IA-Sen: Bruce Braley criticizes Grassley as ‘a farmer from Iowa’

[windjammer]

O/c none of those are by credible firms, but there you go

[free my dawg]

What an elitist idiot.

Republicans will play this thing 24/7 until the election.

Another competetive race, because Braley's favorables will drop and the eventual Republican candidate will become better known over the next months.

The Republican outside-groups will do the rest to make it competetive.

You guys are delusional if you think this comment will make the race competitive. It's March and no one is paying attention. As someone said, there are more lawyers than farmers in Iowa and every urban dweller secretly likes these comments because it sticks it to the rurals.

Let's hope then that I won't have to bring up your quote again in Aug./Sep./Oct. ...

The next polls will show what impact it had. But I stick with it: This race could become highly competetive over the summer.

Sry, but I have to bring it up much earlier than I thought:

IA is now projected to be an R pickup:

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php

One is from an R-biased firm, another is from a completely unreputable R firm that I wouldn't be surprised if it was cooking numbers, and the third's sample is too conservative.

Could we ask Leip to take the Loras and Vox Populi polls out of the algorithm?

[Never]

What an elitist idiot.

Republicans will play this thing 24/7 until the election.

Another competetive race, because Braley's favorables will drop and the eventual Republican candidate will become better known over the next months.

The Republican outside-groups will do the rest to make it competetive.

You guys are delusional if you think this comment will make the race competitive. It's March and no one is paying attention. As someone said, there are more lawyers than farmers in Iowa and every urban dweller secretly likes these comments because it sticks it to the rurals.

Let's hope then that I won't have to bring up your quote again in Aug./Sep./Oct. ...

The next polls will show what impact it had. But I stick with it: This race could become highly competetive over the summer.

Sry, but I have to bring it up much earlier than I thought:

IA is now projected to be an R pickup:

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php

One is from an R-biased firm, another is from a completely unreputable R firm that I wouldn't be surprised if it was cooking numbers, and the third's sample is too conservative.

Could we ask Leip to take the Loras and Vox Populi polls out of the algorithm?

Whoa there. I don't believe that Ernst is leading by the margins that Loras and Vox Populi are indicating, but polling is not a concrete science, and odds are that we will soon see more reliable pollsters come in and give us a clearer picture of the Senate race in Iowa. It seems rash to take polls out of algorithms with such fervor.

[tmthforu94]

What an elitist idiot.

Republicans will play this thing 24/7 until the election.

Another competetive race, because Braley's favorables will drop and the eventual Republican candidate will become better known over the next months.

The Republican outside-groups will do the rest to make it competetive.

You guys are delusional if you think this comment will make the race competitive. It's March and no one is paying attention. As someone said, there are more lawyers than farmers in Iowa and every urban dweller secretly likes these comments because it sticks it to the rurals.

Let's hope then that I won't have to bring up your quote again in Aug./Sep./Oct. ...

The next polls will show what impact it had. But I stick with it: This race could become highly competetive over the summer.

Sry, but I have to bring it up much earlier than I thought:

IA is now projected to be an R pickup:

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php

One is from an R-biased firm, another is from a completely unreputable R firm that I wouldn't be surprised if it was cooking numbers, and the third's sample is too conservative.

Could we ask Leip to take the Loras and Vox Populi polls out of the algorithm?

Whoa there. I don't believe that Ernst is leading by the margins that Loras and Vox Populi are indicating, but polling is not a concrete science, and odds are that we will soon see more reliable pollsters come in and give us a clearer picture of the Senate race in Iowa. It seems rash to take polls out of algorithms with such fervor.

^^

The whole system is going to go downhill if we start picking and choosing which polls should be entered based on whether we like the results they give. Personally I like everything being displayed for informational purposes, even though it sometimes leads to false perceptions (Louisiana Senate).

[free my dawg]

What an elitist idiot.

Republicans will play this thing 24/7 until the election.

