NC SEN Emerson Budd +3

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

https://myfox8.com/news/north-carolina/the-race-tightens-beasley-closes-in-on-budd-in-latest-north-carolina-senate-poll/?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=socialflow

Budd 46
BEASLEY 43
Bray 2
Hoh 1

[windjammer]

I think this result IS very plausible

[Senator Incitatus]

More clear evidence that Trafalgar is deflating leads, I presume.

[MT Treasurer]

I think this result IS very plausible

Fascinating how they have Johnson at 48%/with a 4-point lead but Budd at 46%/with a 3-point lead. I do wonder if NC/WI won’t vote nearly as far apart as many initially thought (I wouldn’t even rule out WI voting slightly to the right of NC, although I definitely wouldn’t bet on it either). However, it could also just be that the undecideds are more R-leaning in the NC poll than in the WI one.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Still so many undecideds. It's not going to matter, but it's getting exhausting with polling on this state.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Sounds reasonable

[Ferguson97]

Too many undecideds, but a plausible margin.

[Skill and Chance]

I think this result IS very plausible

Fascinating how they have Johnson at 48%/with a 4-point lead but Budd at 46%/with a 3-point lead. I do wonder if NC/WI won’t vote nearly as far apart as many initially thought (I wouldn’t even rule out WI voting slightly to the right of NC, although I definitely wouldn’t bet on it either). However, it could also just be that the undecideds are more R-leaning in the NC poll than in the WI one.

All the undecideds are actually R's has been a recurring theme in NC since 2010.  No reason not to expect it this time.

[Calthrina950]

This is very reasonable, and aligns with my prediction of Budd's margin of victory in North Carolina.

[wbrocks67]

I know I sound like a broken record but sooner or later we need to address this. It's almost a joke at this point-

Favorabilities:
Budd: 48/38 (+10)
Beasley: 46/40 (+6)

*every single Emerson poll has the GOP candidate at a considerably higher favorability than almost every other poll*

Either they're seeing something everyone else isn't, or something is screwy here. Budd being near 50% favorability with a +10 net fav is just, once again, not believable.

This also tells me that this sample is way too GOP:

Forty-three percent of voters say the recent FBI search of Mar-a-Lago makes them more likely to support Trump if he runs for election in 2024, 29% say it makes them less likely to support Trump, and 28% say it makes no difference on their vote.

43% MORE likely? Again, come on now.

This also has Ted Budd up 3% in "urban areas", winning Hispanics by 30%, and winning 18-34 year olds. Small sample sizes aside, if Budd is only up 3% in a sample like that, things are not actually going great for him.

This also has Females 13% undecided and Men 3% undecided, so again, if this is the best Budd can get out of this sample, then I understand why the GOP is pouring millions into this race.

[OneJ]

For what it's worth, Emerson did well in NC overall in 2020 in the last poll. They had Trump and Biden tied and were spot on on the margin in the Governor's race that year as well. However, they did miss the Senate race, like other pollsters. Interestingly, that poll was 46 Cunningham and 43 Tillis.

Assuming we're in a neutral environment I expect this to be fairly close in the end. I think Tillis has the edge but that shouldn't stop Democrats from investing here.

[UncleSam]

I know I sound like a broken record but sooner or later we need to address this. It's almost a joke at this point-

Favorabilities:
Budd: 48/38 (+10)
Beasley: 46/40 (+6)

*every single Emerson poll has the GOP candidate at a considerably higher favorability than almost every other poll*

Either they're seeing something everyone else isn't, or something is screwy here. Budd being near 50% favorability with a +10 net fav is just, once again, not believable.

This also tells me that this sample is way too GOP:

Forty-three percent of voters say the recent FBI search of Mar-a-Lago makes them more likely to support Trump if he runs for election in 2024, 29% say it makes them less likely to support Trump, and 28% say it makes no difference on their vote.

43% MORE likely? Again, come on now.

This also has Ted Budd up 3% in "urban areas", winning Hispanics by 30%, and winning 18-34 year olds. Small sample sizes aside, if Budd is only up 3% in a sample like that, things are not actually going great for him.

This also has Females 13% undecided and Men 3% undecided, so again, if this is the best Budd can get out of this sample, then I understand why the GOP is pouring millions into this race.

Pouring through the cross tabs of every single poll showing a GOP-friendly result to find the low-sample cross tabs that are ‘unreasonable’ is pretty much peak copium.

