Support NeoGAF

[JesseEwiak]

Sanders won't win. Its a fun choice if you're progressive and want to feel like you're gonna make a change. But as far as regular schmoes, its either go with a big name like Clinton, go with the establishment, or Trump god. Our system won't allow someone making real change to get elected. Too dangerous. American politics is an iceberg.

Well, our system is set up to make change hard. Remember, 99% of the current Federal Government and welfare/regulatory state exists because of a period where the South was run by a military government, four years when Teddy Roosevelt had a mandate, six years during the worst economic downturn in modern world history, the aftermath of a beloved President being shot, and two years after the 2nd worst downturn in modern world history.

 

[thepotatoman]

From PoliGAF:






http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/house-2016-clinton/

I don't think we can blame Obama for that nor a hypothetical Hillary or Bernie. Sadly it just happens and I don't know how we can fix it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at by quoting my post. I acknowledged pretty clearly that the president's party is at a disadvantage. The whole post was trying to prove that the party still did worse than expected even taking that into account.

Maybe the goalpost is too high expecting the party to break even in midterms, but isn't it reasonable to expect them to lose about the average number of seats, and not an actual record number of seats? So in that sense, I don't believe my post can be used to prove that "it just happens".

 

[The Maverick]

I'm kind of curious, in the hypothetical that Sanders did win the Primary, do people expect he'd then be willing to accept large dollar hard money donations, help the DNC raise large dollar donations, and accept the support of and help the fundraising of a super PAC, the most likely being I guess Priorities Action USA that supported Obama and is now supporting Hillary.

Would people be okay with that if he did?

Do people think he would still be competitive if he didn't?

On a related note, it's probably worth noting that Clinton is for all intents and purposes already running against both her own contenders as well as the entire Republican field, Republican establishment, Congress and media who regularly attack her by name. In the hypothetical that Sanders were to win the primary, that attention would turn to him. How would he fare under that scrutiny? How well would his favourables hold?

This is a sentiment I expressed before.

The white, straight, relatively affluent, college-educated suburban male who drives around in a Volvo can ostensibly care about issues that affect gays, blacks, hispanics, women and the poor.

Those latter groups actually have to live with the consequences though, which is why, perception or reality, the candidate's electability is likely more important to those demographics.He'd likely gain the black vote were he the nominee. Obama stumping would surely help see to that. Hispanic vote is harder to call if it's someone like Jeb! I think.

But it's a catch-22, as I don't think electability as a qualifying factor for minorities is based on their own intent but rather their view on how the wider electorate would go.
Minorities make up a substantial block of the Democratic primary vote. Women and minorities are also typically the key voter blocks to general electorate wins. Taking them for granted seems like absolute folly.

Yeah, this post sums it up pretty well.

 

[rex]

This?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/10/demsclinton.pdf

Yea thats it.

Rachel Maddow read part of the transcript of Bidens appearance on Colbert i think it was. Doesnt sound like hes prepared to run for this at all.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I'm not sure what you're getting at by quoting my post. I acknowledged pretty clearly that the president's party is at a disadvantage. The whole post was trying to prove that the party still did worse than expected even taking that into account.

Maybe the goalpost is too high expecting the party to break even in midterms, but isn't it reasonable to expect them to lose about the average number of seats, and not an actual record number of seats? So in that sense, I don't believe my post can be used to prove that "it just happens".

Yes. fair point.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Yea thats it.

Rachel Maddow read part of the transcript of Bidens appearance on Colbert i think it was. Doesnt sound like hes prepared to run for this at all.

Good god, that poll has 49% independents. How the fuck.

 

[User 463088]

Good god, that poll has 49% independents. How the fuck.

Not only that, did you see the results among age groups and non-white voters? They weren't able to get it within a sampling error of +/- 8.5%. How in the hell does that happen in a national poll?

 

[rex]

Good god, that poll has 49% independents. How the fuck.

Hillarys campaign is crashing to earth like a big, beautiful meteor. Open your eyes and enjoy the sight!

Dont worry though. Im sure shell turn it around thanks to her incredible political talent and unmitigated charisma.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Hillarys campaign is crashing to earth like a big, beautiful meteor. Open your eyes and enjoy the sight!

Dont worry though. Im sure shell turn it around thanks to her incredible political talent and unmitigated charisma.

Can't even tell if you're a Sanders fan or what here. I don't really care about Clinton that much, I care about the right person winning 2016.

