TX SEN: Cruz +14 (CB Polling)

[Littlefinger]

https://cbpolling.press/2017/12/29/ted-cruz-leads-early-texas-senate-poll-over-beto-orourke/

Not sure on the legitimacy of the organization. If I recall, isnt this KA-C's firm?

[Keep cool-idge]

Safe Republican.

[The Other Castro]

It's a Google Survey poll.

[Cactus Jack]

It's a Google Survey poll.

Yup. The last poll they released was a dreadfully bad GCS poll for AL-SEN with Moore in the lead.

[Keep cool-idge]

It's a Google Survey poll.

Yup. The last poll they released was a dreadfully bad GCS poll for AL-SEN with Moore in the lead.

Moore was up 50-48 in there poll it wasn’t that bad of a poll.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Greedo also said Virginia was a tossup and there was no way anyone would win by more than three points, so adjust accordingly.

TBF that's sort of what it felt like. It was pretty amazing to see Northam outperform the polling average by as much as he did when past years VA polls had overestimated the Dem.

[swf541]

Greedo also said Virginia was a tossup and there was no way anyone would win by more than three points, so adjust accordingly.

TBF that's sort of what it felt like. It was pretty amazing to see Northam outperform the polling average by as much as he did when past years VA polls had overestimated the Dem.

Actually, there were a number of Atlas posters who maintained through the hysteria in the final week that it wasn't a close race. There was nothing in the fundamentals that favored Gillespie either: unpopular GOP President, popular Democratic Governor, etc. I myself noted at the time that Republicans overperforming polling averages under an unpopular Obama isn't exactly a new phenomenon and pointed to Kaine overperforming in 2005

[Keep cool-idge]

Greedo also said Virginia was a tossup and there was no way anyone would win by more than three points, so adjust accordingly.

TBF that's sort of what it felt like. It was pretty amazing to see Northam outperform the polling average by as much as he did when past years VA polls had overestimated the Dem.

Actually, there were a number of Atlas posters who maintained through the hysteria in the final week that it wasn't a close race. There was nothing in the fundamentals that favored Gillespie either: unpopular GOP President, popular Democratic Governor, etc. I myself noted at the time that Republicans overperforming polling averages under an unpopular Obama isn't exactly a new phenomenon and pointed to Kaine overperforming in 2005

Oh My how many more times do I need to say that Gillespie would’ve won if the turn out had been at 2009-2013 levels, Gillespie got more votes then any republican ever for governor of Virginia, if I had been told that turn out was going to be super high I would’ve changed my prediction.

[Bidenworth2020]

Senator Elect Roy Moore can tell you how accurate google surveys are.

[LimoLiberal]

But muh blue wave1!!!1!

[Cactus Jack]

Senator Elect Roy Moore can tell you how accurate google surveys are.

And polls this far out aren't to be trusted in any case, regardless of the firm or the result. If this same poll had O'Rourke with a 14-point lead, I still wouldn't believe it.

[henster]

No Dem in decades has done better than 43% so this doesn't seem off.

[DrScholl]

Regardless of how one thinks the race leans, Google Surveys are quite inaccurate. With that said this cycle seems like it's going to bring some surprises, so Texas is worth watching.

[gorelick]

these guys were right about AL Senate Race. They had Jones winning in their final poll and not Moore.


cbpolling.press/2017/12/10/doug_jones_on_verge_of_winning/

[UncleSam]

Ya idk why people think Texas is in play lol

Texas is the sort of place the tax bill will run strongest too

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I don't expect Ted Cruz to actually lose but this is a junk poll. It's too early on (why is anyone taking any Senate poll this early on seriously? I'm pretty sure Joe Manchin is in a lot more trouble than early polls suggest.) and apparently there are no undecideds.

Google Consumer polls have been pretty terribly wrong in most elections, but apparently a broken clock is right twice a day.

Also lmao @ 20% of democrats voting for Ted Cruz. Yeah, I'm sure that's going to happen. Give me a break.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Safe Republican.

A 14 point lead 11 months before the election and with a questionable pollster is safe? Ok.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Safe Republican.

A 14 point lead 11 months before the election and with a questionable pollster is safe? Ok.

I'd put the race at Likely R for now, but O'Rourke can put up a real fight if the national environment is as favorable to Democrats as we're all expecting it to be.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

But muh blue wave1!!!1!

Go outside.

[Pericles]

Cruz won by 16.1% in 2012 and he wasn't an incumbent. 14% is a bit much but a result like 53% Cruz 45% O'Rourke is plausible.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Cruz won by 16.1% in 2012 and he wasn't an incumbent. 14% is a bit much but a result like 53% Cruz 45% O'Rourke is plausible.