Women being more undecided than men is interesting though.

[wbrocks67]

I know I sound like a broken record but sooner or later we need to address this. It's almost a joke at this point-

Favorabilities:
Budd: 48/38 (+10)
Beasley: 46/40 (+6)

*every single Emerson poll has the GOP candidate at a considerably higher favorability than almost every other poll*

Either they're seeing something everyone else isn't, or something is screwy here. Budd being near 50% favorability with a +10 net fav is just, once again, not believable.

This also tells me that this sample is way too GOP:

Forty-three percent of voters say the recent FBI search of Mar-a-Lago makes them more likely to support Trump if he runs for election in 2024, 29% say it makes them less likely to support Trump, and 28% say it makes no difference on their vote.

43% MORE likely? Again, come on now.

This also has Ted Budd up 3% in "urban areas", winning Hispanics by 30%, and winning 18-34 year olds. Small sample sizes aside, if Budd is only up 3% in a sample like that, things are not actually going great for him.

This also has Females 13% undecided and Men 3% undecided, so again, if this is the best Budd can get out of this sample, then I understand why the GOP is pouring millions into this race.

Pouring through the cross tabs of every single poll showing a GOP-friendly result to find the low-sample cross tabs that are ‘unreasonable’ is pretty much peak copium.

Women being more undecided than men is interesting though.

My point is that Budd is not winning any of those groups, and far from it. So if all of those are happening in this poll, and he's only winning by 3, then it really makes sense why the GOP is dumping all this money into the race for him.

Not just that, but if anyone actually believes he's got a +10 net fav...

[Unelectable Bystander]

I know I sound like a broken record but sooner or later we need to address this. It's almost a joke at this point-

Favorabilities:
Budd: 48/38 (+10)
Beasley: 46/40 (+6)

*every single Emerson poll has the GOP candidate at a considerably higher favorability than almost every other poll*

Either they're seeing something everyone else isn't, or something is screwy here. Budd being near 50% favorability with a +10 net fav is just, once again, not believable.

This also tells me that this sample is way too GOP:

Forty-three percent of voters say the recent FBI search of Mar-a-Lago makes them more likely to support Trump if he runs for election in 2024, 29% say it makes them less likely to support Trump, and 28% say it makes no difference on their vote.

43% MORE likely? Again, come on now.

This also has Ted Budd up 3% in "urban areas", winning Hispanics by 30%, and winning 18-34 year olds. Small sample sizes aside, if Budd is only up 3% in a sample like that, things are not actually going great for him.

This also has Females 13% undecided and Men 3% undecided, so again, if this is the best Budd can get out of this sample, then I understand why the GOP is pouring millions into this race.

Pouring through the cross tabs of every single poll showing a GOP-friendly result to find the low-sample cross tabs that are ‘unreasonable’ is pretty much peak copium.

Women being more undecided than men is interesting though.

My point is that Budd is not winning any of those groups, and far from it. So if all of those are happening in this poll, and he's only winning by 3, then it really makes sense why the GOP is dumping all this money into the race for him.

Not just that, but if anyone actually believes he's got a +10 net fav...

These numbers are consistent with neither candidate being very defined, as apparently focus groups have corroborated, and with being generic party line candidates in a right tilting state. The gaslighting is insane when a poll is discarded just because it has a republican not even with a majority favorability, but a 48% favorability. What makes more sense? This, or every single republican candidate being 25 points underwater in states they routinely win?

The weird cross tabs go both ways. One could say that if there’s any sample where Budd is winning Hispanics, urban voters, and 18-34, then he’s winning every other demographic in a landslide.

A poll is a poll. It may or may not be accurate. It doesn’t always have to lead to the conclusion that pollsters are rigging it for republicans because they don’t want to see the blue tsunami.

[UncleSam]

I know I sound like a broken record but sooner or later we need to address this. It's almost a joke at this point-

Favorabilities:
Budd: 48/38 (+10)
Beasley: 46/40 (+6)

*every single Emerson poll has the GOP candidate at a considerably higher favorability than almost every other poll*

Either they're seeing something everyone else isn't, or something is screwy here. Budd being near 50% favorability with a +10 net fav is just, once again, not believable.

This also tells me that this sample is way too GOP:

Forty-three percent of voters say the recent FBI search of Mar-a-Lago makes them more likely to support Trump if he runs for election in 2024, 29% say it makes them less likely to support Trump, and 28% say it makes no difference on their vote.