Another competetive race, because Braley's favorables will drop and the eventual Republican candidate will become better known over the next months.

The Republican outside-groups will do the rest to make it competetive.

You guys are delusional if you think this comment will make the race competitive. It's March and no one is paying attention. As someone said, there are more lawyers than farmers in Iowa and every urban dweller secretly likes these comments because it sticks it to the rurals.

Let's hope then that I won't have to bring up your quote again in Aug./Sep./Oct. ...

The next polls will show what impact it had. But I stick with it: This race could become highly competetive over the summer.

Sry, but I have to bring it up much earlier than I thought:

IA is now projected to be an R pickup:

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php

One is from an R-biased firm, another is from a completely unreputable R firm that I wouldn't be surprised if it was cooking numbers, and the third's sample is too conservative.

Could we ask Leip to take the Loras and Vox Populi polls out of the algorithm?

Whoa there. I don't believe that Ernst is leading by the margins that Loras and Vox Populi are indicating, but polling is not a concrete science, and odds are that we will soon see more reliable pollsters come in and give us a clearer picture of the Senate race in Iowa. It seems rash to take polls out of algorithms with such fervor.

^^

The whole system is going to go downhill if we start picking and choosing which polls should be entered based on whether we like the results they give. Personally I like everything being displayed for informational purposes, even though it sometimes leads to false perceptions (Louisiana Senate).

It's not because I don't like the result, it's bad methodology. Vox Populi's results from OR-Senate and OR-Governor have completely turned me off from them personally. But then again, they're an unproven quantity, so they might be able to stay, but Loras at the very least should be completely disregarded because they only sampled voters who voted in 2010.

I'm surely not being a hack, if that's what you're implying. I just don't think that polls that make a preconceived assumption about the electorate should be included in here.

[Never]

What an elitist idiot.

Republicans will play this thing 24/7 until the election.

Another competetive race, because Braley's favorables will drop and the eventual Republican candidate will become better known over the next months.

The Republican outside-groups will do the rest to make it competetive.

You guys are delusional if you think this comment will make the race competitive. It's March and no one is paying attention. As someone said, there are more lawyers than farmers in Iowa and every urban dweller secretly likes these comments because it sticks it to the rurals.

Let's hope then that I won't have to bring up your quote again in Aug./Sep./Oct. ...

The next polls will show what impact it had. But I stick with it: This race could become highly competetive over the summer.

Sry, but I have to bring it up much earlier than I thought:

IA is now projected to be an R pickup:

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php

One is from an R-biased firm, another is from a completely unreputable R firm that I wouldn't be surprised if it was cooking numbers, and the third's sample is too conservative.

Could we ask Leip to take the Loras and Vox Populi polls out of the algorithm?

Whoa there. I don't believe that Ernst is leading by the margins that Loras and Vox Populi are indicating, but polling is not a concrete science, and odds are that we will soon see more reliable pollsters come in and give us a clearer picture of the Senate race in Iowa. It seems rash to take polls out of algorithms with such fervor.

^^

The whole system is going to go downhill if we start picking and choosing which polls should be entered based on whether we like the results they give. Personally I like everything being displayed for informational purposes, even though it sometimes leads to false perceptions (Louisiana Senate).

It's not because I don't like the result, it's bad methodology. Vox Populi's results from OR-Senate and OR-Governor have completely turned me off from them personally. But then again, they're an unproven quantity, so they might be able to stay, but Loras at the very least should be completely disregarded because they only sampled voters who voted in 2010.

I'm surely not being a hack, if that's what you're implying. I just don't think that polls that make a preconceived assumption about the electorate should be included in here.

Well, in that case, I think there is a solution at hand. How about a proposal to split the averages: one with all of the polls, and another with the partisan polls excluded? That might give us a better idea of what to expect when the actual election occurs, though it would mean that we couldn't include PPP, a Democratic-affiliated polling firm that is one of the most reliable players in the game.

