• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The 2nd Democratic National Primary Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cyan

Banned
That could very well be the case, but OT claiming is suppose to be done there. I don't make the rules.

The point of that thread isn't to call dibs, though I know it's often seen that way. It's to help keep things organized and make sure that threads get made without a lot of duplicate effort, and to let people know who's interested in what so they can collaborate as necessary.

It sounds like this has worked out fine since B-Dubs is busy. Just for future reference.

Also, if you're doing the next one, I'd say this one was pretty solid: we've got the time, the place, a link to the stream. A couple of trolly jokes, but no biggie.
 
I guess I should refrain my hostility.

Again I don't doubt Hillary won, I believe she did win and believe the CBS poll fully. I just find it fishy when citing a poll that was produced by an organization that demands specific results.

The PPP is a company that conducts polls on commission. A pro-Hillary group may have commissioned it but the PPP still conducted and released the results themselves. The PPP wouldn't change the results of a poll just to benefit the client because they need a positive reputation to continue to get future clients.

The pro-Hillary group probably just figured the results of that poll would benefit Hillary and commissioned it.
 

Cerium

Member
Didn't Nate Silver call PPP the "biggest herders" in the polling business? I thought they were unreliable.
Nate's beef with PPP is so unbelievably petty and childish I can't believe it still persists.

Basically he contacted them asking for more explicit details about their methodology which they disclosed to him privately. He said it wasn't good enough but PPP felt they had provided enough, so now they're unreliable per Nate even though they're one of the better performing pollsters. They fumbled 2014 a bit but man so did everyone.

I respect what he's done but it's stuff like that and his desperate attempts for Trump to notice me senpai which lowers my opinion of him little by little.
They are statistically one of the most reliable. Nate has let his celebrity go to his head since 2012.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Not really, they've got a pretty great track record. He's just feuding with them for some reason.

I was wondering the genesis of this, so I went back to look. They wouldn't release their methodology which made Nate make a rather baseless claim that they were changing their poll results to reflect the consensus.

It was weird.
 
That's idiotic and reeks of conspiratorial nonsense. .
Was this really necessary? You don't think at first glance that wouldn't be questionable to someone?

PPP isnt going to conduct a biased and flawed poll just because a Hilary organization paid for it. It would ruin their reputation and drastically hurt their future business prospects because their business heavily relies on the public trust. Being known as a shill polster organization would destroy them.

Hilary paid for the poll because she guessed that the polls would favor her and she wanted to set the tone for the media reaction and coverage early. She paid PPP to conduct an early poll. PPP did it and reported the findings.
That is a good point.


It is incredible that you guys do drive by posts like this without even bother to read the rest of the thread. I already long came into favor of the polling.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I was wondering the genesis of this, so I went back to look. They wouldn't release their methodology which made Nate make a rather baseless claim that they were changing their poll results to reflect the consensus.

It was weird.

Technically they gave him what he asked for, but then he asked for more which they refused to give him and it started there. The whole thing makes little to no sense if we're telling the whole truth.
 

Except that has nothing to do with what was explained to me to change my mind in the process. What change my mind was that this is something that is commonly done and not the similarity of the results to the CBS poll. In fact the results aren't inline with the CBS poll unless you think 67% is close to 51%, which is what caused me to question it in the first place.

Keep it up with that snob attitude though.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Technically they gave him what he asked for, but then he asked for more which they refused to give him and it started there. The whole thing makes little to no sense if we're telling the whole truth.

Right -- it was actually really bizarre and petty on Nate's part. I remember being really confused as to what Nate's problem was.
 

Makai

Member
Blasphemy.
Here's his odds for the nomination:

Rubio — 45 percent
Cruz — 10 percent
Bush — 9 percent
Kasich — 8 percent
Carson — 6 percent
Trump — 6 percent
Christie — 5 percent
Other — 4 percent
Fiorina — 3 percent
Huckabee — 1 percent
Jindal — 1 percent
Paul — 1 percent
Santorum — 1 percent
Graham — <1 percent
Pataki — <1 percent

Like, wth. Defies all reason.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
The Nate Silver/Trump thing could really kill his credibility if Trump even wins a state. The problem with what Nate did is that he wasn't even open to the possibility of such a thing happening -- he outright dismissed the possibility and then stuck to his guns throughout the entire summer even as others came around to at least realize that Trump could win Iowa and/or New Hampshire.
 

Piecake

Member
Was this really necessary? You don't think at first glance that wouldn't be questionable to someone?

