Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 15, 2019, 03:36:53 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Endorsements Close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls
  2014 Senatorial Election Polls
  CO-PPP: TIED RACE
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print
Author Topic: CO-PPP: TIED RACE  (Read 7211 times)
Recalcuate
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 444


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: October 31, 2014, 10:07:22 am »

Hopefully actual PPP polls this again to see whether LCV PPP is a shill firm or not. LCV PPP has had some wackier results than normal but looks generally credible, except for this result (which has gone against what most have thought for this race).

I am pretty sure that PPP is coming back to Colorado with their own poll, that includes the third-party candidates this weekend. The CO and NC results for LCV are not posted on their website.

My main issue with this whole thread is that the red hats on here are treating the poll as anything other than an advocacy poll for a D-leaning organization instead of the more accurate PPP/LCV (D).
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,477


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: October 31, 2014, 11:26:07 pm »

Party ID and party registration are different things.

Seriously. Republicans are making the same mistake they did going into 2012.

Same mistake? Seriously?

This is not 2012. No one is trying to reskew a poll. I am just pointing out how these self-identified numbers are way off of the reality of what the Colorado electorate looks like right now.

Unlike 2012, we have statistically significant hard data in this race to back up those numbers.

The early voting samples simply do not compute with this poll's findings.

With likely 60% of the electorate all ready voting the numbers suggest an R+10 electorate. (Actually R+9.2, but R+10 due to rounding). It's remained in that range all week.

My point is that unless there is a serious Democrat wave over these last few days, this PPP/LCV (D) poll is an outlier. Democrats are not coming out to their 2010 early vote numbers in Colorado of R+6 right now. The enthusiasm is on the Republican side.

The red hats can gleefully look at this advocacy poll as evidence of a chance for Udall. However, your enthusiasm will wane once the real PPP poll comes out this weekend showing a Gardner lead.

All you are doing is unskewing this poll like Republicans did in 2012. Party registration and party ID are two different things and you would do well to learn that.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,477


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: October 31, 2014, 11:45:18 pm »

And before you respond, go check out the party ID from the 2010 exit polls in Colorado. If anything, this poll needs to be unskewed in favor of the Democrats! Tongue
Logged
Recalcuate
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 444


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: October 31, 2014, 11:56:54 pm »

Party ID and party registration are different things.

Seriously. Republicans are making the same mistake they did going into 2012.

Same mistake? Seriously?

This is not 2012. No one is trying to reskew a poll. I am just pointing out how these self-identified numbers are way off of the reality of what the Colorado electorate looks like right now.

Unlike 2012, we have statistically significant hard data in this race to back up those numbers.

The early voting samples simply do not compute with this poll's findings.

With likely 60% of the electorate all ready voting the numbers suggest an R+10 electorate. (Actually R+9.2, but R+10 due to rounding). It's remained in that range all week.

My point is that unless there is a serious Democrat wave over these last few days, this PPP/LCV (D) poll is an outlier. Democrats are not coming out to their 2010 early vote numbers in Colorado of R+6 right now. The enthusiasm is on the Republican side.

The red hats can gleefully look at this advocacy poll as evidence of a chance for Udall. However, your enthusiasm will wane once the real PPP poll comes out this weekend showing a Gardner lead.

All you are doing is unskewing this poll like Republicans did in 2012. Party registration and party ID are two different things and you would do well to learn that.

I am not unskewing a damn thing. I did not supplant the R/D/I percentage to reengineer the poll and give the Gardner a nine-point edge. Nor have I ever accepted or adopted the Q poll with Gardner +7 as gospel.

I am pointing out that there is hard data suggesting the electorate right now is R+9. Yes, it can and may shrink between now and Election Day. However, it's very unlikely to expect a self-identified electorate eight points off of that number.

The sample size of Early Voters is becoming more and more statistically significant as a subgroup polling number. The number 67% of the 2010 total turnout.

Let's not forget that this is not a straight PPP poll. It's is an advocacy poll that does not exist on PPP's website done for the League of Conservation Voters, who is actively assisting the GOTV effort for the Udall campaign. As such the LCV has a vested interest. It is not a non-partisan poll. It's PPP/LCV (D) and should be treated as such.

