IA-Monmouth: Ernst +1; Branstad curbstomps (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:48:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls
  2014 Senatorial Election Polls
  IA-Monmouth: Ernst +1; Branstad curbstomps (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: IA-Monmouth: Ernst +1; Branstad curbstomps  (Read 2630 times)
Recalcuate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 444


« on: October 22, 2014, 12:26:57 PM »

Glorious! Bailey's got no shot in a non PPP goosed poll.

There really isn't that big a difference between Braley +1 and Ernst +1, you know. And the gold standard poll shows the latter as well. This race is clearly a pure toss up in the minds of everyone but Larry Sabato.

Ernst is winning by just as much as Hagan in the polls. The spin machine here is quite nice.

3 = 1

Krazen math!

Krazen is technically not wrong here. Ernst is +2.5 in RCP. Hagan +2.

Both races are tossups/slight leans to the ladies at this point.
Logged
Recalcuate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 444


« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2014, 01:31:02 PM »

Glorious! Bailey's got no shot in a non PPP goosed poll.

There really isn't that big a difference between Braley +1 and Ernst +1, you know. And the gold standard poll shows the latter as well. This race is clearly a pure toss up in the minds of everyone but Larry Sabato.

Ernst is winning by just as much as Hagan in the polls. The spin machine here is quite nice.

3 = 1

Krazen math!

Krazen is technically not wrong here. Ernst is +2.5 in RCP. Hagan +2.

Both races are tossups/slight leans to the ladies at this point.

Not all polls are created equal. PPP/Selzer/SUSA/Quinnipiac are far superior to Ras, Gravis, etc.

Expanding on this a bit, weighing all polls equally is one way to look at data, but it's not always the best way. More sophisticated models will adjust based on a pollster's track record and house effect. Selzer, which is one of the top rated pollsters in the country, is far more relevant to the state of a race than some junk Gravis or Ras poll.

In addition, RCP tends to pick and choose which polls they include. They didn't include PPP's poll, and also aren't including any of these Monmouth polls either. They didn't include the Reason/Rupe generic ballot poll showing Dems +9, or the Politico poll showing Dems up. But they have no problem including the AP poll released today showing Reps +8.

Come on. There is a serious lack of intellectual honesty here. Let's deconstruct and use 538 blog.

Chances of Ernst winning Iowa - 65%
Chances of Hagan winning NC - 73%

Both races are in the tossup/slight lean category. One is lean D, the other lean R.
Logged
Recalcuate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 444


« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2014, 02:50:37 PM »
« Edited: October 22, 2014, 03:54:09 PM by Recalcuate »

How is it intellectual dishonesty?

Because it's subjective rather than objective. Both these races are basically in the same state right now -- basically within the MOE, but one candidate has a slight lean. 

If you throw the party names out the window, you'd concede the point.
Logged
Recalcuate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 444


« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2014, 05:21:28 PM »

How is it intellectual dishonesty?

Because it's subjective rather than objective. Both these races are basically in the same state right now -- basically within the MOE, but one candidate has a slight lean. 

If you throw the party names out the window, you'd concede the point.

Again, they're factually not equivalent. The Atlas database has Hagan up 3 and Ernst up 1. The 538 percentages YOU posted have Ernst with an 8% less chance than Hagan. If I'm of the opinion that NC is currently barely retaining lean D status (which I am), then it logically follows that I would see someone in a slightly worse position as a toss up race (which I do).

Whatever makes you feel good. I'm sure you have Colorado as a tossup as well.
Logged
Recalcuate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 444


« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2014, 06:09:02 PM »

How is it intellectual dishonesty?

Because it's subjective rather than objective. Both these races are basically in the same state right now -- basically within the MOE, but one candidate has a slight lean. 

If you throw the party names out the window, you'd concede the point.

Again, they're factually not equivalent. The Atlas database has Hagan up 3 and Ernst up 1. The 538 percentages YOU posted have Ernst with an 8% less chance than Hagan. If I'm of the opinion that NC is currently barely retaining lean D status (which I am), then it logically follows that I would see someone in a slightly worse position as a toss up race (which I do).

Whatever makes you feel good. I'm sure you have Colorado as a tossup as well.

Haha, when your only rebuttal is a snippy comment as opposed to addressing the facts, that's when you know you've lost the argument.

Just out of curiosity, did you accidentally hit "I" when trying to select "R"?


No, sorry, I just tell it like it is. I have no dog in this hunt.

It's just exhausting arguing with partisans that look at numbers through a prism. Numbers are numbers at the end of the day. They aren't a means to an ends ripe for manipulation based on the candidate of your choosing and whatever special sauce you want to sprinkle on it to make you feel better.
Logged
Recalcuate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 444


« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2014, 06:22:11 PM »

How is it intellectual dishonesty?

Because it's subjective rather than objective. Both these races are basically in the same state right now -- basically within the MOE, but one candidate has a slight lean. 

If you throw the party names out the window, you'd concede the point.

Again, they're factually not equivalent. The Atlas database has Hagan up 3 and Ernst up 1. The 538 percentages YOU posted have Ernst with an 8% less chance than Hagan. If I'm of the opinion that NC is currently barely retaining lean D status (which I am), then it logically follows that I would see someone in a slightly worse position as a toss up race (which I do).

Whatever makes you feel good. I'm sure you have Colorado as a tossup as well.

Haha, when your only rebuttal is a snippy comment as opposed to addressing the facts, that's when you know you've lost the argument.

Just out of curiosity, did you accidentally hit "I" when trying to select "R"?


No, sorry, I just tell it like it is. I have no dog in this hunt.

It's just exhausting arguing with partisans that look at numbers through a prism. Numbers are numbers at the end of the day. They aren't a means to an ends ripe for manipulation based on the candidate of your choosing and whatever special sauce you want to sprinkle on it to make you feel better.

Indeed, numbers are numbers. 3 is not 1. 65% is not 73%. The races are factually not equivalent. So all we're really arguing about is subjective interpretations of "lean" and "toss up" (i.e. nothing).

No. We are really not. 2.5 is 2. I'll take RCP over some of the fast and loose quasi-internal advocacy group and not publicly released/recalled polls that we've added to the database here.

73 is close enough to 65 to be as meaningless at 2.5 and 2.

Neither seat is even close to anything other than a tossup/slight lean at this point in time.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 14 queries.