PA: NYT / Siena: Fetterman (D) +6

[ListMan38]

I have my suspicions about NYTimes polls having a D tilt (Davids +14 comes to mind), but yeah I'd definitely call Fetterman the favorite.

[soundchaser]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

This, but unironically. Preferences exist for a reason.

[wbrocks67]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

The point remains that it's a tossup, but you don't think there is a difference of having Oz at 25-30% of the black vote compared to the typical # that Democratic candidates have gotten for the last 3 cycles? I mean come on now. You can't be that dense to wonder why those are not taken as seriously. Even Nate Cohn himself called the GOP poll flooding out in his article today.

[Calthrina950]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

The point remains that it's a tossup, but you don't think there is a difference of having Oz at 25-30% of the black vote compared to the typical # that Democratic candidates have gotten for the last 3 cycles? I mean come on now. You can't be that dense to wonder why those are not taken as seriously. Even Nate Cohn himself called the GOP poll flooding out in his article today.

"GOP poll flooding"? Why is it that we haven't had more "mainstream" pollsters polling these races in recent weeks? Why have they allowed for the field to be dominated by these Republican polls? The definition seems to be that any poll which shows Republicans leading in any of these competitive races, even by the slightest amount, is not credible and needs to be tossed into the trash. But any poll showing Democrats leading in these competitive races is immediately viewed as reliable, or as indicating that "something is up" for Republicans. Just look at Ohio, and how some people unironically think that Ryan has a better chance at winning than Oz does.

[ListMan38]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

The point remains that it's a tossup, but you don't think there is a difference of having Oz at 25-30% of the black vote compared to the typical # that Democratic candidates have gotten for the last 3 cycles? I mean come on now. You can't be that dense to wonder why those are not taken as seriously. Even Nate Cohn himself called the GOP poll flooding out in his article today.

"GOP poll flooding"? Why is it that we haven't had more "mainstream" pollsters polling these races in recent weeks? Why have they allowed for the field to be dominated by these Republican polls? The definition seems to be that any poll which shows Republicans leading in any of these competitive races, even by the slightest amount, is not credible and needs to be tossed into the trash. But any poll showing Democrats leading in these competitive races is immediately viewed as reliable, or as indicating that "something is up" for Republicans. Just look at Ohio, and how some people unironically think that Ryan has a better chance at winning than Oz does.

Unironically part of the problem as of late; "mainstream" polls got 2016 straight wrong, and overshot Dem wins of 2018 and Biden 2020.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

If you don't see a qualitative difference between NYT/Siena polls and the others you mentioned (one of which, Big Data, is highly questionable as to whether they're even a legitimate pollster), then I don't know what else to say to you.  But keep on beating your dead horse.

[Calthrina950]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

The point remains that it's a tossup, but you don't think there is a difference of having Oz at 25-30% of the black vote compared to the typical # that Democratic candidates have gotten for the last 3 cycles? I mean come on now. You can't be that dense to wonder why those are not taken as seriously. Even Nate Cohn himself called the GOP poll flooding out in his article today.

"GOP poll flooding"? Why is it that we haven't had more "mainstream" pollsters polling these races in recent weeks? Why have they allowed for the field to be dominated by these Republican polls? The definition seems to be that any poll which shows Republicans leading in any of these competitive races, even by the slightest amount, is not credible and needs to be tossed into the trash. But any poll showing Democrats leading in these competitive races is immediately viewed as reliable, or as indicating that "something is up" for Republicans. Just look at Ohio, and how some people unironically think that Ryan has a better chance at winning than Oz does.

Unironically part of the problem as of late; "mainstream" polls got 2016 straight wrong, and overshot Dem wins of 2018 and Biden 2020.

This is what I'm emphasizing. NYT/Siena, in particular, overestimated Biden in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania in 2020. And yet they are viewed as more reliable and more credible then all of the pollsters I listed above. We've gotten many bad polls this year, and many of them are going to be further discredited very soon.

[Orwell]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

The point remains that it's a tossup, but you don't think there is a difference of having Oz at 25-30% of the black vote compared to the typical # that Democratic candidates have gotten for the last 3 cycles? I mean come on now. You can't be that dense to wonder why those are not taken as seriously. Even Nate Cohn himself called the GOP poll flooding out in his article today.

"GOP poll flooding"? Why is it that we haven't had more "mainstream" pollsters polling these races in recent weeks? Why have they allowed for the field to be dominated by these Republican polls? The definition seems to be that any poll which shows Republicans leading in any of these competitive races, even by the slightest amount, is not credible and needs to be tossed into the trash. But any poll showing Democrats leading in these competitive races is immediately viewed as reliable, or as indicating that "something is up" for Republicans. Just look at Ohio, and how some people unironically think that Ryan has a better chance at winning than Oz does.

Unironically part of the problem as of late; "mainstream" polls got 2016 straight wrong, and overshot Dem wins of 2018 and Biden 2020.

