|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Right now, there is no supporter. They have supplied no proof. Why would CNN do anything that might merit "warning" Pete? They would not have rigged the polls against him, they have paid his campaign 80K. if you think dmr/selzer/cnn are lying about this, there is no point in believing any of their polling at all so it's all pretty moot.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
Thoguh posted:People like to vote for winners so polls like this legitimately influence voting decisions. Especially for candidates with soft support that may not be viable. Nobody wants to show up and be the only person in their precinct in the Pete corner. Delaney Lads deserve their voice heard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 04:53
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I want those people to eat all the poo poo. Naturally I'm voting and giving money for a better future but goddamn is that gonna be a great side benefit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 04:53
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Ok, but Pete's campaign is the only primary source we have, right? They have not produced a complaint in any form? There are no censored emails or recorded phone calls. Therefore, our primary source is Pete. CATI surveys are usually closely monitored. Someone working for the call center likely checked and found that this person was enlarging the font in such a way to randomly exclude one candidate. Pete is, ostensibly, the one that got wind of it though it would have effected everyone equally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 04:53
|
|
|
delaney was in 1st place and dmr is too embarrassed to admit they never saw what all of us delaneyheads knew the entire time: he's catching on
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Ok, but Pete's campaign is the only primary source we have, right? They have not produced a complaint in any form? There are no censored emails or recorded phone calls. Therefore, our primary source is Pete. DMR and CNN both reported on something that happened to a poll that was being jointly run by DMR and CNN. They are primary sources.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Okay but what are we supposed to talk about until then? Bernie's rally? Literally anything but playing mystery detective/conspiracy theorist over a last minute poll that cant possibly have significant effect You guys realize the polls arent like secret auguries that will relieve your anxiety about Monday, right
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
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. One person made a joke about the CIA And Lis Smith, who works on the campaign, whose tweets are on this page, says the campaign brought up the irregularities to DMR and CNN, and it was after the campaign complained that the poll got pulled. Which lends credence to the argument that the poll was bad for Pete and they've been fighting behind the scenes to bury it with this as their excuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/aaronstigile/status/1223687824383197184?s=21 The fix is in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
that's absolute bullshit edit: and even if it was true it wouldn't actually hurt bernie sanders because the delegate value of each caucus is determined months in advance, and it's the same even if only 1 person shows up
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:if you think dmr/selzer/cnn are lying about this, there is no point in believing any of their polling at all so it's all pretty moot. Nobody is lying about anything. They pulled a poll because the person who is giving them money complained that there was a technical difficulty or mishap. That technical difficulty or mishap was not reported to CNN. If it was, CNN has made no such comment. So either CNN is omitting that they knew about the complaint, or it was never taken to CNN. Again, CNN has no reason to damage the poll against Pete, because they paid his campaign 80K. Besides, if they do omit this poll to help pete, does it count as monetary support? How much is their airtime worth? They were broadcasting it live, remember. With Fredo. Eminai posted:DMR and CNN both reported on something that happened to a poll that was being jointly run by DMR and CNN. They are primary sources. Can you post a source?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
The DNC meddling is in you mean?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
That's a benefit for Bernie imo. Who is more likely to be flustered by a last minute change in location, olds or millennials?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 04:59
|
|
|
I bet they'll release it on Tuesday. Or late, late Monday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 04:59
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:goddamit agc
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:00
|
|
|
if bernie doesn't win the caucus, looking forward to people claiming it was rigged even though it's literally the most open process imaginable. in which the vote counting is observed by campaign volunteers and reported to headquarters in every precinct, where every single person at the caucus can see exactly how many people are supporting each person, and the official result can be matched against the campaign's own counts. because people still claim that there were rigged coin tosses in 2016
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:01
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:One person made a joke about the CIA Sure that does track, but it doesn't mean they were the first and only, nor does it mean they were exclusively the only ones that knew.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:if bernie doesn't win the caucus, looking forward to people claiming it was rigged even though it's literally the most open process imaginable. in which the vote counting is observed by campaign volunteers and reported to headquarters in every precinct, where every single person at the caucus can see exactly how many people are supporting each person, and the official result can be matched against the campaign's own counts. Ok. We'll see. Maybe we'll all finally see the light and vote moderate, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:because people still claim that there were rigged coin tosses in 2016 Just want to quickly note that the fact that we EVER let political decisions come down to coin tosses or drawing straws or anything else along those lines is proof that the entire system needs to be torn down. Also that this literally is a game to the people in power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:if bernie doesn't win the caucus, looking forward to people claiming it was rigged even though it's literally the most open process imaginable. in which the vote counting is observed by campaign volunteers and reported to headquarters in every precinct, where every single person at the caucus can see exactly how many people are supporting each person, and the official result can be matched against the campaign's own counts. Yeah it crazy how people don't trust the DNC