That's merely my point.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,477


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: November 01, 2014, 06:17:47 am »

Again, the hard data you cite is party registration. That has nothing to do with the whims and fancies of people at any given time, which is otherwise known as party ID. A person who is registered as a Republican my feel like a Republican one day and an independent the next. Someone registered independent may want to associate with the democrats one year, but not the next. Party ID is fairly fluid whereas registration is not. In 2010, a Republican wave year, Colorado voters said their party Id was 33-28 in favor of the Democrats. At the same time, I don't believe Democrats have ever had an advantage in party registration in Colorado in recent years.

I get your point about this being an advocacy poll and lo and behold PPP will be conducting another CO poll this weekend. You only diminish your greater point by conflating party registration and party ID.
Logged
Recalcuate
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 444


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: November 01, 2014, 09:19:58 am »

Again, the hard data you cite is party registration. That has nothing to do with the whims and fancies of people at any given time, which is otherwise known as party ID. A person who is registered as a Republican my feel like a Republican one day and an independent the next. Someone registered independent may want to associate with the democrats one year, but not the next. Party ID is fairly fluid whereas registration is not. In 2010, a Republican wave year, Colorado voters said their party Id was 33-28 in favor of the Democrats. At the same time, I don't believe Democrats have ever had an advantage in party registration in Colorado in recent years.

I get your point about this being an advocacy poll and lo and behold PPP will be conducting another CO poll this weekend. You only diminish your greater point by conflating party registration and party ID.

So the 2010 Exit Poll included interviews of those that voted early, correct?
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,477


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: November 01, 2014, 09:20:45 am »

Again, the hard data you cite is party registration. That has nothing to do with the whims and fancies of people at any given time, which is otherwise known as party ID. A person who is registered as a Republican my feel like a Republican one day and an independent the next. Someone registered independent may want to associate with the democrats one year, but not the next. Party ID is fairly fluid whereas registration is not. In 2010, a Republican wave year, Colorado voters said their party Id was 33-28 in favor of the Democrats. At the same time, I don't believe Democrats have ever had an advantage in party registration in Colorado in recent years.

I get your point about this being an advocacy poll and lo and behold PPP will be conducting another CO poll this weekend. You only diminish your greater point by conflating party registration and party ID.

So the 2010 Exit Poll included interviews of those that voted early, correct?

Yes, exit polls include those voters or else they wouldn't be valid.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 46,710


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: November 02, 2014, 01:17:23 am »


RCP is a rightwing publication, they've even admitted that themselves (look at Wikipedia and many other places for proof), and even in their polling database there are polls that are suspiciously not included as well as they're being really random with which polls they prefer to include in their polling average and which not. If they had been more consistent, it would have been easier to take them more seriously. On some races, like Kansas, they've continously tried to paint a more favorable picture for GOP than everyone else have already agreed upon is the situation on the ground there.

RCP had a truly epic fail prediction from the day before the 2000 election.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=41493.0
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 51,040
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: November 02, 2014, 04:13:50 am »

Maybe pot legalisation in CO was not such a good idea after all:

It seems Democratic voters are simply too stoned to send in their ballots in time.
Logged
The Invisible Hand (that suicided Jeffrey Epstein)
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,051
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: November 02, 2014, 12:03:16 pm »

According to the most recent count, the election is R+9 in early voting and exit polls in 2010 were D+5 with an actual total of R+6. It seems reasonable to believe if the actual in time voting is that D, it seems that at least Hickenlooper has chance.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,477


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: November 02, 2014, 12:11:47 pm »

That is party ID though. It is quite possible people will be more willing to identify with the Republicans this year than with buck on the ballot.
Logged
Recalcuate
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 444


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: November 03, 2014, 03:38:03 am »

That is party ID though. It is quite possible people will be more willing to identify with the Republicans this year than with buck on the ballot.

Gee a tie for an advocacy group turns into a R+3 when the non-partisan poll shows up.

Color me not shocked.

This drivel was PPP/LCV (D) all along.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,477


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: November 03, 2014, 06:44:21 am »

That is party ID though. It is quite possible people will be more willing to identify with the Republicans this year than with buck on the ballot.

Gee a tie for an advocacy group turns into a R+3 when the non-partisan poll shows up.

Color me not shocked.

This drivel was PPP/LCV (D) all along.

Didn't I already mention that. Why did you have to bring this up?

In any case, you conflating party ID and registration is still idiotic.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC