Targoz Market Research: Reeves +1, Beshear +19 (lol)

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Also, can we ban Branson from adding these junk "polls" to the database?

Then why is Gravis in the database?

[Donerail]

what is a "Targoz"

ancient mesopotamian space demon

Powerful! Good omens for Beshear, then.

Also, can we ban Branson from adding these junk "polls" to the database?

Would require standards for defining "junk poll," would require a comprehensive debate every time a new questionable poll (hello Change Research) pops up, probably more trouble than it's worth

[Person Man]

No ungraded polls or polls under a C by 538 or have a 538 house effect above 2?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

No ungraded polls or polls under a C by 538 or have a 538 house effect above 2?

But that would eliminate their precious Gravis and We Hate America polls.

[Tender Branson]

Also, can we ban Branson from adding these junk "polls" to the database?

No, you can’t.

All polls out of these 3 states need to be added, because there are so few this year.

Whether it’s junk or not doesn’t matter.

[RI]

These polls may be junk, but junk polls still add some information. I do not support banning their inclusion in the database.

[Tender Branson]

These polls may be junk, but junk polls still add some information. I do not support banning their inclusion in the database.

Thanks.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I thought Icespear was a PA red avatar, he has changed party stripes and insisted Bevin is inevitable and Bevin has the worst approvals of an incumbent gov like Ernie Fletcher

[ElectionsGuy]

Christ all polls lately (D primary, gubernatorial this year, and otherwise) are at the junkiest point I think I've ever seen. Polling is in crisis.

Poll released that contradicts my narrative
"Am I wrong? No, it's the polling industry in crisis."

If I'm wrong, I'll be proven so on election day. Until then, yes, I'm going to call out the crisis in polling when there's a 20 point difference between different pollsters during a similar time period.

[Stranger in a strange land]

They must’ve polled only registered KY Democrats

interesting, this poll has a clear plurality of republicans as their sample. Even then, though, they have Beshear winning 94% of dems LMFAO.

I take this poll with a whole mine of salt, but is there any chance the Demosaurs have finally died out/gotten the memo?

[IceSpear]

Christ all polls lately (D primary, gubernatorial this year, and otherwise) are at the junkiest point I think I've ever seen. Polling is in crisis.

Poll released that contradicts my narrative
"Am I wrong? No, it's the polling industry in crisis."

So you're putting all your chips on Beshear winning by double digits, huh? Bold move, we'll see if it pays off. It certainly didn't with the last "Targoz" poll:

LOL. RIP IceSpear. If two polls show this race tied, it isn't really "Safe R" anymore, huh?

[ltomlinson31]

This explains why the Kentucky poll is the way it is:



Here is the religious breakdown of Kentucky according to pewforum:

[RI]

This explains why the Kentucky poll is the way it is:



Here is the religious breakdown of Kentucky according to pewforum:

Along these same lines, they have Beshear and Bevin as tied with evangelicals...

[IceSpear]

This explains why the Kentucky poll is the way it is:



Here is the religious breakdown of Kentucky according to pewforum:

LMAO

Tech Tim, take it away...

[Technocracy Timmy]

A Democrat tied with evangelicals? Sounds super legit.

Almost as legit as John James carrying the black vote next year.

[lfromnj]

Didnt techbtimmy have a great post on TN and Roy moore with TN being 60% evangelical.

[Donerail]

y’all know that the 23% “something else” is almost certainly people who were listening for “Christian” (or “Baptist,” etc.) and not massive oversampling of Hindus, right?

[Oryxslayer]

y’all know that the 23% “something else” is almost certainly people who were listening for “Christian” (or “Baptist,” etc.) and not massive oversampling of Hindus, right?

Yes, the fact they included a detailed religious breakdown is a luxury. Religion is a subjective variable that gets more  subjective based on the  number of provided options. You cannot weight by it because what is a member of 'x' religion in these days. Depending on the survey a 'x' can be as be as light or as heavy as the  viewer interprets it to be. 'X' can contain a respondent who only goes to services once a  year, and a respondent who goes every week. Both people call themselves 'X's but they are clearly distinct. Meanwhile, with increasing secularism more people may think of themselves as agnostic or nonreligious, even though they may still follow certain religious customs they were raised in or respond "yes I'm a X" if questioned hard enough. It's just like self-identified ideology, partisanship, or class - these are all flawed statistics when compared to the  hard stuff like race, gender, education, age, income, or geographic region.

If you guys really want to just throw out polls that disagree with your narrative, rather then throw them on the pile, you can do that without telling us and providing a bunch of justification.

[Technocracy Timmy]

y’all know that the 23% “something else” is almost certainly people who were listening for “Christian” (or “Baptist,” etc.) and not massive oversampling of Hindus, right?

Care to explain how this poll has evangelicals tied among both candidates?

It's just like self-identified ideology, partisanship, or class - these are all flawed statistics when compared to the  hard stuff like race, gender, education, age, income, or geographic region.