If you are a Sanders fan you got some bad news to deal with in these polls too. In the Emerson College poll he's dropped 12 points and is now tied with Biden at 21%. Which re-affirms the Monmouth poll a couple day ago that shows he's in jeopardy of getting overtaken by Biden.

 

[Wall]

Not only that, did you see the results among age groups and non-white voters? They weren't able to get it within a sampling error of +/- 8.5%. How in the hell does that happen in a national poll?

The population of the country is huge, and getting a perfectly stratified sample is really hard, especially if you want people to sit through a huge set of questions about an election they probably don't even care about yet. That is why poll aggregators are the best measure of where a race is at a given time, and looking at national polls for primaries right now is pointless.

 

[loki 16]

TYT's take

 

[User 463088]

The population of the country is huge, and getting a perfectly stratified sample is really hard, especially if you want people to sit through a huge set of questions about an election they probably don't even care about yet. That is why poll aggregators are the best measure of where a race is at a given time, and looking at national polls for primaries right now is pointless.

There's a damn good reason I barely made it through statistics hahaha. .

I just don't see why they didn't run the poll a big longer if they're sample is that screwy. I mean, 49% Independent? Interestingly, they had the non-white sample on some questions, but not on others. I'd love to see what the raw numbers were.

 

[Wall]

There's a damn good reason I barely made it through statistics hahaha. .

I just don't see why they didn't run the poll a big longer if they're sample is that screwy. I mean, 49% Independent? Interestingly, they had the non-white sample on some questions, but not on others. I'd love to see what the raw numbers were.

Statistics is evil....

They probably have a budget for a certain number of callers for a certain number of hours. Within those constraints, they get what they get.

 

[rex]

Can't even tell if you're a Sanders fan or what here. I don't really care about Clinton that much, I care about the right person winning 2016.

If you are a Sanders fan you got some bad news to deal with in these polls too. In the Emerson College poll he's dropped 12 points and is now tied with Biden at 21%. Which re-affirms the Monmouth poll a couple day ago that shows he's in jeopardy of getting overtaken by Biden.

I see little to worry about from a Sanders standpoint. Hes made more progress more quickly than anyone wouldve predicted. Hes doing outstanding in the first two states. He has a message that resonates and the passion to go out and fight for votes.

The great thing about Bernies position is he is in the arena. He can affect the outcome. And i think hes got the spirit and the moxie to do it.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I see little to worry about from a Sanders standpoint. Hes made more progress more quickly than anyone wouldve predicted. Hes doing outstanding in the first two states. He has a message that resonates and the passion to go out and fight for votes.

The great thing about Bernies position is he is in the arena. He can affect the outcome. And i think hes got the spirit and the moxie to do it.

Dropping 12 points to a guy whose not even a candidate yet is not a good thing. Just saying.

I believe it's bad news.

 

[HylianTom]

Statistics is evil....

They probably have a budget for a certain number of callers for a certain number of hours. Within those constraints, they get what they get.

I've worked for two different pollsters (admittedly, the last time was in 2002 when Gallup closed their Austin offices and I didn't want to transfer to Omaha), and time constraints are one of the biggest limitations on polling quality. Media partners usually want each new poll to be available by a certain date, so you're often at the mercy of response rates and sampling variations. On the other hand, if you try a really wide time window, the end result might not capture a change in public mood if it gets averaged-out over time with individual points taken early in the window.

I don't miss polling. But I still adore stats.

 

[noshten]

I've worked for two different pollsters (admittedly, the last time was in 2002 when Gallup closed their Austin offices and I didn't want to transfer to Omaha), and time constraints are one of the biggest limitations on polling quality. Media partners usually want each new poll to be available by a certain date, so you're often at the mercy of response rates and sampling variations. On the other hand, if you try a really wide time window, the end result might not capture a change in public mood if it gets averaged-out over time with individual points taken early in the window.

I don't miss polling. But I still adore stats.

The funny thing about the poll in question is that they didn't have a large sample size of 18-34 year olds. For that particular cross section the whole section was simply N/A

Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of
+/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with
an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error
larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A".

 

[Mercury Fred]

Dropping 12 points to a guy whose not even a candidate yet is not a good thing. Just saying.

I believe it's bad news.

But but moxie

 

[And_Gignac]

Dropping 12 points to a guy whose not even a candidate yet is not a good thing. Just saying.

I believe it's bad news.

