lol

Let's ALL celebrate Joe being back on top with a... 0.2% lead!



See the current RCP POLLS trend:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Seriously though, we are suppose to think a swing of a fraction of a percent is significant?

Hey, any port in a storm, eh? Will we be celebrating every time this goes back and forth by fractions over the next week or so?



Meanwile, Warren's surge to close to a dead heat and become a co-frontrunner is the real story, isn't it?

I guess that's not worth discussing?

I mean, just look at what's happened over the last 6 weeks:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Warren has become a co-frontrunner!

if RCP hadn't padded her numbers.

It got her a lot of free publicity.

THAT would certainly have been splashed all over the news regardless.

Any reasonable person would look at the trend and say "wow, Warren has really caught up with Biden and is a co-frontrunner now"

Anyone can see this for themselves at RCP POLLS:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html



And, have you forgotten that RCP POLLS uses the REGISTERED voter results and not the likely voter results in its numbers?
This was pointed out to both you and me when we raised this issue in the past. Did you take this into account in your OP? I think perhaps not.

You corrected and edited your OP, but you seem to have overlooked this post.

Warren was ahead in the latest poll btw, it's just that Biden "closed the gap" by enough to increase his RCP average by a fraction.

Quibbling over fractions of a percentage point while ignoring Warren's surge into co-frontrunner status is not a good look.

or whether the pollster published several results for different voter groups (likely voters, registered etc.). But the OP has nothing to do with unskewing polls. It's about questioning why an outlet repeatedly uses different poll results than other outlets or what the pollster seemed to have published.

would never have been the frontrunner in their polling average.

Their mistake, if it was just a mistake, gave her lots of free favorable publicity.

Because that's where RCP has been using its numbers from the YouGov polls.

The entire OP is moot.

We all make mistakes, but the entire premise of your OP is mistaken.

Honestly, the OP loses it's punch without the accusation that RCP padded Warren's numbers since its now only about Joe regaining the lead by A FRACTION OF A PERCENT.

Again, that seems to be a small thing to grasp onto since Biden has lost his commanding lead and now is virtually tied with Warren.



But hey, thanks for the discussion.

You have corrected your mistake in the OP, but this post is still making an incorrect claim.

data that showed Warren with such a slight lead she was considered in a virtual tie with Biden. Call it leading by half a nose, a co-frontrunner, or tied with Biden, RCP data was flawed. Corrected to show an accurate reading of the YouGuv poll, Warren does not lead.

Please re-read the OP. Nothing has been skewed to get to the accurate RCP number.

Not the likely voter results in the polls it posts.

Another DU-er pointed this out to me and the OP author in the past when we both questioned the RCP numbers.

A poll's results for registered voters can be slightly different than the results that include likely voters.

So, the entire premise of the OP is flawed and simply mistaken.

polls in Morning Consult and especially HarrisX.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSi5aaWoVmwcb6Ct9z_7-AuP5I1UTQV-yXF-7U0sramBKveq00DQXw2EbgzL2Tpn9nAj5Lwrawn795d/pubhtml/sheet?headers=false&gid=0




If anything truly thinks Biden has a 19 point lead over the field (HarrisX's spread) well then,

I have a bridge for sale:

For the record, they only use the Harris polls that are "partnered" with the Wall Street Journal or Harvard.

Those come out about once a month or so.

Harvard-Harris is no prize either, it is run by the Rump apologist Mark Penn and also is an outlier, just not as bad as HarrisX and Morning Consult

https://theharrispoll.com/our-firm/#leadership-sec

HarrisX is run by the RW pollster Scott Rasmussen (he sold off the shitty, RW loaded Rasmussen Reports poll years ago, and now his HarrisX poll is showing Rump with even higher approval ratings than Rasmussen Reports, lol)

https://blog.harrisx.com/blog/2018/08/harrisx-partners-with-veteran-pollster-scott-rasmussen-on-new-daily-poll-tracking-american-political-sentiment

Thanks for pointing that out and clearing up my confusion.

At least the daily HarrisX polls are not included every week, The Hill/HarrisX poll comes out less often.

I do believe Biden still has a massive lead in the southern states and with my fellow POC, but that can all change (ask Hillary 2008) with a huge showing by his opponents in IA, NH, and NV, coupled with poor showings by Biden in those 3 states.

Biden needs to get in front of this Ukraine RW claptrap and with a quickness. I still think that a Biden/Abrams ticket is the surest shot (followed by a Biden/Harris ticket) to defeat the monster Rump in general, but he needs to dig deep and show that he is fully the dominant player, a player who can overcome the Rumpian squad's hit jobs.

I am having a hella hard time selling this within my age-cohort/social set in real life. I am 23 and most of my social set is 18 to 30ish. The front runners with them are Warren, Pete, and Harris, in that order. Almost all the Bernie people from 2016 (I was O'Malley, so there is that, lolololol, I did not even get to vote for him as he dropped out before the California primary) are either in the Warren camp or for my choice, Pete. It is mostly my California mates who are for Harris. She has trailed off (with them) NOT because of the Biden argy bargy, but because so many are unsure of what she truly stands for. She made a large mistake, IMHO, by trying to veer into the far left lane dominated by Bernie and Warren. She should have went in a direction similar to Buttigieg or even more towards Biden's stances, but with a fresher perspective and facing up.

unedited version.

I'd thought RCP was using incorrect #s, something there had been earlier DU discussions about.

I hadn't seen a subthread in one DU discussion later that brought up RCP using the registered voters #, which is a couple of tables below the top #s.

So I've edited my OP to focus on what had been the main point anyway, that Biden has retaken the lead in the RCP average.

There was a LOT of media coverage of Warren having taken the lead when she was .2 points ahead of Biden.

We'll see if the same outlets and reporters give any coverage to Biden having retaken the lead.

That's the real story about the state of the primary race, not if the lead changes back and forth by small percentages or, as in this case, a mere fraction of a percent.

I mean, just look at the RCP Polls Tracker chart... it's a stunning development.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Thank you, highplainsdem

Link to tweet

They tied for the lead.

Why do you care if someone wants to "crow."

The reality is what it is, it's currently tied.