I should just be clear that I am not calling you an idiot or that you consistently dabble in conspiratorial thinking, just that specific statement exhibited those qualities. Falling back on conspiracies to explain away facts when the facts do not agree with your position is one of my biggest pet peeves, so that is why I used such strong language.

And I think it is very easy to see such a thing as questionable at first glance for people who disagree with the poll results, but I don't think that is a very good defense. Everyone does it (me too), but it is an emotional and biased reaction caused by fast and uncritical thinking, not measured and reflective thought.
 

Cerium

Member
Except that has nothing to do with what was explained to me to change my mind in the process, and the results aren't inline with the CBS poll unless you think 67% is close to 51%.

Keep it up with that snob attitude though.
The CBS poll includes independents and offered "tie" as an option, which PPP did not. 14% of respondents in the CBS poll selected "tie."

If you think that being dismissive of unskewers is snobbery you might be in the wrong party.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
The Nate Silver/Trump thing could really kill his credibility if Trump even wins a state. The problem with what Nate did is that he wasn't even open to the possibility of such a thing happening -- he outright dismissed the possibility and then stuck to his guns throughout the entire summer even as others came around to at least realize that Trump could win Iowa and/or New Hampshire.

The democratic primary is a forgone conclusion so I find the Trump and Carson boom fascinating for pundits to try and discredit. The R Primary will go on through June at the current trajectory.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Here's his odds for the nomination:

Rubio &#8212; 45 percent
Cruz &#8212; 10 percent
Bush &#8212; 9 percent
Kasich &#8212; 8 percent
Carson &#8212; 6 percent
Trump &#8212; 6 percent
Christie &#8212; 5 percent
Other &#8212; 4 percent
Fiorina &#8212; 3 percent
Huckabee &#8212; 1 percent
Jindal &#8212; 1 percent
Paul &#8212; 1 percent
Santorum &#8212; 1 percent
Graham &#8212; <1 percent
Pataki &#8212; <1 percent

Like, wth. Defies all reason.

Those projections seem eminently reasonable; I'd say Kasich is a little overstated and everyone at 1% should be at 0%, but the idea that Rubio is currently a distant frontrunner is well supported based on a combination of polling, fundraising, endorsements, and support ceilings. Several of those people will drop out before January and many after the first primary or two. Remember that likelihood of getting the nomination does not refer to "current national baseline support percentage".
 

Maengun1

Member
At this point he kind of is. Just look at what he's been saying about Trump these last few months. Every week we've been hearing that he's done, but he's still at the top of the polls.


If Trump actually wins the nomination, then Silver is unreliable. All he's been saying about Trump is that he's going to fizzle out eventually.....which he probably is. He's had unusual staying power at the top of the polls this year, sure, but he's an unusual candidate. He's been a celebrity his whole life.

Silver says constantly that all these polls and predictions mean very little this far out from actual voting. Which is true. Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich etc. were getting all the 2012 attention at this time in 2011.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
If Trump actually wins the nomination, then Silver is unreliable. All he's been saying about Trump is that he's going to fizzle out eventually.....which he probably is.

Silver says constantly that all these polls and predictions mean very little this far out from actual voting. Which is true. Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich etc. were getting all the 2012 attention at this time in 2011.

While this is true, none of them were on top for nearly as long as Trump has been. Something about the GOP primary electorate just feel different this time, Trump feels more like the Romney (what with his constantly high numbers and ground game) than the flavor of the month.
 

Makai

Member
Those projections seem eminently reasonable; I'd say Kasich is a little overstated and everyone at 1% should be at 0%, but the idea that Rubio is currently a distant frontrunner is well supported based on a combination of polling, fundraising, endorsements, and support ceilings. Several of those people will drop out before January and many after the first primary or two. Remember that likelihood of getting the nomination does not refer to "current national baseline support percentage".

Here's the latest poll. They actually excluded most of the candidates so we can get an idea of where support goes after most people drop out.

fkN3wfs.png

Even if Jeb drops out, Rubio's going to struggle to reach 30%. If Carson or Cruz drops out, Trump eats a portion and this election is over. Trump is outspending everyone and has the biggest field operation as far as I know.
 
And I think it is very easy to see such a thing as questionable at first glance for people who disagree with the poll results, but I don't think that is a very good defense. Everyone does it (me too), but it is an emotional and biased reaction caused by fast and uncritical thinking, not measured and reflective thought.

I admit that it was a mistake, and I immediately jumped on it. But to be fair, I don't often see polls commissioned in this style (usually because I go to pew research's site directly rather than the site's that link their study).

If you think that being dismissive of unskewers is snobbery you might be in the wrong party.
The qualm is about me already admitting that I mistook the data, but despite that you continue to beat a dead horse. There was no point in making that comment when I corrected my mistake only a few posts up.
 

