PPP-IA: Braley +1

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Well, this certainly is an interesting development, but I'm gonna need more polls than one that's still within the MoE. Again, election night is gonna be rough.

[IceSpear]

This wasn't included in RCP..... just saying

Because it was done for a liberal group, and was probably skewed a couple points or so in their favor.

This probably shouldn't be in the database, as it's not an independent poll.

Funnily enough, RCP won't include a PPP poll commissioned by the LCV, but will include a Magellan poll commissioned by the right wing "Keystone Report" website. They're hardly the paragon of objectivity you guys seem to think they are.

[DrScholl]

If I'm not mistaken, there was a time that RCP didn't enter a poll last cycle, and it was an independent poll that wasn't commissioned by any group (it also showed a Republican trailing). RCP isn't all that trustworthy at times when it comes to entering polls.

[SPC]

This wasn't included in RCP..... just saying

Because it was done for a liberal group, and was probably skewed a couple points or so in their favor.

This probably shouldn't be in the database, as it's not an independent poll.

Funnily enough, RCP won't include a PPP poll commissioned by the LCV, but will include a Magellan poll commissioned by the right wing "Keystone Report" website. They're hardly the paragon of objectivity you guys seem to think they are.

Obviously RCP has a Republican bias when it comes to which polls they enter; hence why I find it so amusing when you guys cite performances relative to the RCP Average as a basis for believing Democratic candidates will "overperform the polls"

[IceSpear]

This wasn't included in RCP..... just saying

Because it was done for a liberal group, and was probably skewed a couple points or so in their favor.

This probably shouldn't be in the database, as it's not an independent poll.

Funnily enough, RCP won't include a PPP poll commissioned by the LCV, but will include a Magellan poll commissioned by the right wing "Keystone Report" website. They're hardly the paragon of objectivity you guys seem to think they are.

Obviously RCP has a Republican bias when it comes to which polls they enter; hence why I find it so amusing when you guys cite performances relative to the RCP Average as a basis for believing Democratic candidates will "overperform the polls"

Well, they tend to stop playing games toward the end so that their results are as accurate as possible.

[porky88]

Each of the last six polls in the RCP database has the race within the MOE. A strong ground game by the Democrats could put Braley over the top. In other words, it's a close race, so I'm not surprised PPP (or any pollster, for that matter) shows a close race. 

[Maxwell]

This wasn't included in RCP..... just saying

Because it was done for a liberal group, and was probably skewed a couple points or so in their favor.

This probably shouldn't be in the database, as it's not an independent poll.

Funnily enough, RCP won't include a PPP poll commissioned by the LCV, but will include a Magellan poll commissioned by the right wing "Keystone Report" website. They're hardly the paragon of objectivity you guys seem to think they are.

Obviously RCP has a Republican bias when it comes to which polls they enter; hence why I find it so amusing when you guys cite performances relative to the RCP Average as a basis for believing Democratic candidates will "overperform the polls"

Well, they tend to stop playing games toward the end so that their results are as accurate as possible.

They include Rassy, so I don't know why you would say that

[Ljube]

Nate Silver included this poll in his average, but adjusted it to a tie.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nate Silver included this poll in his average, but adjusted it to a tie.

Seems fair.

[chrisras]

PPP only has Braley up by 1.  Ouch.  That's not a good sign for him.  I think he's finished guys.

[IceSpear]

PPP only has Braley up by 1.  Ouch.  That's not a good sign for him.  I think he's finished guys.

You know PPP had a Republican bias in 2012, right?

[bedstuy]

I think you missed my point.  I think if we're dissecting why someone has "eccentric" views on political issues, the part that matters is the bad policy, not whether the candidate is stupid or mentally  ill or whatever.

Personally, I find the far-right wing of the Republican Party radical, extreme and crazy.  Maybe you disagree and that's fine.  But, make no mistake, Joni Ernst is a far right-wing conspiracy theorist candidate.  That might be mainstream in today's Republican Party, but that doesn't legitimize her in any way.  True, she might actually win, I would give her almost a 50% chance of winning.  That's only an indictment of how messed up our political system is in 2014.

I find the far-right and far-left as necessary in the grand scheme of the political process. Differing viewpoints challenge traditional thinking, lead to a healthy debate on the issues and in some events enact positive change for the country.

I hardly would label Ernst as a far right-wing conspiracy theorist. I would not indict Michelle Bachmann as either crazy or evil. They serve their purpose in the political process as much as Alan Greyson and Elizabeth Warren do on the far-left.

