|
Gyges posted:I'd say Warren coming in 2nd with Pete 3rd is the best case order. As long as Biden's longshot path is thoroughly crippled by Super Tuesday, Bernie will crush it hard enough to all but put it away. If Warren comes in second that will just bring back the narrative about her being a compromise candidate.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 08:09 |
|
|
oxsnard posted:You guys do know they correct for demographics right? Not that this poll is good, but this argument alone isn't worth much Actually, if you had checked the poll you'd see that 68% are age 50+ post re-weighting for demographics:  https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_nh_010920.pdf/
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually, if you had checked the poll you'd see that 68% are age 50+ post re-weighting for demographics: Does that correspond to normal primary voter demographics?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Does that correspond to normal primary voter demographics? 18% were over 65 in the 2016 primary  https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/primaries/polls/nh/dem lmbo
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I'd say Warren coming in 2nd with Pete 3rd is the best case order. As long as Biden's longshot path is thoroughly crippled by Super Tuesday, Bernie will crush it hard enough to all but put it away. I think you want Warren out of the race as soon as possible if you're Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
The absolute worst case scenario for Bernie, outside of just straight up losing, is if he gets a thin plurality with Warren as a strong second. In that case it's basically guaranteed the superdelegates give it to Warren on the second ballot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think you want Warren out of the race as soon as possible if you're Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
Yang's supporters are voting for him because they think he'll use federal funds to remake The Last Jedi. They're less likely to move to Bernie than you might think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Yang's supporters are voting for him because they think he'll use federal funds to remake The Last Jedi. They're less likely to move to Bernie than you might think. I don't think so, what makes Yang attractive isn't his Silicon Valley "Math!" bullshit. It's the thousand dollars. It's the tangible improvement to your material circumstances. Yeah, if Yang dropped out a decent number of his supporters would simply return to their gaming and masturbating and completely forget about politics. But I think most of them would move to the only other candidate offering tangible improvement to your material circumstances
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
From what I remember when texting for Bernie and talking to at least a few friends, Yang people do have Bernie as their second choice with some frequency. Which is all the more frustrating because the guy isn't nearly as serious about doing anything worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
The majority of Joe Biden supporters have Bernie as their second choice, too. People are loving dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:The absolute worst case scenario for Bernie, outside of just straight up losing, is if he gets a thin plurality with Warren as a strong second. In that case it's basically guaranteed the superdelegates give it to Warren on the second ballot. This seems highly unlikely. If anyone ended up second to Bernie (in a situation where Bernie won a plurality) it would be Biden. I don't think Warren really has any realistic trajectory to even getting close to winning at this point. GreyjoyBastard posted:if bloomberg wants to throw his money at a voting access activist group, fine Raenir Salazar posted:At face value it seems like that 5 million$ might go a long way towards making Georgia blue? Abrams isn't good, though. We already knew this for other reasons (like her joining CAP). And there's a reason why Sanders rejects money from sources like that - it's unacceptably naive to repeatedly think "well we don't know for sure that they'll be compromised by taking this money and maybe they'll use it for something good..." I get the well-intentioned impulse to assume the best about these people, but in practice that sort of thinking just ends up permitting bad actors to work without any push-back until it's too late.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders is the number one choice of children who do not want to die https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1215237890248249344?s=20 and they're gonne be doing joint rallies. Seems like it could be a big deal
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
the kids are alright
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Yang's supporters are voting for him because they think he'll use federal funds to remake The Last Jedi. They're less likely to move to Bernie than you might think. Actually he's going to announce Half-Life 3, and that will elect him overwhelmingly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Actually he's going to announce Half-Life 3, and that will elect him overwhelmingly. Isn't HL:Alyx basically HL3?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Isn't HL:Alyx basically HL3? No. And not even close to what that group is picturing in their head when they say they want HL3.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
