MT-AL: Rob Quist (D) vs. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Mark Wicks (L), May 25

[Sorenroy]

What methodology is Google using compared to Gravis?

Gravis is a telephone poll (landline and cell phone).  The cell phone part of the sample is done by a link to a webpage, I think. 

Google Surveys are internet-only.  They basically send out their poll questions as ads on newspaper and other websites that people must answer (or skip) to read content.  Google also asks some people the question via their pay-credits-for-answers survey app. 

There are tons of problems with the Google Survey methodology - from the fact that the cheaper one-question methodology doesn't allow for screening questions to low sample sizes.  The Google Survey polls of this race have been all over the place, from Quist +17 to Gianforte +10.  They're not very good.  Yet, defying logic, I'm probably going to purchase another one before the election.

That doesn't mean Gravis is a great pollster, though.  They're not.

So, why buy a Google poll then? How much cheaper is it than polling done by an established polling organization?

[Sorenroy]

We're at 482/567 on my Google Survey.  It should be finished tomorrow.  So far, it doesn't confirm Gravis' poll. 

Do you do these polls just to help satiate your curiosity? Regardless of the reason, thank you for sharing them here!

It's part curiosity, part hope that they're actually accurate and actually tell us something about the race.  Amdcpus got me hooked back during the 2016 election.  Once you've commissioned one Google Survey, it's somewhat addictive.  But I've been increasingly skeptical of their reliability.  Had I not done the first poll back in March, and the second poll in April, I wouldn't have done this one.   This poll is probably my last.  It's a huge waste of money.

Well they might not show the accurate numbers, but are they at all decent at showing how the race is shifting?

[Sorenroy]

NEW POLL ALERT
From Change Research/Medium.com

Gianforte- 49%
Quist- 43%
Wicks- 7%

Among those most likely to vote (NO LEAN):
Gianforte- 43%
Quist- 40%

Among those most likely to vote (LEAN):
Gianforte- 48%
Quist- 44%

Among those already decided (ALL VOTERS):
Gianforte- 42%
Quist- 38%

GOOD POLL FOR QUIST! Someone said it's an R internal too.

Uh, source?

He probably just can't post it yet. A google poll brings it up: https://medium.com/@ChngRsrch/republican-greg-gianforte-up-6-in-new-montana-poll-e1088b3a28a7

[Sorenroy]

Can Montana actually afford to have a second special election? That was the big deal behind the mail in only ballot measure. If counties are in this serious of financial trouble,and Gianforte resigns(after winning the election) wouldn't Montana just let the seat remain vacant until '18?

Wouldn't Gianforte be wealthy enough to donate the needed funding to the state? Seems like that would be the appropriate thing to do.

It would be the right thing to do, but he probably won't do it. I will say that it would be a fairly good publicity move. He's already run for governor and now representative, he probably still wants public office. Apologizing and saying the statement from his campaign was a lie, resigning and then paying for another election if he wins, and then taking anger management classes would put him in a much better position to run for another office in the future then ignoring the attack and trying to duck the news for the next couple of months/years.

This is exhibit A of why no-excuse early voting should be banned.

I agree. It should be easy to vote before election day, but you should have to do something extra to do so. Early voting is a privilege, not a right. Not to derail the thread, but that's also my feeling about voter IDs. As long as they are easy to get (and I mean, so easy that not even a single person is unable to vote), they aren't that bad an idea.

seems like FN finally dared to air Acuna
https://twitter.com/TomNamako/status/867737914045861889

It almost seems like Acuna was required to give Gianforte's side of the story at the end without even addressing how it was incorrect. Otherwise, you'd think if she was going to bring it up to refute what it had to say.


I was talking to my mother yesterday right before the news came out and said that I believed the race was going to be Gianforte by two to three points. Now I think it will go to Quist by one to two.

If I had to make some wild guesses,

Pre-Assault*
Greg Gianforte — 49.3%
Rob Quist — 46.6%
Mark Wicks — 4.1%

Post-Assault*
Rob Quist — 47.5%
Greg Gianforte — 45.9%
Mark Wicks — 6.6%

*While write-ins are allowed, they do not appear to be reported.

[Sorenroy]

If I was a conservative and was confident that Gianforte's victory would mean another election with a new Republican candidate, I'd probably still vote for him. I can't really see how any other vote for the man himself is anything other than blind partisanship.

[Sorenroy]

@Arch: NYTimes, Decision Desk and the SOS page are all good websites. Also the AP if you don't care about the county by county results.

AP by county: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2017/by_county/MT_Page_0525.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS

But yeah, AP has no maps.

[Sorenroy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why 10:25 and not 10:00?

[Sorenroy]

Is there a news channel or something to watch for results?

[Sorenroy]

Is there a news channel or something to watch for results?

The NY Times site
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/montana-house-special-election

Thanks, but I meant like a live TV station.

[Sorenroy]

The NYT numbers seem... weird. For instance, both the NYT and the MT SOS report the same number of votes in Missoula, but the NYT says that 32/52 precincts are in while the MT SOS says that zero are. Is the NYT trying to estimate the percentage of the early vote to election day voters, or is something messed up with their reporting?

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/montana-house-special-election
http://mtelectionresults.gov/resultsSW.aspx?type=FED