On the other hand, there are legitimate concerns about Loras College. They are very new at this, having only started polling this year, but hopefully they improve over time.

Btw, I didn't assume you were a hack, I just had concerns with your proposal, that's all

[CatoMinor]

If those get taken out then the ridiculous AR polls should be removed too. They had Pryor up by double digits lol.

[Lief 🗽]

Marist and NYT are established polling organizations with records. Lorax and Vox Populi aren't. Not really comparable.

[free my dawg]

What an elitist idiot.

Republicans will play this thing 24/7 until the election.

Another competetive race, because Braley's favorables will drop and the eventual Republican candidate will become better known over the next months.

The Republican outside-groups will do the rest to make it competetive.

You guys are delusional if you think this comment will make the race competitive. It's March and no one is paying attention. As someone said, there are more lawyers than farmers in Iowa and every urban dweller secretly likes these comments because it sticks it to the rurals.

Let's hope then that I won't have to bring up your quote again in Aug./Sep./Oct. ...

The next polls will show what impact it had. But I stick with it: This race could become highly competetive over the summer.

Sry, but I have to bring it up much earlier than I thought:

IA is now projected to be an R pickup:

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php

One is from an R-biased firm, another is from a completely unreputable R firm that I wouldn't be surprised if it was cooking numbers, and the third's sample is too conservative.

Could we ask Leip to take the Loras and Vox Populi polls out of the algorithm?

Whoa there. I don't believe that Ernst is leading by the margins that Loras and Vox Populi are indicating, but polling is not a concrete science, and odds are that we will soon see more reliable pollsters come in and give us a clearer picture of the Senate race in Iowa. It seems rash to take polls out of algorithms with such fervor.

^^

The whole system is going to go downhill if we start picking and choosing which polls should be entered based on whether we like the results they give. Personally I like everything being displayed for informational purposes, even though it sometimes leads to false perceptions (Louisiana Senate).

It's not because I don't like the result, it's bad methodology. Vox Populi's results from OR-Senate and OR-Governor have completely turned me off from them personally. But then again, they're an unproven quantity, so they might be able to stay, but Loras at the very least should be completely disregarded because they only sampled voters who voted in 2010.

I'm surely not being a hack, if that's what you're implying. I just don't think that polls that make a preconceived assumption about the electorate should be included in here.

Well, in that case, I think there is a solution at hand. How about a proposal to split the averages: one with all of the polls, and another with the partisan polls excluded? That might give us a better idea of what to expect when the actual election occurs, though it would mean that we couldn't include PPP, a Democratic-affiliated polling firm that is one of the most reliable players in the game.

On the other hand, there are legitimate concerns about Loras College. They are very new at this, having only started polling this year, but hopefully they improve over time.

Btw, I didn't assume you were a hack, I just had concerns with your proposal, that's all

That might be a good idea (don't know if Leip has the capability to do that). Maybe we could just exclude PPP's internals and only use their non-commissioned firms?

FTR I have no issue with your comments.

If those get taken out then the ridiculous AR polls should be removed too. They had Pryor up by double digits lol.

False analogy. NYT/Marist aren't making assumptions about the electorate like Loras is.

[Never]

What an elitist idiot.

Republicans will play this thing 24/7 until the election.

Another competetive race, because Braley's favorables will drop and the eventual Republican candidate will become better known over the next months.

The Republican outside-groups will do the rest to make it competetive.

You guys are delusional if you think this comment will make the race competitive. It's March and no one is paying attention. As someone said, there are more lawyers than farmers in Iowa and every urban dweller secretly likes these comments because it sticks it to the rurals.

Let's hope then that I won't have to bring up your quote again in Aug./Sep./Oct. ...

The next polls will show what impact it had. But I stick with it: This race could become highly competetive over the summer.