This is what I'm emphasizing. NYT/Siena, in particular, overestimated Biden in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania in 2020. And yet they are viewed as more reliable and more credible then all of the pollsters I listed above. We've gotten many bad polls this year, and many of them are going to be further discredited very soon.

Oh don’t let GM see that if it isn’t from a “credible” source it’s podunk

[Person Man]

That’s hot.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

The point remains that it's a tossup, but you don't think there is a difference of having Oz at 25-30% of the black vote compared to the typical # that Democratic candidates have gotten for the last 3 cycles? I mean come on now. You can't be that dense to wonder why those are not taken as seriously. Even Nate Cohn himself called the GOP poll flooding out in his article today.

"GOP poll flooding"? Why is it that we haven't had more "mainstream" pollsters polling these races in recent weeks? Why have they allowed for the field to be dominated by these Republican polls? The definition seems to be that any poll which shows Republicans leading in any of these competitive races, even by the slightest amount, is not credible and needs to be tossed into the trash. But any poll showing Democrats leading in these competitive races is immediately viewed as reliable, or as indicating that "something is up" for Republicans. Just look at Ohio, and how some people unironically think that Ryan has a better chance at winning than Oz does.

Unironically part of the problem as of late; "mainstream" polls got 2016 straight wrong, and overshot Dem wins of 2018 and Biden 2020.

This is what I'm emphasizing. NYT/Siena, in particular, overestimated Biden in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania in 2020. And yet they are viewed as more reliable and more credible then all of the pollsters I listed above. We've gotten many bad polls this year, and many of them are going to be further discredited very soon.

The last sentence is unquestionably true given the wide variance we've seen in poll results this year. 

[wbrocks67]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

The point remains that it's a tossup, but you don't think there is a difference of having Oz at 25-30% of the black vote compared to the typical # that Democratic candidates have gotten for the last 3 cycles? I mean come on now. You can't be that dense to wonder why those are not taken as seriously. Even Nate Cohn himself called the GOP poll flooding out in his article today.

"GOP poll flooding"? Why is it that we haven't had more "mainstream" pollsters polling these races in recent weeks? Why have they allowed for the field to be dominated by these Republican polls? The definition seems to be that any poll which shows Republicans leading in any of these competitive races, even by the slightest amount, is not credible and needs to be tossed into the trash. But any poll showing Democrats leading in these competitive races is immediately viewed as reliable, or as indicating that "something is up" for Republicans. Just look at Ohio, and how some people unironically think that Ryan has a better chance at winning than Oz does.

Well it's pretty clear that most 'Mainstream' pollsters are also waiting till the end to do their final polls. They can't afford to do a new poll every week like Trafalgar, IA, etc. And you have to wonder what type of quality you're getting with stuff like that.

[Calthrina950]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

If you don't see a qualitative difference between NYT/Siena polls and the others you mentioned (one of which, Big Data, is highly questionable as to whether they're even a legitimate pollster), then I don't know what else to say to you.  But keep on beating your dead horse.

The problem is not so much that NYT/Siena isn't "credible", but it's that they are more highly regarded than other pollsters, despite not being as accurate as they.

[soundchaser]

Unironically part of the problem as of late; "mainstream" polls got 2016 straight wrong, and overshot Dem wins of 2018 and Biden 2020.

This is what I'm emphasizing. NYT/Siena, in particular, overestimated Biden in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania in 2020. And yet they are viewed as more reliable and more credible then all of the pollsters I listed above. We've gotten many bad polls this year, and many of them are going to be further discredited very soon.

They underestimated House Dems pretty much across the board in 2018. (What a fun project this was, though.) The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

39% of those polled had a bachelor's degree or higher compared to the 34% that have a bachelor's degree or higher according to Statista. Interesting...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/306994/educational-attainment-pennsylvania/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20about%2020.6%20percent,their%20highest%20level%20of%20education.

39% of 2018 voters in PA were college grads according to exit polls, so this seems exactlg right.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Caltrina thinks that Shapiro isn't gonna carry Fetterman over the finish line and he is leading by 10 Mastriano is gonna drag OZ and ah yes CO EFFICIENT that had Oz ahead had Zeldin leading HOCHUL

[MRS DONNA SHALALA]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

If you don't see a qualitative difference between NYT/Siena polls and the others you mentioned (one of which, Big Data, is highly questionable as to whether they're even a legitimate pollster), then I don't know what else to say to you.  But keep on beating your dead horse.

The problem is not so much that NYT/Siena isn't "credible", but it's that they are more highly regarded than other pollsters, despite not being as accurate as they.

co/efficient had the KS anti-abortion referendum winning by 4 points (it lost by 20).

[Sir Mohamed]

Provides me some relief at a critical time. That said, I'm very sure this a 2-3 pts. race in either direction, with Fetterman as slight favorite. The 50% figure is believeable, the 6 pt. margin is doubtful.