spunkshui posted:Every single vote Bloomberg gets as a vote that Joe Biden does not. I hope he does fantastically well. I want Bloomberg to get exactly fourteen percent in all 50 states. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think you want Warren out of the race as soon as possible if you're Bernie. There isn't actually that much overlap in their base. Keeping a tag team buddy in the debates is helpful. The narrative of the top two being super duper liberal socialists is good for the primary downballot and the future. If she can't win Iowa or New Hampshire she has no path.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
Optimally you would want 1. Bernie 2. Pete 3. Warren 4. Biden Biden coming in fourth would be a pretty tough blow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
It is good that an organization promoting fair elections is getting millions of dollars. Especially when the chuds will be ramping up their voter suppression efforts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:Optimally you would want This is also my 11D chess optimal configuration for the first two primaries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:18% were over 65 in the 2016 primary And 60% were over the age of 45. So yes, the weighted sampling roughly matches the primary turnout. There are some pollsters out there with bad methodology, but Monmouth isn't one of them. And yes, 1. Bernie, 2. Pete, 3. Warren, 4. Biden is the ideal for the first couple of states. Moderates would start breaking off Biden and going to Pete, who doesn't have a meaningful path forward through Super Tuesday. This outcome in Iowa and NH would set up Bernie incredibly well. LegendaryFrog fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
Ither posted:It is good that an organization promoting fair elections is getting millions of dollars. Especially when the chuds will be ramping up their voter suppression efforts. Voter suppression is a very serious issue and between Trump/Iran and the primary we have not seen much coverage about it. Make no mistake southern states have been purging voting rolls and introducing even more draconian laws to shore up Republican “strongholds”. It could make up the difference between a win and loss for the presidency. At the very least it restricts the narrative to a handful of swing states and makes the process much more bizarre and convoluted than it needs to be. I think for Democrats ending voter suppression is a “bipartisan” objective that both the centrist wing and progressive wing of the party want as it improves their electoral success and opens up southern states that they haven’t had since 1968.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
It doesn't seem to me like the centrist wing cares very much about voter suppression, and the Dem leadership doesn't seem to care at all. At least they don't regard it as the existential threat that it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:It doesn't seem to me like the centrist wing cares very much about voter suppression, and the Dem leadership doesn't seem to care at all. At least they don't regard it as the existential threat that it is. The first thing the House did was put forth a bill that would absolutely fix a bunch of voter suppression and Holder and the DNC have been active in working the courts to get fair maps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
LegendaryFrog posted:And 60% were over the age of 45. So yes, the weighted sampling roughly matches the primary turnout. lmao, no it doesn't! 35% of the weighted sample were over 65, the 2016 primary only 18% were over 65. Lumping over 45s in doesn't' solve the problem because there's huge differences in how people ages 45-64 and people 65+ vote
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
Unskewing the polls is always a losing game, don't bother. Crosstabs are dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
Ither posted:It is good that an organization promoting fair elections is getting millions of dollars. Especially when the chuds will be ramping up their voter suppression efforts. Bloomberg sucks but Abrams should 100% take his money to use to fight voter suppression. That people itt gnash their teeth and 'cancel' her over it is 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
The moment we've all been waiting for us here: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1215302574057951233?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:lmao, no it doesn't! Yeah that poll does have way more 65+ than would match 2016 exit polls. I wonder if they needed the old respondents to make their other demographics work. Also the choice to reweigh the poll to 50/50 split between Democrats and Independents is interesting. Built 4 Cuban Linux posted:Unskewing the polls is always a losing game, don't bother. Crosstabs are dumb. Unskewing the polls is trying to fix these issues, pointing out weirdness in polls is exactly how we learn how they’re hosed up if they are. Come New Hampshire primary, if the polls are wrong demographic weighting choices will be part of why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Built 4 Cuban Linux posted:Unskewing the polls is always a losing game, don't bother. Crosstabs are dumb. Pointing out a bad sample isn't unskewing the polls
