2020 Poll Hype Thread

[Eraserhead]

Leaks:

Apparently, the poll showed Warren gaining and Bernie collapsing.

https://www.inquisitr.com/5868908/selzer-poll-bernie-sanders-free-fall

lmao. Oh yeah, that sounds totally legit...

I like how Watson quotes the booing as part of the reason for the downfall, when that clearly would've happened entirely after the poll was conducted. Safe to say, he's full of crap and should be ashamed.

There are also people claiming to have spoken with "reliable sources" saying that Bernie had a big lead. These people are all pushing their own agendas and should be ignored.

[bilaps]

I would understand late surge in a poll for Buttigieg, or even Biden like undecideds breaking for a safe choice, but Warren is the least likely to have moved up. She wasn't in Iowa, she doesn't have starpower surrogates and when she did return yesterday we haven't seen some huge surge in a turnout at her events. It's a bunch of malarkey

[GeorgiaModerate]

I would understand late surge in a poll for Buttigieg, or even Biden like undecideds breaking for a safe choice, but Warren is the least likely to have moved up. She wasn't in Iowa, she doesn't have starpower surrogates and when she did return yesterday we haven't seen some huge surge in a turnout at her events. It's a bunch of malarkey

She did get the DMR endorsement, which has provided a boost in some past caucuses.  (Having said that, I don't believe any of these supposed leaks are true.)

[bilaps]

I would understand late surge in a poll for Buttigieg, or even Biden like undecideds breaking for a safe choice, but Warren is the least likely to have moved up. She wasn't in Iowa, she doesn't have starpower surrogates and when she did return yesterday we haven't seen some huge surge in a turnout at her events. It's a bunch of malarkey

She did get the DMR endorsement, which has provided a best in some past caucuses.  (Having said that, I don't believe any of these supposed leaks are true.)

Well to be honest if someone told me for which candidate would people vote who are actualy moved by some newspaper endorsement, I would probably say Warren. These are those kind of people I suppose.

[Minnesota Mike]

Will not link to it directly because I am extremely dubious of the source but Mike Cernovich has posted what he claims are the results on Twitter. 

[Tintrlvr]

Will not link to it directly because I am extremely dubious of the source but Mike Cernovich has posted what he claims are the results on Twitter. 

He says it was Sanders 22, Warren 18, Buttigieg 16, Biden 13.

Doesn't seem implausible (and doesn't seem to advance any particular agenda), but obviously dubious that anyone has the "real" results.

[2016]

Will not link to it directly because I am extremely dubious of the source but Mike Cernovich has posted what he claims are the results on Twitter. 

He says it was Sanders 22, Warren 18, Buttigieg 16, Biden 13.

Doesn't seem implausible (and doesn't seem to advance any particular agenda), but obviously dubious that anyone has the "real" results.

Their latest Results from Early January were:
Sanders 20
Warren 17
Buttigieg 16
Biden 15

so these Results could be entirely plausible.

[bilaps]

Will not link to it directly because I am extremely dubious of the source but Mike Cernovich has posted what he claims are the results on Twitter.  

He says it was Sanders 22, Warren 18, Buttigieg 16, Biden 13.

Doesn't seem implausible (and doesn't seem to advance any particular agenda), but obviously dubious that anyone has the "real" results.

Their latest Results from Early January were:
Sanders 20
Warren 17
Buttigieg 16
Biden 15

so these Results could be entirely plausible.

I don't care, it's true.

Joke.

To be fair, it would advance agenda from the right against Biden and pro Sanders. And this comes out of Bernie supporter.

And there were reports that Biden's campaign has been lowering expectations yesterday.

[Eraserhead]

Nate Silver is implying that he saw the DMR numbers on Twitter and that the results were similar to their last poll fwiw.

[2016]

Nate Silver is implying that he saw the DMR numbers on Twitter and that the results were similar to their last poll fwiw.

