Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Does anyone else think that the conventional wisdom about the 2016 presidential election is wrong?
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Re...
I am using several examples in this poll as examples of things I believe conventional wisdom may wrong about.
1. In the poll in the Republican primary, it was found that Rand Paul received a higher percentage of the female vote than the male vote. Rand Paul also did the best among women the general election. Conventional wisdom is that Rand Paul will do poorly with females because most libertarians are male.
2. In the general election poll, it showed that the "moderate" candidates (Jeb Bush and Chris Christie) did the worst among Hispanics. Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul were all withing 5 percentage points of Hillary Clinton among Hispanics. Conventional wisdom is the opposite.
3. Conventional wisdom is that one of the candidates that are in the top three in the primary will be strongest in the general election. However, in this poll, Rand Paul get's tied for fourth in the primary but does the best in the general election, notably doing equal or best with men, women, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, the only candidate to win whites, and every age group.
I'm not claiming one poll proves anything, was just using it as an example.
1 Answer
- Tmess2Lv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
One poll is not enough to conclude that conventional wisdom is wrong, especially a poll in a single state. (Most political statisticians assume that a single poll is automatically suspicious and rely on multiple polls before making any conclusions about a race.)
Futhermore, at this point in time, polling measures name recognition and not the support that candidates will get once the field narrows. Name recognition is not unimportant in the pre-primary period, but a lot of the heavy lifting in the pre-primary period is done by that thin sliver of the electorate which actually takes a closer look at the candidates. It is only in late 2015 when polls of this type actually become significant.
On the gender issue, in 2012 Ron Paul did slightly better with men than with women in most states, but the gap was within the margin of error. Likewise, the gap in this poll is also within the margin of error. Maybe, Rand Paul has figured a way to restate the libertarian message in a way that appeals more to women or maybe this just is a polling glitch.
On support with Hispanics, right now Chris Christie is getting a lot of bad press which is making him look relatively unattractive with every group of voters. Jeb Bush has the problem of being a Bush. Both create name recognition negatives not necessarily shared by the more extreme candidates. After a primary in which immigration reform is a major issue, the non-moderates may not poll as well among Hispanics.
On general election performance, again this issue measures name recognition somewhat. The less well-known a candidate is, the more their results mimic a generic Republican. Name recognition can either drive a candidate up a point or two (if mostly positive among independents) or down a point or two (if mostly negative among independents).
Undoubtedly, there is some conventional wisdom that will be proven false in this election. Most conventional wisdom is very anectdotal rather than data driven (which is why Nate Silver has been able to run rings around the pundit class in the last several elections). I just don't think you can make any assumptions about the flaws in the conventional wisdom based on this one poll in one state this far out from the first primary election.
