2020 Democratic Nominee

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I think it’s not so much Bernie leading as it is Biden’s big drop.  Bernie’s numbers in that poll aren’t even his highest in the same poll.

It’s a great showing for Bernie but it’s not anything new like Biden cliff dive. 

[cactusflinthead 27606]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The media class reaction to the Monmouth poll has been hilarious. They POUNCE on anything that shows Bernie losing. Put Bernie at the top? They get out the slide rules, t-squares, and magnifying glasses.

Explain why there's only 18% black people in this poll.

And why it's only 298 instead of a thousand plus.

I'm not afraid of Bernie, but temper the enthusiasm with some facts.

[bad_teammate 13225]

It's as easy to explain as the polls that have like 10% <50 years old or any other such disparities... the polling is weak. It's a weak poll in a sea of weak polls.

I just think it's amusing how deeply analytical the media class gets when their chosen candidate(s) do poorly and how eagerly and blindly they parrot ones where their chosen candidate(s) do well.

[Js1 85605]

15 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Explain why there's only 18% black people in this poll.

And why it's only 298 instead of a thousand plus.

I'm not afraid of Bernie, but temper the enthusiasm with some facts.

It’s a garbage poll but it fits the Bernie supporter’s narrative he’s winning and the polls are wrong. 

[cactusflinthead 27606]

You're mistaken if you think I want Biden. I'm not the target voter that Bernie or Liz needs to reach. They've got me. That doesn't mean I think they are going to win. I'd love to think that Liz has really gotten a 5% bounce. I just ain't buying it yet. 

Some polls are better run than others, this one has problems. 

Tell me how Bernie and Liz are doing over time with female black voters and then I'll assess where Biden is. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It’s not a garbage poll if you adjust for the margin of error.  It’s also replicating some of the same trends we are seeing in the other more robust polls. 

This poll isn’t great but it’s not worthless either. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It’s a garbage poll but it fits the Bernie supporter’s narrative he’s winning and the polls are wrong. 

Like Hugo just said, there's a almost a 6% MoE. It's not a shitty poll, just probably not as accurate as some others.

Edited August 26, 2019 by GSU&UT

[tantric superman 4668]

Booker and Buttigieg...

[bad_teammate 13225]

51 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It’s a garbage poll but it fits the Bernie supporter’s narrative he’s winning and the polls are wrong. 

This sentence doesn't really make any sense.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Dipshit’s hot take:

The replies are pretty golden as far as completely underestimating Warren.  You can tell the incels in the Alt-Reich haven’t read a book in years.  They are also completely oblivious to Warren’s agenda which is both radical and likely has the most non-partisan appeal.  

I mean, a platform of anti-corruption, pro-economic mobility, AND democracy protection?  This crazy lady must be stopped! 

[Js1 85605]

Well yeah they love corruption. 

[cactusflinthead 27606]

 

[Celery Man 21004]

i've been in meetings all day and my brain is squishy, but the poll is 18% African American and... it should be higher?  I think African Americans make up <15% of the population?

[Js1 85605]

6 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

i've been in meetings all day and my brain is squishy, but the poll is 18% African American and... it should be higher?  I think African Americans make up <15% of the population?

African Americans are probably 20-25% or more within the D party. Forget the exact numbers. This was a poll of democrats and d-leaners 

[Celery Man 21004]

Ah gotcha

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

Explain why there's only 18% black people in this poll.

And why it's only 298 instead of a thousand plus.

I'm not afraid of Bernie, but temper the enthusiasm with some facts.

The 298 is a subsample of 800. I'm not a polling person and wasn't sure if that is normal and if that is what you meant, but I read it when I looked at the poll.

 

[ChiTownDoc 21175]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Dipshit’s hot take:

The replies are pretty golden as far as completely underestimating Warren.  You can tell the incels in the Alt-Reich haven’t read a book in years.  They are also completely oblivious to Warren’s agenda which is both radical and likely has the most non-partisan appeal.  

I mean, a platform of anti-corruption, pro-economic mobility, AND democracy protection?  This crazy lady must be stopped! 

I wanna be clear, I support Warren because she's the best candidate.  But it will definitely be a bonus to see the tears on the right.  

[cactusflinthead 27606]

Kornacki 

In 2020, they are likely to account for at least one out of every four ballots cast in the party's presidential primaries, more than tripling — and perhaps even quadrupling — the share they accounted for just a few decades ago.