Maybe Silver is referencing the Mike Cernovich Tweet which deemed it at Bernie 22 Warren 18 Pete 16 Biden 13

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I would understand late surge in a poll for Buttigieg, or even Biden like undecideds breaking for a safe choice, but Warren is the least likely to have moved up. She wasn't in Iowa, she doesn't have starpower surrogates and when she did return yesterday we haven't seen some huge surge in a turnout at her events. It's a bunch of malarkey

Warren seems like the most likely to have moved up because she got the DMR endorsement.  Historically, this has significantly helped almost every candidate who received it, especially Democrats and especially candidates who weren’t already frontrunners.

[OkThen]

https://twitter.com/ArjavRawal/status/1224010356114128896?s=20

This is the guy who accurately leaked the last DMR poll before release just FYI.

[ElectionsGuy]

Emerson is releasing their Iowa poll at 6pm EST and then that's it for Iowa polls?

[KaiserDave]

https://twitter.com/ArjavRawal/status/1224010356114128896?s=20

This is the guy who accurately leaked the last DMR poll before release just FYI.

God I hope this is true

[Eraserhead]

That'd be pretty brutal for Biden if accurate.

[2016]

https://twitter.com/ArjavRawal/status/1224010356114128896?s=20

This is the guy who accurately leaked the last DMR poll before release just FYI.

These Numbers make sense. During the Impeachment Trail Trumps Defense Team really did go hard after Joe Biden, his son Hunter and Burisma. I always wondered if that would have a lingering effect for Biden going into Iowa.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

So what do we think happens if the DMR numbers are close to true (Sanders/Warren finish 1/2 and Biden finishes distant 4th below statewide vialbility).

Does the party rally around Warren as the new establishment alternative to Sanders?
Or does the national focus shift to Bloomberg to take on this role?

[2016]

So what do we think happens if the DMR numbers are close to true (Sanders/Warren finish 1/2 and Biden finishes distant 4th below statewide vialbility).

Does the party rally around Warren as the new establishment alternative to Sanders?
Or does the national focus shift to Bloomberg to take on this role?

Bloomberg would be the only Candidate to stop Sanders then.
I've watched quite a bit of MSNBC yesterday (which I usually don't do very often) and it seems that the Biden Campaign is already lowering expectations for tomorrow night.

[Shadows]

So what do we think happens if the DMR numbers are close to true (Sanders/Warren finish 1/2 and Biden finishes distant 4th below statewide vialbility).

Does the party rally around Warren as the new establishment alternative to Sanders?
Or does the national focus shift to Bloomberg to take on this role?

Bloomberg. Warren is done. Biden's voters have Sanders as 2nd choice more than Warren. She is also weak in Nevada & SC. I think if NH results hold through & Sanders gets a 10% win with Warren in 3/4th, she probably drops out soon.

People are looking too much into a 1/2% shift. If anything it was expected more college educated & young people will turn up & also Warren's ground game is probably 2nd best after Sanders.

[Mehmentum]

So what do we think happens if the DMR numbers are close to true (Sanders/Warren finish 1/2 and Biden finishes distant 4th below statewide vialbility).

Does the party rally around Warren as the new establishment alternative to Sanders?
Or does the national focus shift to Bloomberg to take on this role?

Yeah, you'll probably see a huge media hype wave for Warren in the lead up to New Hampshire (similar to Rubio post Iowa).

If they succeed and she wins in NH, Biden is probably the nominee.  If Biden's support does evaporate, though, I have a hard time seeing Warren prevail over Sanders in a one on one.

[Adam Griffin]

Crossposting from AAD

So, I do want to make a dampening #analysis on the IA caucus - not that it hasn't been mentioned prior:

Looking at several polls to release over the past few days, it's still possible for Biden to win or come very close to winning - in the second round (if he wins somehow in the first round, it could be a bloodbath; keep reading).

If Klobuchar's momentum (closing in on statewide viability, but not quite there) is to be believed, then it can be expected that there will be many places where she isn't viable. The bulk will go to Biden in all likelihood. Buttigieg is at viability statewide (give or take), meaning there will also be some places where his thresholds are below viability; we'd expect the bulk of those votes to go to Biden as well. Combined, that's almost 30% of the vote: say one-third of these voters are in non-viable sites and half go to Biden - that gives him a 5-point bump statewide from these two candidates alone (and I feel like only one-third of these two candidates' voters being in non-viable areas is a conservative estimate).