Cerium

Member
The qualm is about me already admitting that I mistook the data, but despite that you continue to beat a dead horse. There was no point in making that comment when I corrected my mistake only a few posts up.
Are you talking about this? The post where you call the PPP poll "fishy" and postulate that the PAC might have "demanded specific results?" Yeah okay dude.
 
Are you talking about this? The post where you call the PPP poll "fishy" and postulate that the PAC might have "demanded specific results?" Yeah okay dude.

I can't believe you are still on about this. I specifically said in the beginning of the post that I should refrain from my hostility. Just say "my bad" I misinterpreted your post for these reasons and be done with it. Piecake and I already had an adult discussion about my post, I have no idea why you can't do the same.

Jesus, and people wonder why so many people can't stand these threads.
 

Cerium

Member
I can't believe you are still on about this. I specifically said in the beginning of the post that I should refrain from my hostility. Just say "my bad" I misinterpreted your post for these reasons and be done with it. Piecake and I already had an adult discussion about my post, I have no idea why you can't do the same.

Jesus, and people wonder why so many people can't stand these threads.

I saw what you wrote in your last post before your edit, please do not try to take the high ground now.
 
So I wanted to come in and share this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260199-sanders-leads-social-media-engagement-during-debate

So there you go. Bernie "won" according to Google and social media.

None of this stuff ultimately proves anything for now. The bottom line is, we'll know come primary time. I personally can't wait to go vote for Bernie.

The metrics used to deem him the "winner" are lauaghable at best. He was more searched for and gained the most most new followers? That doesn't tell you anything about his performance relative to the others. At least the PPP poll had answers to specific, relevant questions to how people thought of each candidate
 
You'll gloat because someone much, much worse than Hillary gets in. You're not a leftist or a democrat, you're an idiot. Don't call yourself a liberal if you aren't one. No liberal would rather have a republican win than Hillary out of spite.
A leftist would if it would consolidate a left party movement or spark a movement outside of strictly electoral politics.

I'm willing to vote Democrat if we get true social Democrat policies or policy advocacy and the basics of civilized society like universal health care and universal college. Outside of that, though, and the Republicans don't look too much different than a centrist Democrat to me. Admittedly, I'm very far to the left.
 
The CBS poll includes independents and offered "tie" as an option, which PPP did not. 14% of respondents in the CBS poll selected "tie."

If you think that being dismissive of unskewers is snobbery you might be in the wrong party.
Politically I'm against you, but you're right that both these polls, especially PPP, are generally regarded as sound.
 

noshten

Member
WSJ Survey: 44% of Democrats Think Bernie Sanders Won Debate
Democrats who watched the party&#8217;s presidential candidates debate on Saturday night thought that Sen. Bernie Sanders won the event, an Internet survey found, though they also said Hillary Clinton showed that she would do the best job of keeping the U.S. safe from terrorism.

Mr. Sanders was declared the winner by 44% of Democratic primary voters who watched the nationally televised debate, with 32% choosing Mrs. Clinton and 2% picking the third candidate onstage, Martin O&#8217;Malley, a former Maryland governor.

The survey, conducted for The Wall Street Journal by Google Consumer Surveys, polled 836 Democratic primary voters by displaying questions to people who visit a set of online news and entertainment websites. The Internet users were asked to answer the questions in exchange for access to those sites.

Democratic primary voters who answered the questions said that, based on the debate, Mr. Sanders was the candidate who could best handle the job of president and was best suited to improving the economy.

A substantial 58% judged Mr. Sanders as the candidate &#8220;who best understands the problems facing people like you,&#8217;&#8217; compared with 27% who chose Mrs. Clinton and 4% who named Mr. O&#8217;Malley.

But Mrs. Clinton was viewed as best able to preserve national security and keep the U.S. safe from terrorism. Some 48% of Democrats in the survey named Mrs. Clinton as strongest on national security based on her debate performance, with 33% picking Mr. Sanders and 3% naming Mr. O&#8217;Malley.

