Yes, it is. And in polling that's exactly what it means, because there's no inherent difference between a survey that says McConnell +3 and the same survey that says Grimes +3. The same is true if the leads are smaller, and can even be true if the leads are +4 or +5 if the margin of error is large enough.

The problem again comes down to the fact that you fundamentally do not understand the subject matter that you're attempting to comment on. And not only are you incorrect on very complex matters (which is understandable), you are incorrect on basic, elementary matters.



Yes. Your problem is that you're trying to use the standard definition of equal and apply it to a field where equal means something different. A McConnell +1 and Grimes +2 survey are equal. A McConnell +2 and a Grimes +0 survey are equal. Every single thing that falls inside the margin of error is equal for all intents and purposes, until you begin to break out the heart of the data and start evaluating how accurate or inaccurate it is based upon prevailing methodological practices and historical accuracy.



The quote is entirely consistent with the characterization offered earlier: that both parties are equally likely to win or lose. When that is the state of the race, both parties are equally likely to lead or trail by narrow margins in individual polling samples. That's just how polling works. It's a little amusing why you have such difficultly understanding what is otherwise an incredibly simple concept.



Stop embarrassing yourself, it's painful to watch.

This post was edited by Pollster on Aug 12 2014 04:27pm

How about a McConnell +4-5% with a smaller margin of error?
Does that mean its equal? no?

didn't think so.

Saying I "dont understand" is not going to cut it, sorry.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 12 2014 04:43pm

August 7th 2014

So its a "FACT" that McConnell is losing, and its ok for you to say it?

But when hes UP in a poll by a larger margin than the margin of error, I am not allowed to recognize that as a small lead?

What a joke.



This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 12 2014 04:41pm

Yes, it was a fact that he's narrowly losing. That can (and was) demonstrated by what's occurring in the race. He may yet still be, but his deficit is almost certainly smaller than it was previously because assuming PPP's Likely Voter screen isn't incredibly inaccurate McConnell made a small gain from the previous PPP survey of registered voters to what this survey would likely show if it, too, included the same voters.

You're free to say that McConnell led in one, singular poll by an amount greater than that individual poll's margin of error, but it would be reckless to do so and it would obviously not amount to a characterization that McConnell is leading in polling in totality, and it would OBVIOUSLY not amount to a characterization that he is in effect leading in the race. The vast majority of the polls that he has shown to be leading in have been from GOP shills or firms that otherwise have a stable house effect that benefits the GOP, and the vast majority of his leads have still been within the margin of error. Things as they stand currently point to a deadlocked tie. Using even a conservative poll-adjustment methodology would turn his leads of +1 or +2 in firms with an average error higher than that towards the GOP makes said leads entirely disappear and even turn into deficits.

You seem to be conflating or confusing a lead in polling for a lead in the race. Leading in polling does not mean that you're leading in the race, especially if the polling is untrustworthy or bad. Republicans led in 2012 polling right up until Election Day and they got absolutely smashed in the races. They led (narrowly) in the GCB and let got fewer votes than Democrats and they lost seats. They led in polls in battleground states (including in the aggregate in Florida) and they lost them. They led in polling of individual House races and they lost many of them. They led in polls in Senate races and lost them. When I said that the race was in effect tied, with the GOP being as equally likely to lose as it was to win, I was not strictly basing that determination on polling, especially on polling that is as untrustworthy as this current crop. The other important factors -- fundraising, candidate quality, infrastructure, advertising, the GCB, party favorability, Obama job approval, outside support, and more -- all play an important role in determining who leads and who ultimately wins races. The Democrats have a solid lean in most of those areas, and that in addition to the polling points to pure tossups in both Kentucky and Georgia.

You cant be serious.

P.S. I haven't forgotten your charades from last year regarding Obama's approval rating.
Are you prepared to admit they dropped yet?

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 12 2014 04:57pm

McConnell has the overwhelming intrinsic advantage considering the time and place of what is a midterm election.

This is the default view among those qualified to express an opinion.

He may yet lose, but it would be a huge upset to the GOP.

This is both silly and factually inaccurate. McConnell does benefit from the fact that this is a midterm election (though in Kentucky's case he might actually prefer a presidential year because his opponent would then have to create split-ticket voters) and in the second presidential term of the opposing party's presidency, however it does not generate an overwhelming advantage. That characterization is absolutely laughable under the circumstances. The pie is already fully baked on the static fundamentals that the election is this year in Kentucky, but the dynamic fundamentals clearly show that McConnell is no better than a coin-flip to win.

If the dynamic fundamentals come to fruition, that the majority of voters are tired of McConnell and they don't give a shit how unpopular Obama is or whether or not the Republicans get to 51 or 52 seats in the Senate, then he'll lose the race regardless of it being a midterm in Kentucky. Before the GOP primary concluded McConnell was being polled as having a lower favorability rating than Obama himself in the state. The race would have to break wide open between now and Election Day, and to the benefit of McConnell, for your characterization to be correct. There has been little to no movement in either direction since Grimes became a declared candidate and almost every single development since that time has been to her benefit, not his.

The only real advantage that those static fundamentals have produced is a perception advantage for McConnell -- that a Republican can't possibly lose statewide in Kentucky in the 6th year of a Democratic presidency with Obama at 40% job approval -- but the current fundamentals leave no doubt that he can and he's no better than even-money.



Uh yes, because that's what the data shows. Nothing that was said at the outset has changed -- McConnell is at best in a statistical tie and at worst trails narrowly.



I'm not really sure what your inability to assess the polling data re: Obama's job approval last year really has to do with anything. His job approval is obviously lower than it was at the time (which was probably April-June 2013), though it is higher than in November/December/January and similar to August and September 2011.

This post was edited by Pollster on Aug 12 2014 05:15pm

My 50fg vs your 45fg
My McConnell vs your Grimes


lmk

Willing to do more if you can scrounge up some fg.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 12 2014 05:18pm

It's not my forum gold, but I would take that bet easily were this late October and not an eternity away from Election Day.
I would especially take bets at the ridiculously-moronic current predictions from some pundits that McConnell is 80% or even 95% likely to be reelected since that's not even remotely accurate based on current information.

This post was edited by Pollster on Aug 12 2014 05:22pm

I'd love to do some fg bets.

What odds would you give me for a Republican controlled Senate?

Also, taking 50/50 odds on McConnell is incredibly stupid. He's most likely going to win unless some serious shit goes down.

This post was edited by thundercock on Aug 12 2014 08:01pm