Yes, Sanders may benefit from Yang (though I imagine the bulk of his supporters will simply abstain) and Gabbard (who?), but the only way to cancel this out is if Warren is non-viable in a lot of places as well (for now, she seems in about as good of a position as Buttigieg - though I imagine a smaller share of her voters will go to Sanders than Buttigieg's will go to Biden).

All in all, I think Sanders needs to win the IA caucus by at least 5 points in the first round to retain a second round victory. Even then and depending on the distribution of SDEs (which do not seem to be in Sanders's favor this time), Biden could still pull out a plurality of delegates.

[GeneralMacArthur]

So based on the results we've seen over the last few days, in summary:

Sanders is either securing an easy double-digit victory or stuck in the high-teens.
Biden is either winning a stunning upset or finishing in fifth place and unviable.
Klobuchar is either surging to a last-minute power finish or mired in the single digits.
Warren is either sitting pretty in the low-20s or stuck in fifth place and unviable.
Andrew Yang is either at 10% and close to winning delegates or at 3% and an afterthought.

One thing we do know for sure though:  Pete Buttigieg is at 16%.

[Shadows]

Crossposting from AAD

So, I do want to make a dampening #analysis on the IA caucus - not that it hasn't been mentioned prior:

Looking at several polls to release over the past few days, it's still possible for Biden to win or come very close to winning - in the second round (if he wins somehow in the first round, it could be a bloodbath; keep reading).

If Klobuchar's momentum (closing in on statewide viability, but not quite there) is to be believed, then it can be expected that there will be many places where she isn't viable. The bulk will go to Biden in all likelihood. Buttigieg is at viability statewide (give or take), meaning there will also be some places where his thresholds are below viability; we'd expect the bulk of those votes to go to Biden as well. Combined, that's almost 30% of the vote: say one-third of these voters are in non-viable sites and half go to Biden - that gives him a 5-point bump statewide from these two candidates alone (and I feel like only one-third of these two candidates' voters being in non-viable areas is a conservative estimate).

Yes, Sanders may benefit from Yang (though I imagine the bulk of his supporters will simply abstain) and Gabbard (who?), but the only way to cancel this out is if Warren is non-viable in a lot of places as well (for now, she seems in about as good of a position as Buttigieg - though I imagine a smaller share of her voters will go to Sanders than Buttigieg's will go to Biden).

All in all, I think Sanders needs to win the IA caucus by at least 5 points in the first round to retain a second round victory. Even then and depending on the distribution of SDEs (which do not seem to be in Sanders's favor this time), Biden could still pull out a plurality of delegates.

Agreed. Whether it is 5% or 3-4% remains to be seen.

My Calculation is -

Pete - 16% (Gets some support from non-viable Klobuchar), clears 15% in 80% of the places. The remaining 20% gets spread out between Biden, Warren etc & Biden @ best gets a 1-1.5% bump overall. As per most polls, Pete's support is spread out evenly geography wise.

Warren - 15% odd. Clears viability in 70% places. Bernie gets a 1-1.5% bump. Her support is also concentrated in college areas & urban areas meaning she will lose more than Pete in the viability game.

Klobuchar - 8% odd. She clears the 15% cutoff in 30% & gets 2.5%. The rest 5.5% get allocated. Biden will get 2.5% odd, Pete 1.5%, Warren 1%, Bernie 0.5%. If Klobuchar  polls @ 10 or 11%, then instead of 30%, she crosses viability in 50% or more.

Yang - 5%. 40% go home. 40% go to Bernie. 20% to others. Bernie gets 2% boost.

Gabbard - 1%. 90% to Bernie. 0.9%.

In short - Sanders can get 4-4.5% boost atleast from Yang+Warren+Gabbard supporters.

Biden's bump from Pete will be less than Bernie's from Warren.

Biden's bump from Klobuchar should be 2.5-3% @ best. (Let us take the extreme scenario - Klobuchar 8-9%, Retains 2%, Biden 5%, Others 1-2%). In the most extreme scenario it will be 5%. Sanders bump from Yang+Gabbard will be 3% atleast. Steyer voters will not give anyone a huge bump.

