MHF Democrat Primary Poll

[C-Mag]

That would be fun.
Tulsi was on Tucker Carlson again tonight. I think she's getting more airtime on FOX than any other network.

[clubgop]

We've debated the polls a lot. Yesterday there was a special election in North Carolina. The polls were a smidge off.

Actual results


538 had the Dems winning by 3 pts. Only missed by 27%.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... -carolina/

They were only off by 5%. Bishop won by 2%. One poll by RRH Elections had Bishop winning by a point, that was the closest poll to the mark, another poll had a tie, which means the result was within the margin of error of at least two of the polls taken, and just outside the margin of error on the aggregate.

The only poll they had of the Murphy race had him up by 11, so only 13 points off, and that's because it was one poll and not an aggregate. Limited polling often leads to larger errors.

Aggregates are usually far more trustworthy than single polls, which are often off by a larger margin than the aggregate. See the two McCreedy +5 polls as examples of that.

Special elections are a special bitch as well. It's difficult to build a turnout model for those. But there is a problem here. Polls have become just a part of the narrative, just an element of the horse race. There was only 1 real poll in the one race because it was 11 points and one candidate was above 50%. There is no narrative to build around unless the 50+ does something to fuck it up. There is no horse race to report. Not enough to build the narrative.

[clubgop]

That would be fun.
Tulsi was on Tucker Carlson again tonight. I think she's getting more airtime on FOX than any other network.

Do you not pay attention to the other networks? They genuinely believe she is a Russian plant, they have to.
Putting her on would hurt their narrative they would have to admit they made it all up.

[StCapps]

We've debated the polls a lot. Yesterday there was a special election in North Carolina. The polls were a smidge off.

Actual results


538 had the Dems winning by 3 pts. Only missed by 27%.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... -carolina/

They were only off by 5%. Bishop won by 2%. One poll by RRH Elections had Bishop winning by a point, that was the closest poll to the mark, another poll had a tie, which means the result was within the margin of error of at least two of the polls taken, and just outside the margin of error on the aggregate.

The only poll they had of the Murphy race had him up by 11, so only 13 points off, and that's because it was one poll and not an aggregate. Limited polling often leads to larger errors.

Aggregates are usually far more trustworthy than single polls, which are often off by a larger margin than the aggregate. See the two McCreedy +5 polls as examples of that.

Special elections are a special bitch as well. It's difficult to build a turnout model for those. But there is a problem here. Polls have become just a part of the narrative, just an element of the horse race. There was only 1 real poll in the one race because it was 11 points and one candidate was above 50%. There is no narrative to build around unless the 50+ does something to fuck it up. There is no horse race to report. Not enough to build the narrative.

Oh for sure. On the other forum I post on, some dude is like "Trump won that district by 12 points and now the Republicans only won by 2 points, Trump is doomed". And I told him that's because Trump wasn't running, and it wasn't a presidential election year, apples and oranges.

[clubgop]

They always do that. It is funny.

[StCapps]

Well that was uneventful.
*yawns*

[TheReal_ND]

Holding Buttgang

[C-Mag]

O'Rourke: 'Hell yes we're going to take your AR-15s

[pineapplemike]

joe biden looked 10 years younger tonight

ok maybe 5

[StCapps]

joe biden looked 10 years younger tonight

ok maybe 5

He did decent. He'll either hold his ground or get a little bump. I don't think this debate will change the polls much.