This. I think Cruz will win by 5-10%, but we'll just have to wait and see.

[Adam Griffin]

these guys were right about AL Senate Race. They had Jones winning in their final poll and not Moore.


cbpolling.press/2017/12/10/doug_jones_on_verge_of_winning/

ALERT LIKELY FAKE POLLSTER ALERT SEE BELOW

Haha.

So guys: "gorelick" here must be whoever runs CB Polling, just so you know. I got curious because I don't recall a poll or scenario from them that showed Jones in the lead just before the election.

I went and inspected the website, accessing their sitemap (which shows when each post, page or element on the site was last modified). Low and behold:



The post linked to above (about Jones being within striking distance on "December 10") was last modified today - around an hour before gorelick posted. Now, that alone doesn't mean that a page's URL structure and publish date have been spoofed (which is easily doable) - perhaps it was edited for grammar or something, but...

I checked out Wayback Machine to see whether or not there were any previously indexed versions of the post (usually it doesn't take more than a few days for Wayback Machine to get a snapshot). Lo and behold, there wasn't any backup.

In fact, the only two posts on CB Polling that don't have Wayback images preserved are the two highlighted above - both "last modified" today (the other is the O'Rourke poll post, which was likely published today as well). If it were a case of none of the posts on the site being preserved, it'd be a different story. But everything else - including a post from the same week - is on Wayback.

It looks like a chunk of pages on the site were modified at virtually the same time back on October 29: that could be any number of things that are innocent (and maybe Virginia or somebody can give us an idea) but the fact that just this one page was "last modified" on its own today and right after that link was posted is suspicious.

TL;DR: at best, "CB Polling" edited the AL-SEN post above after the fact to make it look like it was predictive; at worst, the post itself was created today to defend its track record on here and then "gorelick" posted the fake AL-SEN poll info on here. There's no evidence - unlike the other, comparably old posts on CB's website - that the page existed prior to the AL-SEN election.

[junior chįmp]

these guys were right about AL Senate Race. They had Jones winning in their final poll and not Moore.


cbpolling.press/2017/12/10/doug_jones_on_verge_of_winning/

ALERT LIKELY FAKE POLLSTER ALERT SEE BELOW

Haha.

So guys: "gorelick" here must be whoever runs CB Polling, just so you know. I got curious because I don't recall a poll or scenario from them that showed Jones in the lead just before the election.

I went and inspected the website, accessing their sitemap (which shows when each post, page or element on the site was last modified). Low and behold:



The post linked to above (about Jones being within striking distance on "December 10") was last modified today - around an hour before gorelick posted. Now, that alone doesn't mean that a page's URL structure and publish date have been spoofed (which is easily doable) - perhaps it was edited for grammar or something, but...

I checked out Wayback Machine to see whether or not there were any previously indexed versions of the post (usually it doesn't take more than a few days for Wayback Machine to get a snapshot). Lo and behold, there wasn't any backup.

In fact, the only two posts on CB Polling that don't have Wayback images preserved are the two highlighted above - both "last modified" today (the other is the O'Rourke poll post, which was likely published today as well). If it were a case of none of the posts on the site being preserved, it'd be a different story. But everything else - including a post from the same week - is on Wayback.

It looks like a chunk of pages on the site were modified at virtually the same time back on October 29: that could be any number of things that are innocent (and maybe Virginia or somebody can give us an idea) but the fact that just this one page was "last modified" on its own today and right after that link was posted is suspicious.

TL;DR: at best, "CB Polling" edited the AL-SEN post above after the fact to make it look like it was predictive; at worst, the post itself was created today to defend its track record on here and then "gorelick" posted the fake AL-SEN poll info on here. There's no evidence - unlike the other, comparably old posts on CB's website - that the page existed prior to the AL-SEN election.

Finish him!... FINISH HIM!!

[Adam Griffin]

It's also worth noting that when using the "inurl:" command on Google, even the O'Rourke post shows as being published "one day ago". When I do the same for the Doug Jones post, I get an error; it hasn't been indexed by Google, which likely means it's a fresh page created within the past few hours. All other posts on the site show up with the same dates on Google as in their URL structures when queried in the same way - it's just this one post that doesn't seem to have any history!

[The Other Castro]

It's also worth noting that when using the "inurl:" command on Google, even the O'Rourke post shows as being published "one day ago". When I do the same for the Doug Jones post, I get an error; it hasn't been indexed by Google, which likely means it's a fresh page created within the past few hours. All other posts on the site show up with the same dates on Google as in their URL structures when queried in the same way - it's just this one post that doesn't seem to have any history!

gorelick also posted about a Delphi Analytica "poll", which, along with CB Polling, are highly likely to just be fake front groups created by some PredictIt users trying to influence pricing.