It's one thing to call a candidate's policies "crazy" or "bonkers." But to call a candidate with differing beliefs "crazy" because you don't believe in their policies crosses the line.

I would call Elizabeth Warren center-left.  She's pretty moderate.   But, that's neither here nor there. We can throw around labels all day long, but who really cares? 

When I call Joni Ernst a conspiracy theorist, it's because she believes in the Tea Party's "Agenda 21" conspiracy theory.  When I call her radical, I'm referring to things like shutting down the EPA.  And, I wouldn't want a Democratic conspiracy theorist who was ranting and raving about chemtrails and fluoride either.  I just want smart, informed, rational people in government.  A good example of that from the Iowa Republican Party is Jim Leach, he would have been a reasonable choice.  Joni Ernst is an unreasonable choice.  That's just my take, maybe we drastically disagree on policy and who ought to serve in Congress.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sorry Torie... but she's bonkers. It may be delivered in an ever-so-slightly less bonkers package, the message is just as insane.

The fact that Braley might lose to her is an indictment of him.

Just curious, what makes Ernest "bonkers?"

If it's solely the abortion issues, reasonable people can differ. It doesn't make those that disagree with myself and presumably you on choice, "bonkers." Their principles are just different. She's entitled to her personhood argument as long as it is philosophically consistent.

If it's more than that, I'd love to hear it.

Actually, I'm pretty tired of this excuse. A person in her position advocating a VERY extreme position on reproductive rights that most pro-lifers reject is relevant and to swept aside as... just a difference of principles. Just because personhood is dead as a realistic policy prescription doesn't mean it's not irrelevant as to who is elected as one of the 100 most powerful people in the country.

I don't believe that pro-life people are bonkers, I understand the view. What is worrying is that the concept of 'personhood' isn't about being pro-choice or pro-life... it's about wanting the application of that principle as a policy prescription, and into law. That is a legitimately alarming position.

There's also the nonsense about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the alarmist and false conspiracy garbage about Agenda 21, wanting to scrap the minimum wage. Have we heard how she feels about water fluoridation?

She's entitled to have those views, however nutty and baseless some of them might be... but when someone is on the cusp of being elevated to such a high and influential office... it can and should matter and cannot be swept aside as being matters of differing principles or opinions.

[Keystone Phil]

 What is worrying is that the concept of 'personhood' isn't about being pro-choice or pro-life... it's about wanting the application of that principle as a policy prescription, and into law. That is a legitimately alarming position.

I really don't want this to become some big abortion debate but can you clarify this point? Are you saying, "I don't care if you're Pro Life...as long as you don't want to do something about it." I see you clearly said, "This isn't about being Pro Choice or Pro Life..." but then you reference "application of that principle as a policy prescription..." Does "that principle" mean Pro Life principles in general or specifically Personhood? Just looking for some clarity.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No no ... personhood.

One thing I'm immensely grateful for is that this issue has been largely put to bed here.

[Mogrovejo]

Stupendous news! An extremist nutjob like Ernst has no business being a US Senator.

Is it possible that Braley is improving because of early voting? In other words, Dems are getting a lot of people out to vote who would normally be shut out of the LV screen, but you can't say someone who already voted isn't a likely voter.

You really believe the above?

Yes?

The question mark appended to the "yes" meaning that you are unsure if you really believe what you said?

The question mark was because your question was fairly odd, considering any rational person knows that Joni Ernst is an extremist nutjob.

IC. I guess that I am just irrational then. Thanks.

Perhaps. Unless you think that someone who thinks Obama is a dictator that should be impeached, peddles Agenda 21 conspiracy theories, supports Personhood which failed even in Mississippi, thinks the EPA should be abolished, thinks Iraq had WMDs, etc. is not an extremist. She's basically a more charismatic version of Sharron Angle. I know the Republicans have gone far right recently, but even by that standard she's still way out of the mainstream.

Seriously Torie. I may've been a godless Democrat not THAT long ago, but how is she materially different than, say, Michelle Bachmann? If Ernst isn't extreme, then.....

I don't have any interest in debating if Ernst is an extremist or not, but here's what, in my opinion, makes her materially different than Bachmann (and Angle): she isn't running on any of those issues, let alone those positions -in fact, she isn't actively defending most of those positions (again, if she holds them is irrelevant to the issue at hand)- and she has a largely uncontroversial voting record. Moreover, I've noticed a widespread enshrinement of the belief that Braley failed to sink Ernst by painting her as an 'extremist' but, due to the reason pointed above, I think the difficulty of that task is being grossly underestimated.