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Pointing out a bad sample isn't unskewing the polls Correct. But also, actual unskewing is dumb (because polls aren't "skewed" in the first place). That said, attitudes towards polls are almost universally uninformed and terrible. Polls are significantly more accurate than most give them credit for, and the emphasis on fly by night bad pollsters that get things catastrophically wrong (because of bad methodology or intentional partisan "unskewing") consistently overstates the perception of their general inaccuracy as a practice. Most people think the polls wildly missed in 2016, even though that wasn't remotely true, largely because people conflate bad predictive modeling of polls with polling itself. If you continually miss on your polls, people stop paying you to conduct them, and your operation doesn't last particularly long. My go to response at this point for people that continue to insist that in 2016 "the polls were wrong" is to ask... which polls? Outside of the actual significant miss in the Democratic primary in Michigan, the polls held up quite well in 2016. LegendaryFrog fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
Sample sizes aren't just determined by the 2016 Primary, which featured only two candidates and only one candidate seriously contesting New Hampshire. Instead, they look at a variety of factors when trying to properly weight a sample size including: previous elections (which include 2016, but they'd also look at 2008 and 2004), the most recent election (2018), and national trends. It's not an exact science but it isn't just "look at 2016 exits, copy paste." The Monmouth poll might be an outlier, it might not. There's still several weeks and a big election in Iowa that will have big effects on the race. The poll is a single snapshot of where the race is at the moment, but it's also only a single poll. The CBS Poll had a different look, though with relatively similar sample demographics. Monmouth actually has a slightly smaller Margin of Error with a larger sample size. Which to address something else, if the polls were "wrong" it wouldn't necessarily mean the demographic of the sample size were wrong. It could be! But it doesn't automatically mean that and it would depend on, greatly, how wrong the poll was and in which ways. To recap: if you don't like a poll, the first thing to do isn't go look at the demographics of the sample size. Look to see where it places with other polls, who the pollster is, and what is their track record. Monmouth is pretty good (A+ in 538). They haven't had a NH poll since September, so they could be off a little, but it's pretty silly to assume its way off on sample demographics. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
LegendaryFrog posted:
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Sample sizes aren't just determined by the 2016 Primary, which featured only two candidates and only one candidate seriously contesting New Hampshire. Instead, they look at a variety of factors when trying to properly weight a sample size including: previous elections (which include 2016, but they'd also look at 2008 and 2004), the most recent election (2018), and national trends. It's not an exact science but it isn't just "look at 2016 exits, copy paste." I think it is vastly more likely that the poll has a bunch of extra old people for technical rather than predictive reasons. I don’t think Monmouth believes those are reweighted perfectly, but reweighted as best they could with the overwhelming old people bias of the initial sample. Because it is very well established that it is very hard to poll younger (and minority) demographics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think it is vastly more likely that the poll has a bunch of extra old people for technical rather than predictive reasons. I don’t think Monmouth believes those are reweighted perfectly, but reweighted as best they could with the overwhelming old people bias of the initial sample. Because it is very well established that it is very hard to poll younger (and minority) demographics. That is not how polling methodology works, no. They literally try to be predictive based on a range of factors. No one says they're perfect, and sometimes assumptions can be wrong but its not "old people vote more, better include more old people." They're a very good polling shop with a very good reputation, for a reason. And it's, literally, almost the same exact sample demographic as the CBS Poll from last week that had Bernie with lead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
The only primary model I care about is Emily Ratajkowski
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
So 538 has Biden at 42% and Sanders at 21%; whats the current scuttlebutt about these numbers and how likely are they to changed based off of actual results?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 08:09 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That is not how polling methodology works, no. They literally try to be predictive based on a range of factors. No one says they're perfect, and sometimes assumptions can be wrong but its not "old people vote more, better include more old people." They're a very good polling shop with a very good reputation, for a reason. Maybe you misunderstood me, but that’s exactly how polling works. Monmouth certainly has their estimate for the “correct” age breakdown, but if the survey sample is too far away from that distribution you can introduce other problems with the way that distorts the other demographics. I’m saying that yes, Monmouth is a good pollster and that’s why they limited the reweighing on age rather than your argument that they actually think NH 2020 will be 35% over 65.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 21:25
|
|