They don’t make any sense to me.<\/p>\n
The Times recently published a chart of results from the Times-Siena new poll of election battleground states comparing Trump to the current top Democratic presidential candidates.<\/a><\/p>\n Nate Cohn, the Times poll maven, writes:<\/p>\n Despite low national approval ratings and the specter of impeachment, President Trump<\/a> remains highly competitive in the battleground states likeliest to decide his re-election, according to a set of new surveys from The New York Times Upshot and Siena College.<\/em><\/p>\n …<\/p>\n The Times\/Siena results and other data suggest that the president\u2019s advantage in the Electoral College relative to the nation as a whole remains intact or has even grown<\/a> since 2016, raising the possibility that the Republicans could \u2014 for the third time in the past six elections \u2014 win the presidency while losing the popular vote.<\/em><\/p>\n But but but but…<\/p>\n I looked at the Iowa poll information as analyzed by 538.com.<\/a><\/p>\n The poll requires respondents to rank-choice rate their Democratic candidates. The results — 14 pages in that above link for Iowa — are really interesting.<\/p>\n But Trump is the sole Republican in question. So presumably a large percentage of Republican voters who are polled are selecting Trump, while the 439 Democratic voters polled spread their votes over 19 candidates plus an option for “other.”<\/p>\n So Trump represents 100 percent of his voters while the Democratic candidates represent a percentage of 20 possibilities. Can the polling — rank-choice voting notwithstanding —\u00a0 accurately pinpoint what happens to those ranked votes after<\/em> the primary selects that one candidate? I don’t know how polls can evaluate what happens after a primary, when voters turn their support to the nominee, usually enthusiastically.<\/p>\n How does this suggest that Trump can win again in the Electoral College?<\/p>\n When the Democrats choose their candidate, then <\/strong>rational state polls comparing Trump to the Democratic candidate can have some meaning. Until then, I’m not getting depressed — which a number of Times’ commentators said they were.<\/p>\n Cheer up, folks. None of this stuff means anything until after the primary. Except that so many people seem to be going crazy.<\/p>\n Note: If anyone can contradict me by telling me how polls can indeed measure one against many with accuracy, please let me know.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" They don’t make any sense to me. The Times recently published a chart of results from the Times-Siena new poll of election battleground states comparing Trump to the current top Democratic presidential candidates. Nate Cohn, the Times poll maven, writes: … Continue reading