Bushido Brown posted:

Good thing that's not what I am doing, then. Look at their post history. There's a fair amount of cryptic description that went on, and this is the third or fourth time I've asked the same question. The repeated silence in response has been deafening.

ETA: Directly, given this is the nth time I've directly asked this (and given the first time I asked wasn't tied to anything pro-Pete related, the question wasn't raised purely as "wow you're a shill" in response to a take I disagree with.

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Ok, so a Pete staffer says that literally anyone has complained. In fact, it is possible that a Pete staffer had actually made the complaint, but since he owns a house in Iowa or w/e the requirements for "surveyor" are, he could have made that complaint and simply omitted that information from the report.

Something like: "Here we found that complainer. He is my friend Bob."

And Bob could be all like: "Yeah I made the complaint. Claiming otherwise would be slander if you put it in print (or the other one. The one where you can't officially print it)."

Again, did a big Pete donor have early access to the information?

Apparently, AT&T has donated $85,533 to Pete's campaign.

And

AT&T owns CNN which is producing a broadcast of this poll. Turner, the previous owners of were bought by AT&T in June 2018, and there was a major shift of executives less than a year later, March 2019.

I'm probably the last person who put this together, but there.

Bushido Brown posted:

Good thing that's not what I am doing, then. Look at their post history. There's a fair amount of cryptic description that went on, and this is the third or fourth time I've asked the same question. The repeated silence in response has been deafening.

ETA: Directly, given this is the nth time I've directly asked this (and given the first time I asked wasn't tied to anything pro-Pete related, the question wasn't raised purely as "wow you're a shill" in response to a take I disagree with.

Main Paineframe posted:

There's lots of things that are up for debate in Debate & Discussion, but this isn't one of them. Stop trying to insinuate that other posters are paid shills, period. You aren't going to get anywhere trying to negotiate that with me.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Reliable source located:

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1223804822891032576

edit: well, that was a nice page snipe

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Tom Watson really loving hates Bernie by looking at his feed.

Main Paineframe posted:

There's lots of things that are up for debate in Debate & Discussion, but this isn't one of them. Stop trying to insinuate that other posters are paid shills, period. You aren't going to get anywhere trying to negotiate that with me.

Concerned Citizen posted:

i mean, who cares? maybe they're a buttigieg organizer in iowa, so what? as long as they're not being paid to post on this forum (which would be very different from any organizer job i know of, i don't think anyone is paid to post on this dumb forum) then they're just some buttigieg supporter who managed to swing a paid position with the campaign. i posted the bernie application months ago and a number of people said they applied - if any of them got hired, are they not allowed to post on the forum anymore?

if they ARE a paid buttigieg organizer, there's few enough of them that i wouldn't expect them to risk getting doxed by revealing their employer.

Bushido Brown posted:

Again, do you work/volunteer for the Buttigieg campaign? Serious question.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Reliable source located:

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1223804822891032576

edit: well, that was a nice page snipe

Eminai posted:

Again, the "surveyor" they're talking about is an employee of the polling company and is called that because they are one of many people conducting surveys. The DMR or the polling company or whoever is saying there was a consistent error in surveys that were conducted by one particular employee.

PepsiOverCoke posted:

Why would you assume im somehow a paid worker or volunteer for a campaign? Just because i dont believe EVERYTHING is a conspiracy against Bernie. Especially something as relatively innocuous as this.

It is weird that they just now found out about it. I agree. But i dont think its because any one particular candidate has inordinate power over multimillion dollar corportions and what they do with the data.

The easier and less complex answer is that they are just having a CYOA moment at a time when the legitimacy of not only the caucus-in-iowa is in question but the entire democratic system.

Cpt_Obvious posted:

So an employee of the polling company told the Pete campaign staffer that there may be an error with the poll. Why didn't the polling company employee tell CNN? Or the Des Moines Register? Why would they go and tell a Pete campaign staff and not a news outlet? The NYT? Wall Street Journal? gently caress, Buzzfeed?

Edit: Why tell Pete?

Eminai posted:

Somebody probably should point out for people who aren't super online that Mike Cernovich is basically the farthest thing in this world from a reliable source. Sorry if I explained the joke.

Grouchio posted:

Screw I did it myself:

Cpt_Obvious posted:

So an employee of the polling company told the Pete campaign staffer that there may be an error with the poll. Why didn't the polling company employee tell CNN? Or the Des Moines Register? Why would they go and tell a Pete campaign staff and not a news outlet? The NYT? Wall Street Journal? gently caress, Buzzfeed?

Edit: Why tell Pete?

Office Pig posted:

Pete knows people.

Concerned Citizen posted:

no.

polling companies contract out to call centers to make the actual survey calls. one person was called by the call center. they were asked who they support. the person did not list buttigieg. they said their computer was glitching and his name didn't show up.

that person, who was a buttigieg supporter, called the buttigieg campaign and told them what happened. that is all 100% what we know based on what dmr has said. the speculation is then that the buttigieg campaign, knowing the poll is not good for them, proceeded to throw a shitfit at dmr until the poll was pulled.