Sry, but I have to bring it up much earlier than I thought:

IA is now projected to be an R pickup:

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php

One is from an R-biased firm, another is from a completely unreputable R firm that I wouldn't be surprised if it was cooking numbers, and the third's sample is too conservative.

Could we ask Leip to take the Loras and Vox Populi polls out of the algorithm?

Whoa there. I don't believe that Ernst is leading by the margins that Loras and Vox Populi are indicating, but polling is not a concrete science, and odds are that we will soon see more reliable pollsters come in and give us a clearer picture of the Senate race in Iowa. It seems rash to take polls out of algorithms with such fervor.

^^

The whole system is going to go downhill if we start picking and choosing which polls should be entered based on whether we like the results they give. Personally I like everything being displayed for informational purposes, even though it sometimes leads to false perceptions (Louisiana Senate).

It's not because I don't like the result, it's bad methodology. Vox Populi's results from OR-Senate and OR-Governor have completely turned me off from them personally. But then again, they're an unproven quantity, so they might be able to stay, but Loras at the very least should be completely disregarded because they only sampled voters who voted in 2010.

I'm surely not being a hack, if that's what you're implying. I just don't think that polls that make a preconceived assumption about the electorate should be included in here.

Well, in that case, I think there is a solution at hand. How about a proposal to split the averages: one with all of the polls, and another with the partisan polls excluded? That might give us a better idea of what to expect when the actual election occurs, though it would mean that we couldn't include PPP, a Democratic-affiliated polling firm that is one of the most reliable players in the game.

On the other hand, there are legitimate concerns about Loras College. They are very new at this, having only started polling this year, but hopefully they improve over time.

Btw, I didn't assume you were a hack, I just had concerns with your proposal, that's all

That might be a good idea (don't know if Leip has the capability to do that). Maybe we could just exclude PPP's internals and only use their non-commissioned firms?

FTR I have no issue with your comments.

If those get taken out then the ridiculous AR polls should be removed too. They had Pryor up by double digits lol.

False analogy. NYT/Marist aren't making assumptions about the electorate like Loras is.

I think I'll go to the Atlas discussion thread and see if anyone bites on my proposal.

I'm glad we're on good terms brah.

Arkansas (and Louisiana for that matter) are evidence that polling can fail to give us an accurate picture, regardless of the reputability of the organization carrying out the poll.

[Donerail]

I feel like we had this discussion earlier, about South Carolina in 2012. There were only 3 polls of the state (a couple Marist and an Ipsos). The Ipsos and one of the Marists was R+6, while the other Marist was D+3, so the state was listed as a tossup on our polling map. We didn't take any action to 'fix' it then.

[Never]

I feel like we had this discussion earlier, about South Carolina in 2012. There were only 3 polls of the state (a couple Marist and an Ipsos). The Ipsos and one of the Marists was R+6, while the other Marist was D+3, so the state was listed as a tossup on our polling map. We didn't take any action to 'fix' it then.

I remember seeing that when I looked at some information about the 2012 election on this site recently. It was unusual.

[cinyc]

False analogy. NYT/Marist aren't making assumptions about the electorate like Loras is.

Of course they are.  Every pollster who polls voters is making some assumption.  Even in a registered voter poll, pollsters are assuming that voters who are not registered today won't register or vote tomorrow and that voters who are registered will turn out and vote.  Every likely voter poll has some sort of likely voter screen based on assumptions about the upcoming electorate, often at least partially based on voter history.

[CatoMinor]

Marist and NYT are established polling organizations with records. Lorax and Vox Populi aren't. Not really comparable.

You honestly feel that the poll entered that has Landrieu up 24% isn't bs?

[free my dawg]

Marist and NYT are established polling organizations with records. Lorax and Vox Populi aren't. Not really comparable.

You honestly feel that the poll entered that has Landrieu up 24% isn't bs?

That's the primary, not a runoff. A decent chunk of Louisianans are supporting other GOPers and will, of course, come home to Cassidy.

