Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Featured Replies

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.
  • Replies 23.3k
  • Views 1.4m
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most 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

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. 

 

 

 

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

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

 

lol even worse for the grandma energy candidate 

Quote

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

Image result for doing math meme

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

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.

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.  

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

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.

I looked in the crosstabs of the Emerson poll, because I always do that because I have mental problems, and they asked about Epstein's death  lol

It was basically 1/3rd said it was suicide, 1/3rd said it was murder, 1/3rd unsure.

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.

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: 

 

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.  

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.

14 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

OH MY GOD YES

 

 

 

More so than now Ryan

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Also, Bernie would be running away with this if there wasn't a full-on media/pundit campaign against him.

🙄 you sound like aggy complaining about the BOMC

55 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


It makes sense, since Bernie has many of the same ideas on trade and monetary policy as the president and Peter Navarro.

And Elizabeth Warren.

 

15 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

 

Joke's on Marianne, cause Gilly's at 0.

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie's results are eerily consistent.

It makes some sense. Most people have made up their mind one way or the other with Bernie.  

 

 

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.

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.  

Yes, for Bernie, the guy who couldn’t beat Hillary Clinton head to head. 

China isn't the threat there, it's domestic companies outsourcing labor that are the threat. The threat is your cheating husband, not all of the women that he's around every day.

Also... my people

 

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

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

Bernie Sanders: no longer as clueless as Navarro and Trump
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.   

 

I would love to hear the Ds go hard in the paint on this fact in the debates and in '20.

Facts and data don't work in politics. It's an emotional/personality game, 100 percent.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Tomorrow's Q-Pac poll will be the last shot for Steyer, Gabbard and Bullock to make it to the September debate. 

whY dOEsn'T bErNiE uNdErStAnD tHaT ChINA iS DeStRoYinG AmEriCa'S WorKeRS!?

 

i will never understand how people get this excited about chicken.

I just looked at today's dailykos poll. It was Warren 40%, Bernie 18%, Biden 12%, Yang 9%, Pete 8%, Harris 7%.

That is where high and medium information voters are at the moment.

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.  

5 hours ago, F250 said:

And Elizabeth Warren.

 

Nah, she's more like a regular labor Democrat from the mid 60's. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova

2 hours ago, RayDog said:

I just looked at today's dailykos poll. It was Warren 40%, Bernie 18%, Biden 12%, Yang 9%, Pete 8%, Harris 7%.

That is where high and medium information voters are at the moment.

That's one way to describe Kos posters lol

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Nah, she's more like a regular labor Democrat from the mid 60's. 

They both seem to stray away from multilateral trade. How different is Warren on trade compared to Sanders?

29 minutes ago, F250 said:

They both seem to stray away from multilateral trade. How different is Warren on trade compared to Sanders?

Not as much as I like, but I think she's more pragmatic and understands why multilateralism is more in our interests.

Good God, CNN is in hard core for Joe Biden.  I REALLY wish he wasn't a shitty candidate, but he is.  WTF is it with wanting him to win the nomination?  I have a hard time believing these idiots want Trump to win again...I mean Van Jones?  Come the fuck on. 

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. 

 

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

That's one way to describe Kos posters lol

I meant with respect to voters who are not paying attention and going by name recognition alone.

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.

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

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.

That explains his snark. 

I don't want it misunderstood. I'm not thrilled about Biden. But, he's still leading. How many are going to drop out after this round? All those voters are going to someone. 

Who polls worse with the suburban semi-Republican sometimes Democratic white, college educated female? 

 

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.