The CNN poll released just hours ago has Sanders just 10 points below Clinton (NATIONALLY), with Biden at 20. CNN is a more accurate pollster than Emerson College, according to 538 (A- vs C+). The EC is one of the few (if not the sole poll) to show a decrease in Sanders support, even the other pollster you mentioned shows an increase of 4+ for Sanders and a drop of -10 for Clinton. I find it funny how you are always "calling out" polls for being "outliers" and yet you don't do the same with the EC poll just because it fits your preferred narrative.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

The CNN poll released just hours ago has Sanders just 10 points below Clinton (NATIONALLY), with Biden at 20. CNN is a more accurate pollster than Emerson College, according to 538 (A- vs C+). The EC is one of the few (if not the sole poll) to show a decrease in Sanders support, even the other pollster you mentioned shows an increase of 4+ for Sanders and a drop of -10 for Clinton. I find it funny how you are always "calling out" polls for being "outliers" and yet you don't do the same with the EC poll just because it fits your preferred narrative.

CNN poll shows him going from 29 to 27 though. I'm highlighting hypocrisy by singling out polls to show that you can pretty much claim whatever narrative you want if you focus on just one poll.

Playing the same game to humor people because any actual chance of proper discussion faded away a long time ago. Hell, you're in a thread based solely around one fucking poll. Can you see the humor there?

 

[brainchild]

Instead of inundating the OT side with a slew of Bernie Sanders threads for every flavor-of-the-week poll result that gets published, why not make an official aggregate pollster thread that can be updated?

Personally, I reference an aggregate pollster (Huffington) because, generally speaking, averages are better than outliers. Aggregate polls tend to give a more objective and accurate perspective on macroscopic trends, subsequently providing a basis for more meaningful and reliable analyses.

If gaf referenced an aggregate, it would minimize the number of sensationalist threads about candidates 'surging' or 'plummeting', as those threads are usually spawned by people who don't analyze the trends on a macroscopic level, and are simply responding to the news passively.

Here are the current results from the Huffington aggregate:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

What do you guys think?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Instead of inundating the OT side with a slew of Bernie Sanders threads for every flavor-of-the-week poll result that gets published, why not make an official aggregate pollster thread that can be updated?

Personally, I reference an aggregate pollster (Huffington) because, generally speaking, averages are better than outliers. Aggregate polls tend to give a more objective and accurate perspective on macroscopic trends, subsequently providing a basis for more meaningful and reliable analyses.

If gaf referenced an aggregate, it would minimize the number of sensationalist threads about candidates 'surging' or 'plummeting', as those threads are usually spawned by people who don't analyze the trends on a macroscopic level, and are simply responding to the news passively.

Here are the current results from the Huffington aggregate:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

What do you guys think?

That would be too reasonable a thing to do. We demand cherry picking and sensationalism.

 

[brainchild]

That would be too reasonable a thing to do. We demand cherry picking and sensationalism.

I'm thinking of something akin to the mediacreate and NPD threads, with the exception that such a thread wouldn't have strictly scheduled updates since the aggregate is updated every time there's a new poll result.

There's real potential for some substantial analyses to be done on the candidates' performance leading up to the election. Maybe more gaffers will get on board with the idea!

 

[dramatis]

I'm thinking of something akin to the mediacreate and NPD threads, with the exception that such a thread wouldn't have strictly scheduled updates since the aggregate is updated every time there's a new poll result.

There's real potential for some substantial analyses to be done on the candidates' performance leading up to the election. Maybe more gaffers will get on board with the idea!

The thing is, there is already a thread that does what you suggested. It's called PoliGAF.

However, Bernie supporters are looking for support and vindication. Erasure and Melkr are posting individual threads for new polls because they want to attract attention and say, "I told you so." If they did what you suggested and made an aggregate poll thread, they wouldn't be able to post sensationalist headlines.

Right now this far from the election, the accuracy and importance of polls is technically somewhat questionable. It's a subject of intense discussion much earlier than usual because a bunch of people here are enamored with Bernie and want ammunition in discussion. However, I think the only polls that genuinely matter right now are the Republican ones, because they're being used to determine who gets in the major debates.

 

[brainchild]

The thing is, there is already a thread that does what you suggested. It's called PoliGAF.

However, Bernie supporters are looking for support and vindication. Erasure and Melkr are posting individual threads for new polls because they want to attract attention and say, "I told you so." If they did what you suggested and made an aggregate poll thread, they wouldn't be able to post sensationalist headlines.

Right now this far from the election, the accuracy and importance of polls is technically somewhat questionable. It's a subject of intense discussion much earlier than usual because a bunch of people here are enamored with Bernie and want ammunition in discussion. However, I think the only polls that genuinely matter right now are the Republican ones, because they're being used to determine who gets in the major debates.