43% MORE likely? Again, come on now.

This also has Ted Budd up 3% in "urban areas", winning Hispanics by 30%, and winning 18-34 year olds. Small sample sizes aside, if Budd is only up 3% in a sample like that, things are not actually going great for him.

This also has Females 13% undecided and Men 3% undecided, so again, if this is the best Budd can get out of this sample, then I understand why the GOP is pouring millions into this race.

Pouring through the cross tabs of every single poll showing a GOP-friendly result to find the low-sample cross tabs that are ‘unreasonable’ is pretty much peak copium.

Women being more undecided than men is interesting though.

My point is that Budd is not winning any of those groups, and far from it. So if all of those are happening in this poll, and he's only winning by 3, then it really makes sense why the GOP is dumping all this money into the race for him.

Not just that, but if anyone actually believes he's got a +10 net fav...

Do you not understand what ‘small sample size’ means?

It means that while the cross tabs have a wild amount of variance, the overall result does not. This is because while some sub-populations or demographics will be too GOP-friendly, others will be too Democrat-friendly.

Reading into these cross tabs is silly and meaningless, and the results have no bearing whatsoever on the overall result.

The only interesting things in the cross tabs of these polls that do matter are the gender breakdown (particularly the proportion of women / men), the party breakdown, and the racial / education breakdown. The results within these subgroups in terms of which candidate is leading with them are meaningless because the groups are too small to be credible, so please stop quoting the results as evidence for or against a poll being ‘reasonable’. It is clear you don’t understand why what you’re saying makes no sense and is irrelevant.

[Senator Incitatus]

Do you not understand what ‘small sample size’ means?

There is a large class of people who simultaneously obsess over polling results and have a minimal understanding of statistical projection, and it's very funny.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Some users don't know what MOE is and all these races including Red states are 5 pts or less and can be overcome with our VBM urban vote not same day rural vote like Pat Ryan overcame an 8 pt deficit in Early vote

[wbrocks67]

I know I sound like a broken record but sooner or later we need to address this. It's almost a joke at this point-

Favorabilities:
Budd: 48/38 (+10)
Beasley: 46/40 (+6)

*every single Emerson poll has the GOP candidate at a considerably higher favorability than almost every other poll*

Either they're seeing something everyone else isn't, or something is screwy here. Budd being near 50% favorability with a +10 net fav is just, once again, not believable.

This also tells me that this sample is way too GOP:

Forty-three percent of voters say the recent FBI search of Mar-a-Lago makes them more likely to support Trump if he runs for election in 2024, 29% say it makes them less likely to support Trump, and 28% say it makes no difference on their vote.

43% MORE likely? Again, come on now.

This also has Ted Budd up 3% in "urban areas", winning Hispanics by 30%, and winning 18-34 year olds. Small sample sizes aside, if Budd is only up 3% in a sample like that, things are not actually going great for him.

This also has Females 13% undecided and Men 3% undecided, so again, if this is the best Budd can get out of this sample, then I understand why the GOP is pouring millions into this race.

Pouring through the cross tabs of every single poll showing a GOP-friendly result to find the low-sample cross tabs that are ‘unreasonable’ is pretty much peak copium.

Women being more undecided than men is interesting though.

My point is that Budd is not winning any of those groups, and far from it. So if all of those are happening in this poll, and he's only winning by 3, then it really makes sense why the GOP is dumping all this money into the race for him.

Not just that, but if anyone actually believes he's got a +10 net fav...

Do you not understand what ‘small sample size’ means?

It means that while the cross tabs have a wild amount of variance, the overall result does not. This is because while some sub-populations or demographics will be too GOP-friendly, others will be too Democrat-friendly.

Reading into these cross tabs is silly and meaningless, and the results have no bearing whatsoever on the overall result.

The only interesting things in the cross tabs of these polls that do matter are the gender breakdown (particularly the proportion of women / men), the party breakdown, and the racial / education breakdown. The results within these subgroups in terms of which candidate is leading with them are meaningless because the groups are too small to be credible, so please stop quoting the results as evidence for or against a poll being ‘reasonable’. It is clear you don’t understand why what you’re saying makes no sense and is irrelevant.

My point stands. Budd being at +10 fav and 43% more likely to vote for Trump because of FBI raid (higher than even their *Kansas* poll) still shows that when the poll is taken into its entirety, it's GOP leaning.

Also, cut the condescending crap.