---

But thanks to the assistance of William Mayer, a political scientist at Northeastern University and an expert on presidential campaigns, NBC News has assembled for the first time a publicly available state-by-state record of the black vote for each of the nine competitive national Democratic campaigns since the inception of widespread exit polling. (Read about our methodology here.)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/journey-power-history-black-voters-1976-2020-n1029581

[Hank Kingsley 21060]

9 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Followed up with: 

Fuck. National. Polling. These numbers are all over the place. 

And TV pundits will continue to sway voters based on their own interpretations based on whichever poll of their choosing. 

More Iowa, NH, SC, and NV polls PLEASE.  You know, where the candidates are actually fucking campaigning. 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

OH MY GOD YES

 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Nice turnout!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

24 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Fuck. National. Polling. These numbers are all over the place. 

The only difference is the Biden numbers.  Bernie, Warren, and Harris numbers have been pretty stable. 

I don’t think Biden can keep this up with the campaigns intensifying and more debates coming.  There are lots of indicators he has a fragile lead. 

The trend lines are really the only thing of value in these polls. 

Edited August 27, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13225]

Yep. Very consistent outside of Biden and, to a far lesser extent, Warren

Biden: 14
Warren: 5
Everyone else: 0-2

Edited August 27, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Fozzz 152]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The only difference is the Biden numbers.  Bernie, Warren, and Harris numbers have been pretty stable. 

I don’t think Biden can’t keep this up with the campaigns intensifying and more debates coming.  There are lots of indicators he has a fragile lead. 

The trend lines are really the only thing of value in these polls. 

I wouldn’t sleep on the liquid brained grandpa. 

[Hank Kingsley 21060]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yep. Very consistent outside of Biden and, to a far lesser extent, Warren

Biden: 14
Warren: 5
Everyone else: 0-2

Yeah, but Biden is the important one. Personally I think he's screwed, but there's still a narrative of his strong electability based off national polls.  It's complete horseshit, and I'd like to see more early state polls where I guarantee you he's struggling (outside of SC). 

I'm ready to believe in a situation where neither of the top 2 candidates standing at the end are Joe Biden. 

[bad_teammate 13225]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Can’t wait until they bring Hillary out of the bullpen and bench Biden. 

/troll

[henrygandorf 29197]

so does that mean tulsi qualified?  or did she need two more?

we need to get houston back to a two-nighter.

[Hank Kingsley 21060]

Don't think the Economist is a qualifying poll. 

 

[henrygandorf 29197]

boo-urns.

[immortal13 4059]

19 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Can’t wait until they bring Hillary out of the bullpen and bench Biden. 

/troll

She's on the disabled list

[Js1 85605]

30 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so does that mean tulsi qualified?  or did she need two more?

we need to get houston back to a two-nighter.

Really looking like a one nighter 

[TDunk 590]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Really looking like a one nighter 

[bad_teammate 13225]

If you're motivated enough to donate to a candidate, that means something about future behavior, regardless of what polls say. I have no idea why there is such a gap between Buttigieg's fundraising and polling.

Bernie with more than 2x the donors of anyone else in those counties. Who is giving him all this money? Why aren't Biden's old people giving him money?

The disparity between polling numbers and donors/volunteers is baffling.

Edited August 27, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Hank Kingsley 21060]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I have no idea why there is such a gap between Buttigieg's fundraising and polling.

Like you've said, educated whites that follow politics love Buttigieg. That doesn't translate to national polling numbers for him right now. He had a boomlet, then dipped, then plateaued. The SB police stuff soured people that were maybe considering him and he hasn't been able to shake it off yet. Name recognition is still an issue.

Every indication I've seen is he's doing well in Iowa, and I expect a pretty good percentage for him with next state polling numbers. NH likes him as well.  He'll have plenty of money to stay in the race for a long time, but obviously he needs to catch fire sooner than later.  IMO he's being underestimated a bit due to all the national polling recently and the punditry talk that focuses on the top 4. I think he catches Kamala in the next month or two. 

 

 

[Fozzz 152]

One problem with Buttigieg is that he's a fucking dork.  

[Js1 85605]

17 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Like you've said, educated whites that follow politics love Buttigieg. That doesn't translate to national polling numbers for him right now. He had a boomlet, then dipped, then plateaued. The SB police stuff soured people that were maybe considering him and he hasn't been able to shake it off yet. Name recognition is still an issue.

Every indication I've seen is he's doing well in Iowa, and I expect a pretty good percentage for him with next state polling numbers. NH likes him as well.  He'll have plenty of money to stay in the race for a long time, but obviously he needs to catch fire sooner than later.  IMO he's being underestimated a bit due to all the national polling recently and the punditry talk that focuses on the top 4. I think he catches Kamala in the next month or two. 

