Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
Just now, bad_teammate said:

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

 

lol Warren only beating Trump by 2% in their head-to-head polling.  I think even diarrhea brained Joe would have a better chance of beating Trump than Warren given that only white dorks like her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26507

Posted
Posted
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.

It makes sense, since Bernie has many of the same ideas on trade and monetary policy as the president and Peter Navarro.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20991

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

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.

e65.gif

Pretty sure I read somewhere that pollsters really don't try to use landlines anymore. I could be wrong, but it makes sense that they're trying to keep up with technology advances over the years. 

Monmouth is an A rated poll and I'm not trying to discount their numbers or efforts. But 298 people on a national poll? Just feels off to give it so much attention. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13218

Posted
Posted (edited)

There's a Margin of Error in there to account for things like demographics and polling size. ~300 people gave them a 6% MoE, whereas the 600-700 polls have a 3-4% MoE.

[edit]

Not saying it's a good or accurate or important poll, just pointing out that the pollsters themselves know about this and account for it.

Edited by bad_teammate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

lol Warren only beating Trump by 2% in their head-to-head polling.  I think even diarrhea brained Joe would have a better chance of beating Trump than Warren given that only white dorks like her.

Looks like she's ahead 50-50.  But at least she's not tied 50-50 like Harris.

XRypwSYSSCRT53Pe5Vhy

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Looks like she's ahead 50-50.  But at least she's not tied 50-50 like Harris.

These electability polls head to head against Trump are a complete fiction.  They don't account for things like what an Elizabeth Warren general election campaign would look like or at what stage are we in the Trump recession come election day.  

No one knows who is more electable than some one else.  These polls fuck with people's perceptions on almost a manipulative level because voters are basing their decisions on polls instead of thinking for themselves.  These polls also work for politicians that base their candidacy around the perception polls create.  They don't have to work hard or sell anyone anything if they can just keep peddling their poll numbers.

In fact, if polls didn't exist and you were to try and measure "electability" you would have do it on fundraising and whoever is running the best primary campaign based on some eyeball test.  Arguably the most electable would be the candidate that runs the best top to bottom campaign.  How to measure that is debatable though.  

In conclusion: pay no attention to the pollercoaster.  They're only good for measuring trend-lines. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11364

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Pretty sure I read somewhere that pollsters really don't try to use landlines anymore. I could be wrong, but it makes sense that they're trying to keep up with technology advances over the years. 

Monmouth is an A rated poll and I'm not trying to discount their numbers or efforts. But 298 people on a national poll? Just feels off to give it so much attention. 

 

 

 

but even on your mobile - do you answer unknown numbers? 

i may answer 512 area code numbers, because it might be my son's teacher or school or something, but outside of your area code - do you even answer?

i don't. i'm 41, not a young person any longer, and i still don't. nobody i work with will answer unknown numbers - and most of them are younger than me. 

the people who would? old white people. same as it ever was. 

i just don't know. those are typically the voters, so a little confirmation bias may drive the polling, but i think an election with a strong young person turnout could defy the polls far more than donald trump did in wisconsin, pennsylvania, etc. 

what was the polling like in 2018? was that turnout predicted?

i just think we may have broken the polling mold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

Warren's head-to-head polling should not be that bad compared to Biden's and Sander's, particularly in view of the constant fawning media attention she receives.  Her appeal is just very narrow and concentrated among upper middle-class whites.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Warren's head-to-head polling should not be that bad compared to Biden's and Sander's, particularly in view of the constant fawning media attention she receives.  Her appeal is just very narrow and concentrated among upper middle-class whites.  

The big difference is Bernie and Biden have run for president before, almost everyone knows who they are and what they're about.  Warren has never run for president, so she's still in the original courting phase. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29694

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

In conclusion: pay no attention to the pollercoaster.  They're only good for measuring trend-lines. 

I don't they're *only* good for that. From an aggregated RCP or 538 type of perspective, I'm fairly confident they give us a nice view of the overall ballpark.