Summarily, it'd be feasible to paint Ernst as an extremist if she was actually running around claiming Agenda 21 is a conspiracy (and not claiming it's a very gloomy and bad thing, at first; and a non-issue later), that Obama should be impeached under current circumstances (and not if the SCOTUS ruled an abuse of power), that abortion should be illegal in all cases and women persecuted (and not parroting the "pro-life with exceptions but only persecute the provider" line), that there Iraq had an active program of WMD at the moment of the invasion (and not ""We don't know that there were weapons on the ground when we went in, however, I do have reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq", later 'clarified'/downplayed to "I did not mean to suggest that Iraq had WMD at the time of invasion. It is clear they did not. What I was trying to say was that Iraq had had WMD in their past, and had even used them. My point was that we don't know exactly what happened to those weapons.") and so on.

However, besides not focusing on those issues, as soon as she says something dubious enough to be seen as controversial (and most of those statements can be better classified as ambiguous, creating the potential to controversy, than openly polemical), she immediately retracts to some bland and non-committal position. That's radically different from, to use your threhsold, Bachmann's modus operandi - Bachmann would double down on her polemical views, focus public interventions on controversial issues and be tone-deaf about her audience (like rambling about fluoridation or vaccines or whatever it was during presidential primary debate on national tv and then sticking to it). That combination of clarity and consistency (and, to some extent, tone) is necessary to build credibility to the claim of extremism (in the sense of selling it to the average voter) - and ideally there's a voting record to finish the case. Ambiguous, disconnected, statements that are quickly retracted/clarified, aren't helped by a scary voting record and are relative to underlying issues which aren't either pushed or promoted by the candidate or seen as important by the electorate, don't do the job.

Ernst might be an extremist or not, but, assuming she is, she doesn't behave like one to the point of allowing an opponent to easily convince the voters of that fact. Braley is being blamed for not preparing an omelet when he wasn't given enough eggs.

A propos, I think both Barley and Ernst are incredibly underrated as candidates by the CW (the one from this board, from inside the beltway, etc). After millions of dollars spent on negative advertising and an abundance of negative free press from both sides, Iowans seem quite content with their candidates: Ernst favorables in the last 4 polls (Suffolk, Quinn, Selzer, Ras) are +7, +6, +4, +5, Braley is a bit lower but still basically even : -2, -2, -1, +1; polls suggest, and early voting seems to validate, very high enthusiasm levels and the libertarian candidate, may he rest in peace, wasn't gaining any traction, unlike what one can see in races with unpopular major party candidates like FL-Gov and NC-Sen.

[KCDem]

Dominating!

Braley will win, as he was expected to do from the beginning of this race.

[Sbane]

When will KCDem be banned?

[Vosem]

PPP only has Braley up by 1.  Ouch.  That's not a good sign for him.  I think he's finished guys.

What's not a good sign for Braley is that this was released by a left-wing group, which means they have not had any better results for Braley than up 1; while there've been plenty of polls showing Ernst up 2-4 points. The volume and nature of polling here is sufficient to say that Ernst is up in the very low single digits (even though for a single poll with such a result is within the margin of error, it's not the case when you have a bunch). Consider that in Colorado, where Gardner is actually polling slightly better than Ernst, Democrats have managed to release two internals showing Udall up three (though, tbf, from less reputable sources than PPP).

When will KCDem be banned?

There've always been hacks who join right before an election, and they always leave right afterwards, even if their party does do well. If nothing is done to permanent hacks (and we all tolerate Dr. Scholl and Krazen and whatnot) it doesn't seem to make sense to go after KCDem and his ilk.

[Recalcuate]

Sorry Torie... but she's bonkers. It may be delivered in an ever-so-slightly less bonkers package, the message is just as insane.

The fact that Braley might lose to her is an indictment of him.

Just curious, what makes Ernest "bonkers?"

If it's solely the abortion issues, reasonable people can differ. It doesn't make those that disagree with myself and presumably you on choice, "bonkers." Their principles are just different. She's entitled to her personhood argument as long as it is philosophically consistent.

If it's more than that, I'd love to hear it.

Actually, I'm pretty tired of this excuse. A person in her position advocating a VERY extreme position on reproductive rights that most pro-lifers reject is relevant and to swept aside as... just a difference of principles. Just because personhood is dead as a realistic policy prescription doesn't mean it's not irrelevant as to who is elected as one of the 100 most powerful people in the country.