 

 

I'm not seeing this Pete-mentum the educated rich whites seem to be trying to pass off to me. 

Iowa and NH seem to like a lot of candidates, it still isn't translating to numbers for anyone but the top 3 (and even Bernie has fallen off a bit in Iowa recently). 

The only "X-mentum" is Liz right now.  Bernie is falling off in early primary states, Harris has cooled off faster than a cup of hot coffee outside in Minnesota in the middle of January, Pete is stuck in the 5-6% range.  And poor Ole Joe just moves arpund based on how everyone else is doing - none of his upward movement is due to his own actions. 

Edited August 27, 2019 by Js1

[Hank Kingsley 21060]

29 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I'm not seeing this Pete-mentum the educated rich whites seem to be trying to pass off to me. 

Right, that goes back to BT's point. There is no momentum for Pete in national polling. But his fundraising is still humming along with lots of donations. 

Pete's ground game and organizational build-up started a lot later than other major candidates. He's hired a ton of people in the last month or two. His focus is on Iowa & NH and winning/competing in those states. 

 

[bad_teammate 13225]

For big, structural change to happen, we cannot allow the powerful influences who delivered us into this terrible situation to continue to have influence. It's really that simple. If the eventual Democratic nominee is holding big fundraisers with the rich and powerful, meaningful change can't happen.

The idea that eschewing big-money donors in the general is "unilateral disarmament" is a tacit admission that the candidate saying that has no faith in the people en masse. They are admitting up front that not only do they not already have a mass political movement, but that they don't even plan on trying to build one.

And it is a mass political movement that is vital to pressuring lawmakers to enact big, structural change.

[Pig Bellmont 8741]

12 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Followed up with: 

Fuck. National. Polling. These numbers are all over the place. 

And TV pundits will continue to sway voters based on their own interpretations based on whichever poll of their choosing. 

More Iowa, NH, SC, and NV polls PLEASE.  You know, where the candidates are actually fucking campaigning. 

 

Very much this. People freaked out over Monmouth results which only had 298 Democrats respond on the phone. Polling is dumb and barely scientific 

[Hank Kingsley 21060]

Pundits go crazy over a national poll of 298 voters.  Over 33k Democrats voted at the Iowa State Fair and barely a mention of it. 

 

 

[Js1 85605]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Pundits go crazy over a national poll of 298 voters.  Over 33k Democrats voted at the Iowa State Fair and barely a mention of it. 

 

 

Maybe it's scientific, maybe not.

2015:

Hillary 49 (49.84 in the caucus)
Bernie 44 (49.59)
O'Malley 5

Trump 30 (24.3)
Carson 19 (9.3)
Cruz 8 (27.6)
Rubio 6 (23.1)
Bush 5 (2.8)
 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21060]

I'm not saying that poll is predictive of the final Iowa results, but might paint a clearer picture of what's going on there now. 

 

[BradInATX 9208]

7 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I'm not saying that poll is predictive of the final Iowa results, but might paint a clearer picture of what's going on there now. 

 

Highly doubt it. The State Fair vote is going to skew a lot of ways demographically. I don't know exactly how, but my guess would be it skews white, and it skews towards older, financially stable folks with kids. Probably fairly heavily.

Edited August 27, 2019 by BradInATX

[Hank Kingsley 21060]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Highly doubt it. The State Fair vote is going to skew a lot of ways demographically. I don't know exactly how, but my guess would be it skews white, and it skews towards older, financially stable folks with kids. Probably fairly heavily.

So, Iowan voters. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

 Probably fairly heavily.

if it's like the state fairs i've been to, it skews very heavily.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

if it's like the state fairs i've been to, it skews very heavily.

That too.

[hayden_horn 11365]

50 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Very much this. People freaked out over Monmouth results which only had 298 Democrats respond on the phone. Polling is dumb and barely scientific 

here's the thing with modern-day polling: who answers the fucking phone when it's a random number dialing? also, who still has a landline that they actually answer?

answer: old white people.

i think this significantly skews the polls.

i'm not even sure how we can get around this disconnect. 25-30 years ago, polling was reliable because people had landlines without caller ID. i think certain trends can be determined with demographics of those reached, but i think also that this dataset is skewed to those willing to be polled.

[bad_teammate 13225]

All polls that have Biden with a strong lead are false because I don't like Joe Biden. My logic is unassailable.

Also, Bernie would be running away with this if there wasn't a full-on media/pundit campaign against him. Even neutral coverage would boost him tremendously, not even a need for the very positive coverage Warren is getting.

Edited August 27, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Js1 85605]

That's.....

Okay.  

Keep whining about the media.  It's tiresome at this point.