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Just want to quickly note that the fact that we EVER let political decisions come down to coin tosses or drawing straws or anything else along those lines is proof that the entire system needs to be torn down. Also that this literally is a game to the people in power. it's not like there's actually a fair or non-arbitrary way to adjudicate ties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:05
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:if bernie doesn't win the caucus, looking forward to people claiming it was rigged even though it's literally the most open process imaginable. in which the vote counting is observed by campaign volunteers and reported to headquarters in every precinct, where every single person at the caucus can see exactly how many people are supporting each person, and the official result can be matched against the campaign's own counts. They probably should have used different coins for the coin tosses though. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
The only specific instance cited in the thread is from three weeks ago. Seems like panicky bullshit but yeah do check to see that you have accurate information.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:if bernie doesn't win the caucus, looking forward to people claiming it was rigged even though it's literally the most open process imaginable. in which the vote counting is observed by campaign volunteers and reported to headquarters in every precinct, where every single person at the caucus can see exactly how many people are supporting each person, and the official result can be matched against the campaign's own counts. I know it's your job to spread misery on behalf of billionaires and harvest blood from the unfortunate but perhaps there's a reason people don't like you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Okay but what are we supposed to talk about until then? Tomorrow? The superb owl. Then I get to die of anxiety and declare bankruptcy after maxing my credit cards for Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Can you post a source? I can't verify the CNN part, but here's somebody from the thread linking to the DMR's reporting Cpt_Obvious posted:Here: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...rns/4637168002/
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Eminai posted:I can't verify the CNN part, but here's somebody from the thread linking to the DMR's reporting God, I got way too drunk way too fast and confused myself. Edit: loving cheers everyone, this could be it. And if it ain't, you're drunk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:The only specific instance cited in the thread is from three weeks ago. Seems like panicky bullshit but yeah do check to see that you have accurate information. Yeah that guy is retweeting blatantly incorrect stuff like saying that some caucus location will have their numbers capped and that 'after that people will be told to go to another caucus location' which is at a very basic level not how it works. He's just melting down for no particular reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
joepinetree posted: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... Completely hypothetical question: would there ever be a reason for a campaign to want to spike a poll that shows them unrealistically ahead? Let's say Pete's internal polling is fairly consistent and a poll shows up that's a clear outlier with him way ahead. His campaign knows he'd vastly underperform that poll which would look bad. Would they want to bury that poll or would the good press in the moment be worth the risk? This is just out of curiosity, not because I think it's realistic, really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:24
|
|
|
I dunno, i just had to order in more barbed wire and mouse traps to distribute on certain campaign areas of my caucus site. That dude knows whats up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
They would not bury a good poll. No way. It was definitely bad for team Butt's narrative
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cancel_sam/status/1223798895735640064?s=21
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:They would not bury a good poll. No way. It was definitely bad for team Butt's narrative Oh I don't think it's a realistic scenario I'm just sort of curious if there would ever be a reason to bury a poll that was a clear outlier that you knew you'd wildly underperform. But maybe that wouldn't happen anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Completely hypothetical question: would there ever be a reason for a campaign to want to spike a poll that shows them unrealistically ahead? Let's say Pete's internal polling is fairly consistent and a poll shows up that's a clear outlier with him way ahead. His campaign knows he'd vastly underperform that poll which would look bad. Would they want to bury that poll or would the good press in the moment be worth the risk? At this point, absolutely not. The good press in the moment would be incredibly valuable right now, because polling well helps convince voters that the candidate is viable, which will have a positive impact on the actual voting. It's the same reason Iowa and NH are make-or-break moments - performing well helps convince voters that a candidate is capable of performing well, which increases their confidence that the candidate is worth picking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jefmbv/status/1223825203383242752?s=21 In case anyone was believing Tom Watson for a millisecond.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:At this point, absolutely not. The good press in the moment would be incredibly valuable right now, because polling well helps convince voters that the candidate is viable, which will have a positive impact on the actual voting. It's the same reason Iowa and NH are make-or-break moments - performing well helps convince voters that a candidate is capable of performing well, which increases their confidence that the candidate is worth picking. Yeah, that makes sense. People like winners so the perception of winning increases your chance of winning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Yeah, that makes sense. People like winners so the perception of winning increases your chance of winning. Unless they're Hillary and a bunch of people sigh in relief about not having to actually vote for her (this was me)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:39
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:https://twitter.com/jefmbv/status/1223825203383242752?s=21 Guy who claims to be a Democratic strategist has no idea how polls work
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
loving lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 05:41
|
|