I don't believe that pro-life people are bonkers, I understand the view. What is worrying is that the concept of 'personhood' isn't about being pro-choice or pro-life... it's about wanting the application of that principle as a policy prescription, and into law. That is a legitimately alarming position.

There's also the nonsense about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the alarmist and false conspiracy garbage about Agenda 21, wanting to scrap the minimum wage. Have we heard how she feels about water fluoridation?

She's entitled to have those views, however nutty and baseless some of them might be... but when someone is on the cusp of being elevated to such a high and influential office... it can and should matter and cannot be swept aside as being matters of differing principles or opinions.

Elections are the ultimate arbitrator as to whether ideas are too far out of the mainstream as far as I am concerned. It's up to the people of Iowa to determine whether Ernst's ideas are "nutty."

I have no problem with her views on WMD. They have been partially validated by the NYT article earlier this week.

Likewise, I think a few departments should be shut down and consolidated into others. The size of the government should be reduced and duplicative services over multiple departments eliminated.  Kind of like how they do things in business. Trim the upper and middle-manager fat. You don't need Homeland Security,  the DoJ, the DoD and State, for example.

Is that "nutty?" I think not.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sorry Torie... but she's bonkers. It may be delivered in an ever-so-slightly less bonkers package, the message is just as insane.

The fact that Braley might lose to her is an indictment of him.

Just curious, what makes Ernest "bonkers?"

If it's solely the abortion issues, reasonable people can differ. It doesn't make those that disagree with myself and presumably you on choice, "bonkers." Their principles are just different. She's entitled to her personhood argument as long as it is philosophically consistent.

If it's more than that, I'd love to hear it.

Actually, I'm pretty tired of this excuse. A person in her position advocating a VERY extreme position on reproductive rights that most pro-lifers reject is relevant and to swept aside as... just a difference of principles. Just because personhood is dead as a realistic policy prescription doesn't mean it's not irrelevant as to who is elected as one of the 100 most powerful people in the country.

I don't believe that pro-life people are bonkers, I understand the view. What is worrying is that the concept of 'personhood' isn't about being pro-choice or pro-life... it's about wanting the application of that principle as a policy prescription, and into law. That is a legitimately alarming position.

There's also the nonsense about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the alarmist and false conspiracy garbage about Agenda 21, wanting to scrap the minimum wage. Have we heard how she feels about water fluoridation?

She's entitled to have those views, however nutty and baseless some of them might be... but when someone is on the cusp of being elevated to such a high and influential office... it can and should matter and cannot be swept aside as being matters of differing principles or opinions.

Elections are the ultimate arbitrator as to whether ideas are too far out of the mainstream as far as I am concerned. It's up to the people of Iowa to determine whether Ernst's ideas are "nutty."

I have no problem with her views on WMD. They have been partially validated by the NYT article earlier this week.

Likewise, I think a few departments should be shut down and consolidated into others. The size of the government should be reduced and duplicative services over multiple departments eliminated.  Kind of like how they do things in business. Trim the upper and middle-manager fat. You don't need Homeland Security,  the DoJ, the DoD and State, for example.

Is that "nutty?" I think not.

Again... that's very flighty. "Elections are the ultimate arbiters..." Well, no - the Salem witch-trials were nutty, but because a big swathe of the population supported them at the time means that they aren't?

The article doesn't validate the WMD points at all... they weren't an active stockpile and were remnants from Saddam's weapons program from the Iran-Iraq War and the "conflict" with the Kurds. Everyone knew he had weapons from the 80s.

[Recalcuate]

Sorry Torie... but she's bonkers. It may be delivered in an ever-so-slightly less bonkers package, the message is just as insane.

The fact that Braley might lose to her is an indictment of him.

Just curious, what makes Ernest "bonkers?"

If it's solely the abortion issues, reasonable people can differ. It doesn't make those that disagree with myself and presumably you on choice, "bonkers." Their principles are just different. She's entitled to her personhood argument as long as it is philosophically consistent.

If it's more than that, I'd love to hear it.

Actually, I'm pretty tired of this excuse. A person in her position advocating a VERY extreme position on reproductive rights that most pro-lifers reject is relevant and to swept aside as... just a difference of principles. Just because personhood is dead as a realistic policy prescription doesn't mean it's not irrelevant as to who is elected as one of the 100 most powerful people in the country.

I don't believe that pro-life people are bonkers, I understand the view. What is worrying is that the concept of 'personhood' isn't about being pro-choice or pro-life... it's about wanting the application of that principle as a policy prescription, and into law. That is a legitimately alarming position.