Poligaf is a bit too all-encompassing to really cultivate the kind of political speculation I'm thinking about. I was hoping for something a little more focused, nuanced, and specialized specifically for pollsters, while also maintaining visibility. When these kinds of discussions go on in a poligaf thread, they quickly get drowned out by everything else that's currently happening in politics.

Also, as a Bernie Sanders supporter, I grow weary of the sweeping generalizations made about us. I can assure you that I have no intention on blindly proliferating idealistically charged rhetoric heavily slanted in favor of Bernie. I'm a realist and I'm much more interested in the truth than anything else. At the same time, I have rational reasons for supporting Bernie, and if he doesn't get the nomination, I'll be voting for Hillary. I would appreciate if I'm not lumped in the same group as the supporters you and many others keep referring to. I know you're not specifically saying that I'm like them, but indirectly, that's what it amounts to, considering I'm a Bernie supporter. If you must label them, perhaps 'Bernie extremists' would be a better moniker.

 

[Daniel B·]

I disagree with him entirely on guns. I don't care what his rationale is. He's wrong. He's completely, 100% wrong. That is a hot button issue for me. His answers on Israel and Palestine are nearly impossible to follow. I do not agree with his views on trade. He also has precious little to show for all of his lofty ambitions. This means he's either entirely naive about how the system works (which I doubt) or he's telling people what they want to hear. I've also been personally yelled at by some of his supporters, which while not his fault, still left a bad taste in my mouth. I take issue with how he handled the BLM thing. Finally, he is only comfortable when he can talk about income and economic inequality. As a gay man, there's a fuckton more issues that do not relate strictly to income. Outside that comfort zone? He's not great. I am also willing to guarantee you, should he somehow get the nomination, his supporters will immediately abandon him the moment he has to compromise on something. Again, not his fault, but I feel that would be even more detrimental to down ballot candidates in the midterms.

Just as Hillary has evolved on her stance on gay marriage "I believe marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a women", Bernie has come round on gun control and is now in favor of closing the gun show loop hole and would push for a ban on assault weapons. So, I'm missing something when you say you are 100% against his current position.

If your support for U.S. trade policy, including the pending TPP / TTIP agreements, is common amongst Hillary supporters, that's an issue our camps fundamentally disagree on. In our view, existing trade deals have evisoarated the manufacturing base in the U.S., transferring millions of our jobs to countries like China, who have minimal worker and environmental regulations, which has indeed given us cheap goods (in every sense) and of course, generated huge profits, but at a huge global cost. The secrecy the Obama administration has insisted on, over TPP, as rightly highlighted by Senator Elizabeth Warren and many others, is outrageous, let alone the contents of these trade deals, that have leaked out. Do you really believe corporations should be able to sue governments, over projected lost future profits, such as for complying with an environmental regulation, and this will be decided by an international court that these same corporations have a hand in setting up (as in appointments to the court etc)?

If Bernie makes it all the way, I think he will have no choice, but to soften his stance on some issues, such as taxation, and that's fine by me (as I outlined in an earlier post, I don't think he should increase taxes, only close some tax avoidance loop holes). But, a President that truly reinvigorates the U.S. of A, with bold, Moon Landing scale programs, to tackle Global Warming and an infrastructure overhaul, really excites me.

 

[And_Gignac]

The thing is, there is already a thread that does what you suggested. It's called PoliGAF.

However, Bernie supporters are looking for support and vindication. Erasure and Melkr are posting individual threads for new polls because they want to attract attention and say, "I told you so." If they did what you suggested and made an aggregate poll thread, they wouldn't be able to post sensationalist headlines.

We get daily Trumpoll threads too. When I make a thread for a Berniepoll is to make the discussion broader

Spoiler

(and to give promo to Lana´s gif, too)

But I would love an OT for polls. It feels awkward to make a new thread for yet again a new poll.

And I cant speak for Erasure but I personally dont have this "I told you so" attitude. More like I believe some people at PoliGAF and Sanders threads are not being really objective when discussing polls (and the reality/trends they describe) that do not show their preferred scenario. They usually get defensive, sarcastic or dismissive when data consistently contradicts such scenarios. And, contrary to what you say, plenty of those posters act vindicative in most of these discussions, with "you are delusional, you are not reasonable, let me mock you!" type of comments.

 

[ErasureAcer]

I posted a sensational headline? What world am I living in?