My internal calculation is that Biden gets a 2-2.5% bump higher than Bernie @ best & a 3-4% victory may be sufficient. On the safe side, a 5-6% 1st poll victory will almost be 100% sufficient for Bernie incase Biden gets more from Pete & Klobuchar & if Warren supporters don't give Bernie any boost.

[The Mikado]

Crossposting from AAD

So, I do want to make a dampening #analysis on the IA caucus - not that it hasn't been mentioned prior:

Looking at several polls to release over the past few days, it's still possible for Biden to win or come very close to winning - in the second round (if he wins somehow in the first round, it could be a bloodbath; keep reading).

If Klobuchar's momentum (closing in on statewide viability, but not quite there) is to be believed, then it can be expected that there will be many places where she isn't viable. The bulk will go to Biden in all likelihood. Buttigieg is at viability statewide (give or take), meaning there will also be some places where his thresholds are below viability; we'd expect the bulk of those votes to go to Biden as well. Combined, that's almost 30% of the vote: say one-third of these voters are in non-viable sites and half go to Biden - that gives him a 5-point bump statewide from these two candidates alone (and I feel like only one-third of these two candidates' voters being in non-viable areas is a conservative estimate).

Yes, Sanders may benefit from Yang (though I imagine the bulk of his supporters will simply abstain) and Gabbard (who?), but the only way to cancel this out is if Warren is non-viable in a lot of places as well (for now, she seems in about as good of a position as Buttigieg - though I imagine a smaller share of her voters will go to Sanders than Buttigieg's will go to Biden).

All in all, I think Sanders needs to win the IA caucus by at least 5 points in the first round to retain a second round victory. Even then and depending on the distribution of SDEs (which do not seem to be in Sanders's favor this time), Biden could still pull out a plurality of delegates.

In general I agree with this, but if Biden's support falls through the floor tomorrow, such that Buttigieg is getting Biden transfers more than Biden is getting Buttigieg transfers, that is really a good case for Sanders.

Biden is the only candidate who can beat Bernie Sanders. If Biden ends up 3rd (or worse) in Iowa, it'll prolong the delusion that the other candidates are viable, which secures Sanders' spot. The big danger to Bernie Sanders is consolidation. The longer consolidation is postponed, the stronger he looks overall.

[Gass3268]

Crossposting from AAD

So, I do want to make a dampening #analysis on the IA caucus - not that it hasn't been mentioned prior:

Looking at several polls to release over the past few days, it's still possible for Biden to win or come very close to winning - in the second round (if he wins somehow in the first round, it could be a bloodbath; keep reading).

If Klobuchar's momentum (closing in on statewide viability, but not quite there) is to be believed, then it can be expected that there will be many places where she isn't viable. The bulk will go to Biden in all likelihood. Buttigieg is at viability statewide (give or take), meaning there will also be some places where his thresholds are below viability; we'd expect the bulk of those votes to go to Biden as well. Combined, that's almost 30% of the vote: say one-third of these voters are in non-viable sites and half go to Biden - that gives him a 5-point bump statewide from these two candidates alone (and I feel like only one-third of these two candidates' voters being in non-viable areas is a conservative estimate).

Yes, Sanders may benefit from Yang (though I imagine the bulk of his supporters will simply abstain) and Gabbard (who?), but the only way to cancel this out is if Warren is non-viable in a lot of places as well (for now, she seems in about as good of a position as Buttigieg - though I imagine a smaller share of her voters will go to Sanders than Buttigieg's will go to Biden).

All in all, I think Sanders needs to win the IA caucus by at least 5 points in the first round to retain a second round victory. Even then and depending on the distribution of SDEs (which do not seem to be in Sanders's favor this time), Biden could still pull out a plurality of delegates.

I really think the over representation of rural areas when it comes to SDEs is going to greatly help Biden. This is also why, smartly, the Sanders camp is planning on using the first alignment as the official result of the night on whether or not to claim victory.