Overtime Politics Thread (WARNING: Possible fraud)

[Ebsy]

http://overtimepolitics.com/clinton-leads-sanders-49-39-iowa-poll/

I have no idea who these cats are but they are apparently a brand new polling firm.

This poll was conducted by telephone to include 433 likely Democratic Caucus voters
with a margin of error of ~4.8%. Phone numbers were selected at random through
public phone record

Likely Caucus Goers:
Clinton: 49
Sanders: 39
O'Malley: 4

They are scheduled to release GOP results for Iowa tomorrow, then South Carolina numbers on the 15th and Nevada numbers on the 17th.

[Ebsy]

These guys seem like junk, but only time will tell.

[Ebsy]

These guys seem like junk, but only time will tell.

Maybe they're just bad at polling diverse states? Their Iowa numbers lined up with DMR, but these and those SC numbers are out of left field.

Could be. They don't ask demographic questions at all, so it is impossible to know if white voters are being oversampled.

[Ebsy]

I don't see why Hispanics would make Bernie lose by more than 12. California's Field poll had Bernie down only 12 points.

So no one took the bait? California has even more Hispanics. And primaries tend to be better for Hillary than caucuses. And yet it's the same 12 points.

White Democrats in California are much more liberal than white Democrats in Nevada.

[Ebsy]

On the plus side, we are going to get Texas and Massachusetts polls.

[Ebsy]

Looking at their twitter feed, Overtime Politics very clearly against Hillary Clinton.

[Ebsy]

Sanders is not doing this well in Texas.

[Ebsy]

I haven't looked at the poll to even see if there's crosstabs, but I do know that my 2012 state-by-state breakdowns for Obama's votes by race showed TX as essentially 33/33/33 Black/White/Latino. If you favor them a bit more toward blacks and whites and Sanders is somehow doing equally well among (non-Hispanic) whites and latinos, then it's possible.

There are no crosstabs. They only ask the horcerace question and don't ask any demographic questions whatsoever, so there is no weighting, no nothing. Their methodology is practically nonexistent.

[Ebsy]

Junk.

[Ebsy]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Ebsy]

Obama did terribly among Arkansas Democrats because he was guilty of running for President while black.

[Ebsy]

Obama did terribly among Arkansas Democrats because he was guilty of running for President while black.

Your party has racists in it? Why do you think skin color matters more to them than policies?

Well, they ended up voting for McCain and Romney, so I guess they are in your party now.

[Ebsy]

I regret posting the first Overtime Politics poll, though someone else probably would have started it had I not. I think we should make a single thread for their junk and stop polluting the rest of the forum with it.

[Ebsy]

I've met obnoxious Hillary supporters and obnoxious Bernie supporters. However, Atlas has many, many more obnoxious Hillary supporters than obnoxious Bernie supporters.

Could you provide a list of both so we can quantify how many is "many more?"

[Ebsy]

I've met obnoxious Hillary supporters and obnoxious Bernie supporters. However, Atlas has many, many more obnoxious Hillary supporters than obnoxious Bernie supporters.

Could you provide a list of both so we can quantify how many is "many more?"

You for starters with your obvious hackishness.

Thanks hon.

[Ebsy]

Complete junk.

[Ebsy]

I think it is obvious to everyone other than noted fools that this firm is bogus.

[Ebsy]

Male: Sanders (48-46) 194
Female: Clinton (52-40) 202

18-30: Sanders (56-38) 71
31-45: Clinton (51-41) 119
46-59: Clinton (53-41) 127
60+: Clinton (51-42) 79

Just a small comment, but these demographic numbers don't look anything like what the caucuses probably will be. In 2008, the Democratic caucus was 57% Female and 43% male, and the 60+ group was 29%. I'm thinking they drastically undersampled white women.

[Ebsy]

According to the NYT exit polls, the Illinois Democratic Primary was:

Male: 42
Female: 58

White: 58
Black: 23
Latino: 16

According to Overtime Politics, it will be:

Male: 51(+9)
Female: 49(-9)

White: 71(+13)
Black: 15(-8)
Latino: 11(-5)

Guys, these polls are absolute junk.

[Ebsy]

Why do you guys still take these polls with any degree of seriousness? Case in point, according to overtime, the Democratic primary electorate is majority male.

[Ebsy]

Why do you guys still take these polls with any degree of seriousness? Case in point, according to overtime, the Democratic primary electorate is majority male.

In a perfect world, not only would nobody take Overtime with any degree of seriousness, nobody would take you with any degree of seriousness.

Come up with an actual argument or get lost kid.

[Ebsy]

Dubious data is absolutely worse than no data at all. I understand the desire to fill in the blanks on a map, but that doesn't mean we should throw out all objectivity and accept any numbers that appear on some random anonymous blog. And polling in states after the first four, especially for post-Super Tuesday states is pointless anyway. 

This thread discussing the postings from this blogger are fine, but I see no reason why they should be considered 'polls' or 'data' until there is some kind of vetting.

We don't "vet" pretty much any other source. I don't see what makes Overtime special, nor do I see their numbers as more out of line than anyone else's.

I mean, we've pretty much analyzed Overtime's numbers to hell and back and concluded they are junk. It's not out fault that you haven't bothered to follow the debate we had.

[Ebsy]

The Overtime crosstabs on the Democratic side are comically bad, especially in relation to age. They have 18-30 and 60+ making up equal shares of the electorate, when the 2008 exit polls have 60+ at 25% and 18-29 at 15%. The race and gender crosstabs are also pretty far off, though not as egregious as some of the other s[Inks] that they have put out.

[Ebsy]

What if Overtime is just an elaborate AAD hoax ? I'm actually a member of AAD, I've just not gotten to actually go there. This forum is the real shit.

Funny that you should mention that...

[Ebsy]

How hilarious is it to read this thread in hindsight? Especially the ones defending them.

Especially considering just who was defending them.