That said, I do agree that watching the direction of movement from the cumulative polling over time presents us with a solid case for their utility at this early stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29694

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

but even on your mobile - do you answer unknown numbers? 

i may answer 512 area code numbers, because it might be my son's teacher or school or something, but outside of your area code - do you even answer?

i don't. i'm 41, not a young person any longer, and i still don't. nobody i work with will answer unknown numbers - and most of them are younger than me. 

the people who would? old white people. same as it ever was. 

i just don't know. those are typically the voters, so a little confirmation bias may drive the polling, but i think an election with a strong young person turnout could defy the polls far more than donald trump did in wisconsin, pennsylvania, etc. 

what was the polling like in 2018? was that turnout predicted?

i just think we may have broken the polling mold.

DISCLAIMER: I ain't a pollster, but I took a couple semesters of stats at UT.

My understanding is they attempt to give varying weights to the different demographics' responses to best reflect the overall universe of the voting public. It should go without saying, however, obtaining a sufficient sample of responses is a necessary condition for assumed accuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20991

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Looks like she's ahead 50-50.  But at least she's not tied 50-50 like Harris.

XRypwSYSSCRT53Pe5Vhy

 

This Emerson poll is one of the few head to heads (maybe the only one) I've seen where they have 100%  picking either candidate. Clearly they didn't have a "don't know option". 

At this point of the D primary, the only head to head number we should be looking at is Trump's. 

For example, look at Quinniapac from June. 

Trump hovering at 40-42% no matter the D candidate. Biden and Sanders with highest name recognition have been the top 2 the entire time in head to heads so far. 

 

Then from July: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bolverk said:

From an aggregated RCP or 538 type of perspective, I'm fairly confident they give us a nice view of the overall ballpark.

I hate the RCP averages because they back weight candidates that are running shitty campaigns on the decline but were doing awesome in the beginning solely due to name recognition and unfamiliarity of the alternatives.  They did nothing extraordinary to earn the numbers in their early polling except be a known quantity and it deceptively boosts their RCP average throughout the process.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29694

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I hate the RCP averages because they back weight candidates that are running shitty campaigns on the decline but were doing awesome in the beginning solely due to name recognition and unfamiliarity of the alternatives.  They did nothing extraordinary to earn the numbers in their early polling except be a known quantity and it deceptively boosts their RCP average throughout the process.  

Personally, I prefer Nate's methodology, but I threw RCP out as a bone to his haters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie's results are eerily consistent.

 

sometime in the next 8-10 weeks we should also turn the corner and go from 25 candidates to 7-8 candidates.  just looking at the above poll, the top 7 have ~82% which means basically 1/5 votes (according to this poll) are still up for grabs.  that should shake things up and give a little clarity to what's actually going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28791

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Just in case you were on the fence about whether to take Bernie seriously....

 

Well, he gave a serious answer, China has lifted millions out of poverty at a historical rate and does not pose an existential threat to the United States.

Edited by F250
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom

Tom 2959

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

The best thing Warren could do for this country would be to drop out immediately and endorse Bernie.  Staying in is just an act of selfishness.  

Yeah, someone polling consistently in the top 3 out of 20+ should drop out before the first primary.  Sound logic.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Message Board User said:

Just in case you were on the fence about whether to take Bernie seriously....

 

I don't know why people would assume Bernie would have a hard-line stance against China.  Whatever he may say publicly, I don't think Trump is using the tariffs with the intent of bringing jobs back to the US.  I think the point of the tariffs is to try to move capital out of China to other developing countries.  In other words this is part of a containment strategy meant to weaken China and decouple the US' economy from China's, not to help American workers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 27601

Posted
Posted

Bernie has around 20%. That's been consistent. 18-21 is probably the range. We've had years of experience with the man. He's not the new guy. I voted for him in the primary last time. If I had to guess what he got in Texas I'd put it at 30 max and probably closer to 20. 

Biden is still out in front. 

@bad_teammate, I'm still waiting to hear how Bernie is doing with black voters. How has it changed from last time? I said it last time he ran and it's still true. If he can't win them he's fucked. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

Bernie has around 20%. That's been consistent. 18-21 is probably the range. We've had years of experience with the man. He's not the new guy. I voted for him in the primary last time. If I had to guess what he got in Texas I'd put it at 30 max and probably closer to 20. 

Biden is still out in front. 

@bad_teammate, I'm still waiting to hear how Bernie is doing with black voters. How has it changed from last time? I said it last time he ran and it's still true. If he can't win them he's fucked. 

 

Ron Klain is Biden campaign guy.  It needs to be known.  Not saying his information is bad, just that he’s going to tweet out the most favorable Biden numbers possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...