The margin of error in the survey varied for each question but in all cases was below plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. In conducting the poll, Google Consumer Surveys infers a respondent&#8217;s gender, age, and geographic location based on anonymous browsing history and other data. On mobile devices, people answer questions in exchange for credits for books, music, and apps, and answer demographic questions when first downloading the app.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/wsj-survey-44-of-democrats-think-bernie-sanders-won-debate-1447609672

So do internet surveys count or are they unscientific
 
The metrics used to deem him the "winner" are lauaghable at best. He was more searched for and gained the most most new followers? That doesn't tell you anything about his performance relative to the others. At least the PPP poll had answers to specific, relevant questions to how people thought of each candidate
I think the point of searches and follows is that he's gaining the attention of the politically apathetic or the disengaged youth vote who may not already be familiar with him. PPP probably tracks a different (and usually more reliable) cohort. Every election year we hope against hope that the youth and the lower middle class will show up for progressives. Generally they don't. Maybe if they start to dig Bernie and Hillary goes too hard on him, they'll get and stay angry enough to show up (She's already angered me enough to vote for Stein if she's the nominee.) If it happens, it likely won't show up in the polls but I really doubt it will happen.
 
Lots of "she held her ground" but she did it by classic Clinton deflection. I mean, yeah she's great at dodging and weaving - it's a somewhat admirable skill - but I didn't hear much substance. That 9/11 quip was facepalm worthy.

Idk, I just find a lot of Sander's criticisms bunk. She said she would make being against Citizen's United a criteria for her Supreme Court nominations. Once you believe that, 90% of the "problems" with Hillary fade away.

WSJ Survey: 44% of Democrats Think Bernie Sanders Won Debate


http://www.wsj.com/articles/wsj-survey-44-of-democrats-think-bernie-sanders-won-debate-1447609672

So do internet surveys count or are they unscientific

Google Surveys? The one people get on their phones? That's not really reliable for obvious reasons; mainly because of the type of people that buy Android phones and are tech-savvy enough to download this app. Do they not teach basic statistics in high school anymore?

Not all Internet polls are bad. But I'm part of the Google Survey's panel, and I'll tell you it's not reliable for these sort of things. It's better for product reviews than election polling.
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
The point of that thread isn't to call dibs, though I know it's often seen that way. It's to help keep things organized and make sure that threads get made without a lot of duplicate effort, and to let people know who's interested in what so they can collaborate as necessary.

It sounds like this has worked out fine since B-Dubs is busy. Just for future reference.

Also, if you're doing the next one, I'd say this one was pretty solid: we've got the time, the place, a link to the stream. A couple of trolly jokes, but no biggie.
Roger that. I don't plan to make anything extraordinary (but more than this thread).
Those projections seem eminently reasonable; I'd say Kasich is a little overstated and everyone at 1% should be at 0%, but the idea that Rubio is currently a distant frontrunner is well supported based on a combination of polling, fundraising, endorsements, and support ceilings. Several of those people will drop out before January and many after the first primary or two. Remember that likelihood of getting the nomination does not refer to "current national baseline support percentage".
listen to the mad man

FiveThirtyEight actually does a buy/sell/hold on these numbers, so it's not like they hold them dearly. They frequently mention how polling early on holds little value; too much can change.

Don't hate on Nate. You can say he's petty, but 538 does good work and reevaluate their assessment.
Idk, I just find a lot of Sander's criticisms bunk. She said she would make being against Citizen's United a criteria for her Supreme Court nominations. Once you believe that, 90% of the "problems" with Hillary fade away.
90% gives her too much credit, but considering the Notorious RBG is likely the next Justice to retire that would be important.
 

noshten

Member
Google Surveys? The one people get on their phones? That's not really reliable for obvious reasons; mainly because of the type of people that buy Android phones and are tech-savvy enough to download this app. Do they not teach basic statistics in high school anymore?
Not all Internet polls are bad. But I'm part of the Google Survey's panel, and I'll tell you it's not reliable for these sort of things. It's better for product reviews than election polling.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0

Second most reliable in the 2012 election but I'm not surprised by your reply.
I don't see how it would be less reliable than any other polling method in this instance personally but you are entitled to your opinion
You seem to be saying it's better for election polling but somehow it's not good in this case.
 

Piecake

Member
These threads are getting worse than PopGAF to read through. Why are these threads so shitty?

Clinton supporters call Bernie and Bernie supporters naive idealists who has no chance of winning. Bernie supporters call Clinton a corporate shill and Clinton supporters DINO morons. Both feel justified in their attacks because the other side did it first. Rinse and repeat.
 
Clinton supporters call Bernie and Bernie supporters naive idealists who has no chance of winning. Bernie supporters call Clinton a corporate shill and Clinton supporters DINO morons. Both feel justified in their attacks because the other side did it first. Rinse and repeat.
I dunno. It's a sign of vibrancy in the party. Sanders has lit a fire under some people. Hillary won't get my vote and I'm trying really hard to persuade my friends and family to vote Green if she's the nominee, but HRC might be able to grab up a few people who have gotten political largely due to his campaign.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom