NC SEN Emerson Budd +3

[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.

[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...

[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.