since it encourages us all to get to know more about the candidates. I salute you. And I am going to go look up Inslee.

Back. Ok, Inslee's best points are that he is this elections Al Gore since his signature issue is No Climate Change and he has executive experience. And seems very positive as a time when the country craves positivity. The oil and fossil fuel industries are going to hate him, which is another plus in my book but may make it hard for him to get MSM coverage, the NeoCons having tremendous clout with the press.

He could be a good voice for No Climate Change in a campaign that is going to focus hard on health care and equality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/us/jay-inslee-2020.htm

and hope he does well. A governor's ultra-valuable experience coupled with long experience and commitment to climate, environment, energy, ag, and water issues. At very least, we NEED him on the debate stage and he will hopefully become nationally known as a leader on these issues.

I didn't see it, but hubby was very impressed, as were other DUers that day. He sets his agenda squarely on climate change, but most people who have heard him are very impressed with his ability to show how that focus would address all of our societal problems. I have yet to hear him myself.

Since I think it is THE issue of our generation, I'm with him. I also find him dynamic and passionate, but not to the same degree as O'Rourke. Second smartest candidate, runner up to Warren.

Read this: https://www.democraticunderground.com/128714877

as ONE person changing their "preference".

That isn't a slam on Inslee, mind you. Just that these percentages are really meaningless.

Everyone has to make a selection to post there. For the 1% to be one person, the total would have to be 100 (ignoring rounding, of course.)

I don't think the percentages are meaningless, personally. I think they're pretty interesting. After 2016, I would have expected Warren to have a much larger share as much as DUers talked about her.

It is (unfortunately) why statistics are so abused to manipulate people in this country.

As a fun thing to look at, fine, but surely don't take it as anything other than that.

It's a preference poll. Preference polls report percentages and rarely report real numbers on the individual candidates outside of the 200-page polling documents.

Is a presidential poll from a reputable polling agency that shows only percentages meaningless? Nope.

Go to RCP and see how long it takes you to find individual candidate numbers for any poll. Then, see how long it takes you to find the overall percentages. How many people do you suppose do the former? Roughly zero.

I'm sure there's also a reason why DU chose not to supply the real numbers after the mayhem of the 2016 primaries here. It's probably the same reason the jury system was changed.

or if there were 1000 posters in the forum and the % increased from 3% to 4%, that would still only reflect 10 people changing.

If you want to hang your hat on a significant change in attitudes from a change of mind from as few as 1 person to as many as 10, so be it.

BTW, I have repeatedly asked admins to add the total N for those expressing a preference to make this more meaningful for us all.. Thus far, they have elected not to do so, for whatever reason.

Mea culpa - I misread your post. My apologies.

Could it be one person? Sure. Is that even remotely likely, considering the number of people posting in the forum? Not at all.

And we "hang our hats" on changes in percentages in polls all the time.

Going from 3% to 4% there is a one person change that will show this since it is rounded to the whole number. On the other side of the rounding, as many as 1.5% - 1 could have been added and still only show a 1% gain.

So, a 1% gain is somewhere between 1 and 1.5%-1.
Similarly a 2% gain is somewhere between 1%+1 and 2.5%-1.

When someone goes up or down by only a single percentage point, it's highly likely that it's on low end of that first range.

In the other poster's example, rounding would be nearly irrelevant.

1.4% of 100 is 1, rounded.
0.6% of 100 is 1, rounded.

The point was that we know for certain that the number of people voting for Inslee is more than 1 because of the requirements of the Primaries forum. The only way the result could be 1, even including rounding, is if the number of people posting in the forum is between 50 and 149. We know there are more than that.

That is not true. And that's what I was explaining.

If there are 10,000 people who have selected ....
Say your candidate has 349 votes ... that's 3% since 3.49 rounds down.
If only 1 is added it's 350 votes ... that's 4% since 3.5 rounds up.

There is way more than 100 people voting ... and yet only 1 changes the percentage. That's going to be true no matter how large the sample size (over 100) and no matter what percentage your candidate is at, when you're rounding to a full percentage point. There will always be a count where adding one will change the percentage by a full point.

I've got great swamp land to sell you.

The fact is that without the total N we can not know what this reflects. That is basic statistic s 101.

That's just basic math and rounding. It has nothing to do with statistics. But hey, you pretend that the 1% means more than it probably does ... it's clearly what you want.

And you're wrong that the total number N is required to know what the change is. It's how close the person is to the rounding number, not the total number in itself.

And the 10,000 was used to simplify the math. Not that I thought there were that many.

you would know that.

If you can't understand that, maybe you're right about that educational system.

Anyway, the person I was originally having the conversation with, we're on the same page now. If you can't get it, I really couldn't care less.

Buh-bye.

I was focusing on the 1% Inslee has total and misread the OP to mean he only had the support of one person.

Could it be one person causing a change in %? Mathematically, sure. Is it likely considering the level of activity in the forum? No.

No worries, we're all good.

Could it be one ... yes.
Is it likely one ... no.
But it's probably really not a very large number either, not from 1 day to the next.

Or positive coverage like Rachel

My two top issues are 1) climate change and 2) taking on the oligarchy to permit us to address climate change. So I want a climate warrior and someone feared/hated by the rich/corporations/Wall St. So far that means Inslee, Warren and Bernie, or a combination.

Executive experience
Successful as governor
Has legislative experience as well
Right Age
Right Temperament - Not a ranter
Nice Looking - sadly that counts as well
Right on other issues as well
"Likable"
Speaks in complete sentences using FACTS

go to the airport to support the people affected by the Muslim ban?
The thing about him is that you can always see where he stands. When he was a US congressman, he stood on principle on certain issues, and explained why.
I really like how he communicates.

He has been a great governor for Washington State and I would like to see that same thinking of what is the best for America and Americans

Still undecided, but leaning Inslee.

Inslee might have been near the mark where the system rounds things up, and perhaps some changes to his totals, as well of those of other candidates, finally pushed him over the edge.

He has far too little name recognition at this point to even hit 5%. Hell, I lived in WA state 12 years ago, for the previous 37, and before his announcement, I couldn't have picked him out of a lineup.

Hes good on my issues.
He may not get the nomination
But climate change, environment
The ocean and 6th extinction are my concerns
And i want someone out front discussing
Them now, today.

We have an abundance of riches with many great candidates.

far he's the one that impressed me the most. Down to earth, very knowledgeable but not afraid to say I don't know right now but I'll find out if it ever came to that. He's my guy so far.

I was posting in 2017 that I wanted him to run for president.

Last year he signed a bill concerning surrogacy which I believe is absolutely horrible. As of now it has cost him my vote.

Inslee is not my top pick but would be third behind Beto and Klobuchar. He's now very close to Klobuchar on my list.

Governor above senator. Calm and reasonable above barker. Charisma above others who would plunge in likability. I don't think this is overly complicated.

as a one issue candidate, though, and I'm not so sure about that. The issue, climate change, is probably the most important thing in our future, but can it win an election against P.T. Barnum? Still watching.

We don't have to wonder why he is running. If he wins, he has a clear mandate.

And it may help him deflect petty attacks. The media always chases those shiny toys. He can respond with something like, "When your house is burning down, do you ask the firefighters about their emails?"

I counted something like four or five.

Every candidate is going to have a top issue, name one that does not. Do you say that they are single issue?

I lived there 16 years and watched him take strong positions on the things that mattered, like the invasion and occupation of Iraq after 911 being wrong on every level. He's a skilled administrator and vocal progressive. I have always hoped he'd run for president and was thrilled when he announced.