.

Polls in non-"red states" (I guess places like AR, KY and WV are no longer purple because Presidential politics in the Obama era are all that matter?) that show Republicans are leading are considered jokes.

Indeed, Atlas seems much more objective with polls in Appalachia/Ozarks than anywhere else.  I suspect some of the Dems have a hint of disdain for people in these areas and don't want to be associated with them politically, "those brain-dead, creationist, Bible-thumping rednecks."  In fact, if anything, Atlas is probably a little bit biased in favor of the GOP in those areas.

[I'm a John Fetterman (or Malcolm Kenyatta) Democrat]

What is it with these garbage polls today?

[Eraserhead]

LOL

Go away, shoo!



Seriously, this poll, which seems to have something like a 4 pt margin of error, means that there is a 95% chance that Baker's score falls between 41 and 49, and a 95% chance that Coakley's score falls between 35 and 43.

The race is probably somewhere like Baker 43, Coakley 42 at this point. So I'm not saying this poll is any good, but it is in the range of this supposed reality, just as the other poll showing Coakley at 41-39, with a 4.4 margin of error, which means Coakley with 95% between 36.6 and 45.4 and Baker with 95% between 34.6 and 43.4.

Don't forget margins of error when reacting to polls. Variations in one poll often mean very little. One poll that seems to be an outlier could still very well be in the range of probability.

The appreciation you make about the state of the race stays entirely yours, of course, but not the reality of what the poll actually says, according to the mathematical rules of statistics and probability.

Mmk.

[ElectionAtlas]

New Poll: Massachusetts Governor by Emerson College on 2014-10-07

Summary: D: 39%, R: 45%, I: 7%, U: 8%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[New_Conservative]

I was only half-kidding, about the biased part. This poll is clearly an outlier compared to the other polls, no way does he have a 6 point led, even though I wish it was true.