[CatoMinor]

Marist and NYT are established polling organizations with records. Lorax and Vox Populi aren't. Not really comparable.

You honestly feel that the poll entered that has Landrieu up 24% isn't bs?

That's the primary, not a runoff. Of course she's going to lose.

I understand LA uses that awful jungle primary system, but would it not make sense to not enter both primary and general polls into the system?

[Tender Branson]

Marist and NYT are established polling organizations with records. Lorax and Vox Populi aren't. Not really comparable.

You honestly feel that the poll entered that has Landrieu up 24% isn't bs?

It doesn't matter anyway, because there are tons of polls coming out for LA in the coming months.

Which means the poll you mentioned won't impact the final poll average.

Of course, LA is using a sh*tty system: It would be better if the state would have its primary before general election day and the run-off on the general election day (like CA for example).

In that case we could enter the primary polls until primary date and then the run-off polls.

But unfortunately we have to enter both the primary and the run-off polls now, depending what the pollster releases ...

[Tender Branson]

What an elitist idiot.

Republicans will play this thing 24/7 until the election.

Another competetive race, because Braley's favorables will drop and the eventual Republican candidate will become better known over the next months.

The Republican outside-groups will do the rest to make it competetive.

You guys are delusional if you think this comment will make the race competitive. It's March and no one is paying attention. As someone said, there are more lawyers than farmers in Iowa and every urban dweller secretly likes these comments because it sticks it to the rurals.

Let's hope then that I won't have to bring up your quote again in Aug./Sep./Oct. ...

The next polls will show what impact it had. But I stick with it: This race could become highly competetive over the summer.

Sry, but I have to bring it up much earlier than I thought:

IA is now projected to be an R pickup:

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2014/polls.php

One is from an R-biased firm, another is from a completely unreputable R firm that I wouldn't be surprised if it was cooking numbers, and the third's sample is too conservative.

Could we ask Leip to take the Loras and Vox Populi polls out of the algorithm?

Nope, we don't remove polls just because you don't like the result ...

[Tender Branson]

Quinnipiac out with a new IA Sen. poll later today ...

[free my dawg]

One is from an R-biased firm, another is from a completely unreputable R firm that I wouldn't be surprised if it was cooking numbers, and the third's sample is too conservative.

Could we ask Leip to take the Loras and Vox Populi polls out of the algorithm?

Nope, we don't remove polls just because you don't like the result ...

You know damn well it's not because I don't like the result.

False analogy. NYT/Marist aren't making assumptions about the electorate like Loras is.

Of course they are.  Every pollster who polls voters is making some assumption.  Even in a registered voter poll, pollsters are assuming that voters who are not registered today won't register or vote tomorrow and that voters who are registered will turn out and vote.  Every likely voter poll has some sort of likely voter screen based on assumptions about the upcoming electorate, often at least partially based on voter history.

That's very true - however, they're only polling voters who voted in 2010, which was an anomaly of an election. So if someone who voted in every midterm election - even 1994 - but for some reason couldn't get to the polls four years ago, they're not forecasted in that model.

That's flawed polling. VP can stay because there's only one finished race it's polled, but Loras uses junk methodology. That's a fact, and I don't know why I need to explain this again.

[Nichlemn]

Did this gaffe in and of itself have much of an impact? Or was it more like a bellwether of Braley's ineptness as a candidate? Or something else?

[Holmes]

Didn't he lose because he sued a chicken one time or something?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, because if Ernst had by the Sharron Angle 2.0 that everybody on the forum almost claimed she would be it would not have mattered.

Ernst was drastically underestimated from point of view of lead up to her primary win and just after, that was a far bigger factor than his stupidity. Candidate quality determins the ability to take advantage of things when they blow your way, and a lot did blow her way and that was how she won.

[moderatevoter]

This thread was fun to read through.

[Bigby]

Bleckley Bazookey seems to have been doomed from the start.