• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    EDIT: I am wrong about the sample size. Yes, the sample is a little small, but not too far off. They’re registered voters rather than likely voters, which is not quite as good, but, again, no terrible.

    The poll surveyed 892 registered voters and has a margin of error of 3.2%.

    As FiveThirtyEight would say, that’s a bad use of polling. That’s a very small sample size, and there’s no indication that it’s representative in any meaningful way.

    Even more important, Obama has said she has no interest in being the president; she’s not willing to run.

    • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It is most certainly not a small sample size. It’s what allows for a margin of error of ±3.5%* at the 95% confidence level. Here’s a graph of the margin of error vs sample size for 95% confidence interval.

      With an 11 point margin, there’s a clear separation of the upper limit bar for Trump and lower limit bar for Obama. For a single poll, assuming the rest of it was well designed and executed, this is an important spread. And the reasons are obvious if you look at the report. She’s able to get 10% more Democratic support and 20% more independent voter support.

      Ipsos is a high quality polling company. They don’t make rookie mistakes like sample size. There may be other reasons beyond my reasoning that make this a bad use of polling, but sample size is not it.

      * The source incorrectly reported the margin of error for the full survey, both registered and unregistered participants.

      • dezmd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        A fancy guess is still a guess.

        892 out of 160,000,000+ is a small sample size.

          • dezmd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Yes, and I appreciate the scientific method, but applying it with statistics such a singular market research sampling can be dubious because it requires assumptions that aren’t actually validated.

            The more you learn, the more you realize we all have blindspots all overr the place. This result of the provided sample size statistics cannot be proven without iterations, which have not been done.

            The politics of it are chess, while the statistics are just playing tic tac toe while discarding considerations of nuance with a wave of ‘but science’ hand.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            There are multiple ways. Statistical significance is largely used to determine whether a sample size is representative but it’s flawed on its own for some sample sizes as small effects can get exaggerated the larger the sample gets. Look up the methods for determining effect sizes and confidence intervals to determine the best route to go to see what minimum sample size is necessary to both have high confidence in the accuracy of the hypothesis and to ensure that the results have enough statistical power to detect the effect in question.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It looks like most Ipsos polls are a little over 1000, and most of them seem to use likely voters rather than registered voters.

        I have edited my comment to reflect that I’m wrong.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Anyone that doesn’t want to be President should automatically win. If you want it, you should be locked in a cold, dark room until the election is over. And maybe slapped a few times for good measure.

    • nightofmichelinstars@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Can we draft her? Can we run a candidate against their will? I’m just kidding. Idk there’s a lot of crazy shit happening.

      • d00phy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s kind of possible, yes. Basically it would have to be a coordinated effort at the convention to elect her as the party’s candidate. That makes it incredibly unlikely. Also, the person elected at the convention still has to accept it.

        Since she was FLOTUS, she hasn’t shown much interest in participating in the dirty politics of governing. Instead, she quickly said she wanted to focus on social issues. That made me kind of sad because she’s incredibly intelligent and I think she would be a talented political leader. She just doesn’t seem interested in that.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          After seeing all the shit that Barack had to go through, is it really surprising that Michelle wants nothing to do with it? I wish she would, but she’s simply not been interested in politics in that way.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    She has zero interest in the gig and, other than being first lady, has absolutely zero qualifications… but then… neither did Trump.

    Whatever happened to the “Draft Oprah” movement?

    • massacre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Fuck Oprah. She’s an out of touch Billionaire who’s commitment to junk science set Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil loose on the world and gave Jenny McArthy a platform for her anti-vax autism bullshit. She’s absolutely not who we want running for president.

    • cmbabul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      She’s far more qualified than Trump but according to her husband’s book she didn’t even want to be First Lady. And as much as I don’t hold what I view as Barry’s presidential shortcomings against her, we have had far too many political family dynasty’s in this country. Let’s not have another

      • Delusional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah she is definitely way more qualified than trump is. He’s not qualified to do shit except cause problems for anyone for personal profit. I wouldn’t trust him with any fucking job let alone being president.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Eisenhower had a decorated military history, excellent for commander in chief. As did Grant.

            Hoover and Orange man? Well, you saw how THEY turned out.

            • _stranger_@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              You know she’s a lawyer right? That’s already more credentials than Regan and Bush (being Governor of Texas doesn’t count)

            • enbyecho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Eisenhower had a decorated military history, excellent for commander in chief. As did Grant.

              That wasn’t the question.

    • TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      While I do not believe she ahoukd run, unlike Trump, she is qualified. She has degrees from Princeton and Harvard and is an attorney. And more importantly, she is wicked smart.

  • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    5 months ago

    Please stop dragging her into this.

    She’d never want to be President. I’d argue we wouldn’t like her very much if she was the kind of person that did.

    • vga@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      She’d never want to be President.

      Paraphrasing Douglas Adams, that would make her the best candidate. But in real life, perhaps not so much.

    • Kairos@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I can see the “actually we still havent had a woman president” “jokes” from here (through time)

      • RadicalEagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        As long as she’s willing to put up with that nonsense I’d love to see her as president. But I can certainly imagine a person in her position not wanting to rock the boat and subject herself to that.

    • BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m also wary of any poll that shows such a strong showing for Kamala Harris. Not saying it’s wrong, it legitimately looks like it’s got a lot of good data, but every other poll I’ve seen has been fairly unfavorable to the idea of her running against Trump.

      • AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Well it does seem that more people would vote for trump against her as well as more people vote for her. So maybe it’s legit?

      • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah this just looks like a name recognition poll. Kamala’s chances of beating trump aren’t any better than Biden’s.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    In polling there’s a piece of wisdom that journalists don’t listen to. Ignore the outlier polls. If there’s multiple polls saying one thing and one poll saying something else then there’s far more likely to be something wrong with the one outlier. But clickbait machine goes brrrrt.

    https://am11.mediaite.com/med/cnt/uploads/2024/07/Screen-Shot-2024-07-02-at-5.06.44-PM.jpg

    Okay looks like Clickbait Machine goes brrrt for a different reason here. The upshot is that many respondents skipped the follow on questions. So assuming any amount of campaigning is competently done then the 12% Don’t know/skip category is likely to shrink closer to the 4% of the Biden-Trump match up. Then you can see that 40% of the respondents just answered Trump no matter what. In fact the Democrats percentage goes down nearly in lockstep with, Don’t Know/Skipped. So, in my opinion, there’s a really good chance the Democrats could actually pick up most of that column for Beshear or Pritzker.