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

[free my dawg]

Jesus f***ing Christ.

[free my dawg]

This is an unbelievably stupid comment and will likely cost him votes, but Braley's had a pretty big lead the whole time and there's month of Republican bloodbath primary to go, so it probably won't cost him the seat.

Of course, as we saw in 2012, one stupid comment can not only cost a seat, but cost seats in other states as well. Hopefully the media in Iowa will let this go pretty soon.

One guy saying some elitist bullsh*t isn't comparable to multiple people trivializing one of the worst things someone can do. There will be no ripple.

[free my dawg]

Is Ernst THAT bad? She's supposed to he Branstad's preferred candidate I think.

Yep.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.