Cpt_Obvious posted:

OK. Again. A staffer at a call center reported to Pete's campaign about a technical glitch. Why?

Does the Pete campaign have any proof of this claim? An email they could censor?

Cpt_Obvious posted:

So an employee of the polling company told the Pete campaign staffer that there may be an error with the poll. Why didn't the polling company employee tell CNN? Or the Des Moines Register? Why would they go and tell a Pete campaign staff and not a news outlet? The NYT? Wall Street Journal? gently caress, Buzzfeed?

Edit: Why tell Pete?

twodot posted:

Ok so you are openly acknowledging your post was totally irrelevant to the 2020 Democratic Primary, the subject of this thread?

joepinetree posted:

You realize that the argument is pretty simple, right? It' not just that Warren did things, but that she did them or stopped doing them the moment it was the most convenient for her career. You can be dumb and nitpick any of these several examples, but the point is the pattern, not the isolated event.

Plenty of democrats voted for Trump's military budgets. Plenty of democrats supported Israel and the 2016 AIPAC letter. Plenty of democrats supported charter schools. Plenty of democrats have demonized activists (though the Native American thing is uniquely Warren). Plenty of democrats have fundraised with billionaires. The point is that Warren stopped doing those things the moment it fit her career goals.

Cpt_Obvious posted:

So an employee of the polling company told the Pete campaign staffer that there may be an error with the poll. Why didn't the polling company employee tell CNN? Or the Des Moines Register? Why would they go and tell a Pete campaign staff and not a news outlet? The NYT? Wall Street Journal? gently caress, Buzzfeed?

Edit: Why tell Pete?

Gyges posted:

No, a person who answer the phone for a strange number complained to Pete that the surveyor didn't offer Pete as a choice in the poll. The investigation into the allegation appears to have uncovered that a person who was conducting the surveys is a big, dumb idiot.

I mean, charitably, the person probably complained to both Pete and the supervisor of the dummy who was enlarging their screen to the point where it was cutting off text. If you believe this excuse that would have resulted in a decision to 86 the poll days ago instead of just before the climax of an hour long CNN live exclusive scoop special.

joepinetree posted:

Correcting for a single mistake or a single bad interviewer is simple, trivial, and there's even set standards on how to do it.

For them to spike a poll like this, in a way that will draw more attention than anything else, there's two possibilities here:

1- the error was much larger than a single interviewer or survey.

2- the results were outliers in such a way that they were concerned about their credibility if they were wrong. Given that it was a campaign complaining, it likely was a case where the results for that campaign were much worse than expected and so they were afraid that if they got it massively wrong, they'd get called out pretty openly. Like, they wouldn't be spiking it if it showed Buttigied way ahead of other polls, because they wouldn't be called out by the Buttigieg campaign after the fact if they got it wrong. But in the other direction...


I'd guess it's a mix of the two: that they couldn't know the true extent of the problem but since it was bad for Buttigieg in a way that was different from other polls they'd be staking their reputation on it knowing they would get called out if wrong.

Bushido Brown posted:

You could have responded to this the first time I asked, which was when you posted something about Biden.

Contrary to decorum-mod assertions, it wasn't a "how the gently caress could you believe this, you must be a shill."

It definitely is a "hm, between the way you talk about Biden, talk about your role as a caucus chair, Just Ask Questions about the NYT piece and repeatedly preface opinions with something tantamount to 'contrary to what the Bernie echo chamber thinks', you seem like you have a vested interest you're not sharing!"

In terms of a substantive response, I think Vox Nihili nailed it and Buttigieg's lawyers probably sent a strongly worded letter. I suppose that is a form of CYOA, just not one that is self-initiated.

Unoriginal Name posted:

holy poo poo, who cares

even for the terminally online this is dumb

they vote in 2 days ffs

reignonyourparade posted:

Sounds like a pete supported got polled and claims that they left pete off one question and mispronounced his name on others. From what's going on it seems like they went to the Buttchug campaign to "warn" them and the campaign is perhaps using this to scuttled a poll that would hurt Pete.

Grouchio posted:

PepsiOverCoke posted:

I have a vested interest in making sure the process goes well here and things are fair. I don't buy into all the hair pulling and hand wringing that go on in this thread.

I mean poo poo, as soon as the story came out people assumed it was some kind of CIA Op. That isn't normal, especially when all the citations are tweets.

Do we have any evidence that it went to campaigns first and THEN the DMR pulled it, or is it the DMR immediately went into damage control mode, maybe even over reacting, and pulled the poll?

It seems to be the latter more than the former from what we're seeing here.

Unoriginal Name posted:

holy poo poo, who cares

even for the terminally online this is dumb

they vote in 2 days ffs