[Calthrina950]

Unironically part of the problem as of late; "mainstream" polls got 2016 straight wrong, and overshot Dem wins of 2018 and Biden 2020.

This is what I'm emphasizing. NYT/Siena, in particular, overestimated Biden in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania in 2020. And yet they are viewed as more reliable and more credible then all of the pollsters I listed above. We've gotten many bad polls this year, and many of them are going to be further discredited very soon.

They underestimated House Dems pretty much across the board in 2018. (What a fun project this was, though.) The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

This actually bolsters the case I make, that NYT/Siena is not inherently more credible than the GOP pollsters who have been decried. No pollster is perfect, and it is best to average them all, and to understand that the only poll which matters is on Election Day.

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

If you don't see a qualitative difference between NYT/Siena polls and the others you mentioned (one of which, Big Data, is highly questionable as to whether they're even a legitimate pollster), then I don't know what else to say to you.  But keep on beating your dead horse.

The problem is not so much that NYT/Siena isn't "credible", but it's that they are more highly regarded than other pollsters, despite not being as accurate as they.

co/efficient had the KS anti-abortion referendum winning by 4 points (it lost by 20).

This relates to my point above. I'm not trying to suggest that the GOP pollsters are the "most accurate", or the "most credible". I'm saying that they are being dismissed far more readily than their Democratic counterparts, many of which have been equally erroneous in the past.

[wbrocks67]

I do find it interesting that 3/4 of the nonpartisan pollsters in this race recently found a Fetterman +5/6 lead. CBS/YouGov being the outlier, at Fetterman +2, which is likely closer to reality. (I'm thinking Fett +2-3 when all is said and done right now)

[MRS DONNA SHALALA]

This relates to my point above. I'm not trying to suggest that the GOP pollsters are the "most accurate", or the "most credible". I'm saying that they are being dismissed far more readily than their Democratic counterparts, many of which have been equally erroneous in the past.

...is this a gaslighting? am i being gaslit? is there a light (powered, of course, by gas) shining upon my face? Because you literally said two posts ago that co/effecient (and the other three GOP pollsters) was more accurate than NYT/Siena. You can say what you will about NYT/Siena having a slight pro-Dem bias (and I would agree with you!), but I don't think they've ever had a 24-point polling miss.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Here, we have a mainstream pollster, and as I expected, this one is seen as credible and as reflecting the actual state of the race, while the other four pollsters (Big Data, Wick, Insider Advantage, Co/efficient) that showed an Oz lead since the debate are immediately discarded. Pennsylvania clearly remains a Tossup, but poll preferences remain.

NYT was never going to show an Oz lead.

[soundchaser]

This actually bolsters the case I make, that NYT/Siena is not inherently more credible than the GOP pollsters who have been decried. No pollster is perfect, and it is best to average them all, and to understand that the only poll which matters is on Election Day.

Great! So looks like Fetterman will be winning by around 4 points, then. Happy we agree.

[Calthrina950]

This relates to my point above. I'm not trying to suggest that the GOP pollsters are the "most accurate", or the "most credible". I'm saying that they are being dismissed far more readily than their Democratic counterparts, many of which have been equally erroneous in the past.

...is this a gaslighting? am i being gaslit? is there a light (powered, of course, by gas) shining upon my face? Because you literally said two posts ago that co/effecient (and the other three GOP pollsters) was more accurate than NYT/Siena. You can say what you will about NYT/Siena having a slight pro-Dem bias (and I would agree with you!), but I don't think they've ever had a 24-point polling miss.

I said that NYT/Siena has been less accurate than many of these other pollsters, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those pollsters are the "gold standard" either. Emerson and Trafalgar, for example, both have had polling misses. And all three pollsters possess an "A" rating from 538.

[Calthrina950]

This actually bolsters the case I make, that NYT/Siena is not inherently more credible than the GOP pollsters who have been decried. No pollster is perfect, and it is best to average them all, and to understand that the only poll which matters is on Election Day.

Great! So looks like Fetterman will be winning by around 4 points, then. Happy we agree.

We don't agree about that. I actually think Oz is going to win now, although I believed for months that Fetterman would. And he sill can, given that the early vote in Pennsylvania looks unambiguously good for Democrats.

[soundchaser]

This actually bolsters the case I make, that NYT/Siena is not inherently more credible than the GOP pollsters who have been decried. No pollster is perfect, and it is best to average them all, and to understand that the only poll which matters is on Election Day.

Great! So looks like Fetterman will be winning by around 4 points, then. Happy we agree.

We don't agree about that. I actually think Oz is going to win now, although I believed for months that Fetterman would. And he sill can, given that the early vote in Pennsylvania looks unambiguously good for Democrats.

"It's best to average them all" (and then completely ignore the average to fit my priors instead)