Race, income, and geographic regions are not “hard stuff” separate from flawed statistics. An explanation for this should not be necessary. Gender identity as the years pass will also be another layer for pollsters.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

While we're on the subject, do the Republicans even have real candidates for Secretary of State and Attorney General? They do have people running, but I can't even imagine either one of them winning a city council race, let alone a statewide office.

These guys make Matt Bevin look like a great statesman.

[IceSpear]

y’all know that the 23% “something else” is almost certainly people who were listening for “Christian” (or “Baptist,” etc.) and not massive oversampling of Hindus, right?

Yes, the fact they included a detailed religious breakdown is a luxury. Religion is a subjective variable that gets more  subjective based on the  number of provided options. You cannot weight by it because what is a member of 'x' religion in these days. Depending on the survey a 'x' can be as be as light or as heavy as the  viewer interprets it to be. 'X' can contain a respondent who only goes to services once a  year, and a respondent who goes every week. Both people call themselves 'X's but they are clearly distinct. Meanwhile, with increasing secularism more people may think of themselves as agnostic or nonreligious, even though they may still follow certain religious customs they were raised in or respond "yes I'm a X" if questioned hard enough. It's just like self-identified ideology, partisanship, or class - these are all flawed statistics when compared to the  hard stuff like race, gender, education, age, income, or geographic region.

If you guys really want to just throw out polls that disagree with your narrative, rather then throw them on the pile, you can do that without telling us and providing a bunch of justification.

Yes, it is such a luxury to have the pollster that convinced half of Atlas Phil Bredesen still had a chance back in the game.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

y’all know that the 23% “something else” is almost certainly people who were listening for “Christian” (or “Baptist,” etc.) and not massive oversampling of Hindus, right?

Yes, the fact they included a detailed religious breakdown is a luxury. Religion is a subjective variable that gets more  subjective based on the  number of provided options. You cannot weight by it because what is a member of 'x' religion in these days. Depending on the survey a 'x' can be as be as light or as heavy as the  viewer interprets it to be. 'X' can contain a respondent who only goes to services once a  year, and a respondent who goes every week. Both people call themselves 'X's but they are clearly distinct. Meanwhile, with increasing secularism more people may think of themselves as agnostic or nonreligious, even though they may still follow certain religious customs they were raised in or respond "yes I'm a X" if questioned hard enough. It's just like self-identified ideology, partisanship, or class - these are all flawed statistics when compared to the  hard stuff like race, gender, education, age, income, or geographic region.

If you guys really want to just throw out polls that disagree with your narrative, rather then throw them on the pile, you can do that without telling us and providing a bunch of justification.

Yes, it is such a luxury to have the pollster that convinced half of Atlas Phil Bredesen still had a chance back in the game.

These two elections are apples and oranges, Bredesen did the Ted Strickland thing and went against the party establishment to win an open seat. Ted Strickland stated Scalia's death was good for American people. Bredesen bucked party trend and foolishly endorsed Kavenaugh. Manchin endorsed Kavanaugh, but he is a well established official. Beshear will win, due to Bevin and his Ernie Fletchers approvals

[Tintrlvr]

y’all know that the 23% “something else” is almost certainly people who were listening for “Christian” (or “Baptist,” etc.) and not massive oversampling of Hindus, right?

Care to explain how this poll has evangelicals tied among both candidates?

Small sample size. It's only 144 voters who identified as evangelical to begin with. They seem to have only asked about 200 voters whether they identified as evangelical or not. It's not clear why, but they may have only asked those who first identified as Protestant, which would definitely be a methodological problem but it may also explain the discrepancy since I bet evangelicals who identify as "Protestant" over "something else" are a significantly less Republican group than evangelicals overall. Also, with leaners, Bevin leads by 7 with evangelicals.

Edit: To be clear, I don't think this pollster is right. But cherry-picking certain parts of their poll that have ambiguous implications is not a way to debunk them.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

While we're on the subject, do the Republicans even have real candidates for Secretary of State and Attorney General? They do have people running, but I can't even imagine either one of them winning a city council race, let alone a statewide office.

These guys make Matt Bevin look like a great statesman.

It doesn’t fdcking matter, Republicans are going to sweep Kentucky next tuesday, and there will be plenty of eggs for you.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

While we're on the subject, do the Republicans even have real candidates for Secretary of State and Attorney General? They do have people running, but I can't even imagine either one of them winning a city council race, let alone a statewide office.

These guys make Matt Bevin look like a great statesman.

It doesn’t fdcking matter, Republicans are going to sweep Kentucky next tuesday, and there will be plenty of eggs for you.

I wouldnt say that, Stumbi and Beshear have gotten FTO of police to endorce them. R legislature have put more money in K-12 than Gov Bevin and overrode his veto. On school choice, R legislature and Beshear agrees