There's also the nonsense about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the alarmist and false conspiracy garbage about Agenda 21, wanting to scrap the minimum wage. Have we heard how she feels about water fluoridation?

She's entitled to have those views, however nutty and baseless some of them might be... but when someone is on the cusp of being elevated to such a high and influential office... it can and should matter and cannot be swept aside as being matters of differing principles or opinions.

Elections are the ultimate arbitrator as to whether ideas are too far out of the mainstream as far as I am concerned. It's up to the people of Iowa to determine whether Ernst's ideas are "nutty."

I have no problem with her views on WMD. They have been partially validated by the NYT article earlier this week.

Likewise, I think a few departments should be shut down and consolidated into others. The size of the government should be reduced and duplicative services over multiple departments eliminated.  Kind of like how they do things in business. Trim the upper and middle-manager fat. You don't need Homeland Security,  the DoJ, the DoD and State, for example.

Is that "nutty?" I think not.

Again... that's very flighty. "Elections are the ultimate arbiters..." Well, no - the Salem witch-trials were nutty, but because a big swathe of the population supported them at the time means that they aren't?

The article doesn't validate the WMD points at all... they weren't an active stockpile and were remnants from Saddam's weapons program from the Iran-Iraq War and the "conflict" with the Kurds. Everyone knew he had weapons from the 80s.

Revisionist history. Saddam was under orders to destroy his WMD stockpile. He didn't. Let's not forget that.  He was actively deceiving the UN.

Of course elections ultimately decide who is a suitable representative for that jurisdiction. As long as you are eligible to run for office, you have a right to run. The voters determine if your views are suitable for them or not. It's not my place to put my personal opinions in place of said voters.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sorry Torie... but she's bonkers. It may be delivered in an ever-so-slightly less bonkers package, the message is just as insane.

The fact that Braley might lose to her is an indictment of him.

Just curious, what makes Ernest "bonkers?"

If it's solely the abortion issues, reasonable people can differ. It doesn't make those that disagree with myself and presumably you on choice, "bonkers." Their principles are just different. She's entitled to her personhood argument as long as it is philosophically consistent.

If it's more than that, I'd love to hear it.

Actually, I'm pretty tired of this excuse. A person in her position advocating a VERY extreme position on reproductive rights that most pro-lifers reject is relevant and to swept aside as... just a difference of principles. Just because personhood is dead as a realistic policy prescription doesn't mean it's not irrelevant as to who is elected as one of the 100 most powerful people in the country.

I don't believe that pro-life people are bonkers, I understand the view. What is worrying is that the concept of 'personhood' isn't about being pro-choice or pro-life... it's about wanting the application of that principle as a policy prescription, and into law. That is a legitimately alarming position.

There's also the nonsense about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the alarmist and false conspiracy garbage about Agenda 21, wanting to scrap the minimum wage. Have we heard how she feels about water fluoridation?

She's entitled to have those views, however nutty and baseless some of them might be... but when someone is on the cusp of being elevated to such a high and influential office... it can and should matter and cannot be swept aside as being matters of differing principles or opinions.

Elections are the ultimate arbitrator as to whether ideas are too far out of the mainstream as far as I am concerned. It's up to the people of Iowa to determine whether Ernst's ideas are "nutty."

I have no problem with her views on WMD. They have been partially validated by the NYT article earlier this week.

Likewise, I think a few departments should be shut down and consolidated into others. The size of the government should be reduced and duplicative services over multiple departments eliminated.  Kind of like how they do things in business. Trim the upper and middle-manager fat. You don't need Homeland Security,  the DoJ, the DoD and State, for example.

Is that "nutty?" I think not.

Again... that's very flighty. "Elections are the ultimate arbiters..." Well, no - the Salem witch-trials were nutty, but because a big swathe of the population supported them at the time means that they aren't?

The article doesn't validate the WMD points at all... they weren't an active stockpile and were remnants from Saddam's weapons program from the Iran-Iraq War and the "conflict" with the Kurds. Everyone knew he had weapons from the 80s.

Revisionist history. Saddam was under orders to destroy his WMD stockpile. He didn't. Let's not forget that.  He was actively deceiving the UN.

Of course elections ultimately decide who is a suitable representative for that jurisdiction. As long as you are eligible to run for office, you have a right to run. The voters determine if your views are suitable for them or not. It's not my place to put my personal opinions in place of said voters.

...I think we're not really going anywhere with this.