Overtime Politics Thread (WARNING: Possible fraud)

[mds32]

According to the NYT exit polls, the Illinois Democratic Primary was:

Male: 42
Female: 58

White: 58
Black: 23
Latino: 16

According to Overtime Politics, it will be:

Male: 51(+9)
Female: 49(-9)

White: 71(+13)
Black: 15(-8)
Latino: 11(-5)

Guys, these polls are absolute junk.

I agree they need to weight these things if they are going to have any true value.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://overtimepolitics.com/donald-trump-leads-marco-rubio-by-20-points-in-illinois-36-16/

Donald Trump – 36%
Marco Rubio  – 16%
Ted Cruz – 15%
Jeb Bush – 5%
Ben Carson – 5%
John Kasich – 5%
Carly Fiorina – 5%
Chris Christie – 3%
Rand Paul – 3%
Other – 2%
Undecided – 6%

The analysis in the link is a bit junky, too. It reads like IL is a winner-takes-all primary for all 69 delegates. The statewide vote doesn't apply to the 54 delegates who are elected individually, three for each congressional district.

If Trump wins the state by 20 points, he isn't going to lose more than 1 or 2 CDs. So he will get basically all the delegates.

[bigedlb]

http://overtimepolitics.com/donald-trump-leads-marco-rubio-by-17-points-in-minnesota-37-20/

Donald Trump – 37%
Marco Rubio – 20%
Ted Cruz – 11%
Ben Carson – 10%
Jeb Bush – 8%
John Kasich – 3%
Carly Fiorina – 2%
Chris Christie – 2%
Rand Paul – 2%
Other – 1%
Undecided – 5%

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Minnesota...Trump 37 Rubio 20 Cruz 11 Bush 10 Carson 8 no one else over 3.  Www.overtimepolitics.com

Also a 3 point lead for Clinton 48-45.

[Ebsy]

Why do you guys still take these polls with any degree of seriousness? Case in point, according to overtime, the Democratic primary electorate is majority male.

[This account no longer in use.]

Why do you guys still take these polls with any degree of seriousness? Case in point, according to overtime, the Democratic primary electorate is majority male.

In a perfect world, not only would nobody take Overtime with any degree of seriousness, nobody would take you with any degree of seriousness.

[weixiaobao]

Couple of interesting thing, look like Overtime didn't really used other polls to make up their #s.  Reasons.

1) They had to delayed their polls at time (sometimes to the next day) if they just make up sh**t, then they would have to do that.

2) There is no Minnesota poll (or any Minnesota poll recently) that put Clinton and Sanders that close.  It is one thing to put out something so bold after another poll did it.  It is another to release something like that before other polls show this.  So if another poll show similar to this, then it will somewhat verify Overtime.

3) Same with GOP #s, the last time we saw was Carson at 2nd.  If they making up #s and put Rubio at 2nd instead of Cruz.  That is another bold choice (not as bold as the Dem one since Rubio did pretty decent 3rd place back in Oct/Nov.

Whether or not their #s are accurate, I don't know.  But we can verify some of the states they did when there are current polling exist.

But I think I can rule out that they making up #s.  Their method maybe amateur and flaw but I don't think it is fake.

[Ebsy]

Why do you guys still take these polls with any degree of seriousness? Case in point, according to overtime, the Democratic primary electorate is majority male.

In a perfect world, not only would nobody take Overtime with any degree of seriousness, nobody would take you with any degree of seriousness.

Come up with an actual argument or get lost kid.

[Likely Voter]

It seems that not a single reputable media outlet or polling site has covered these blog posts from 'Fred'.   And now evev /politics at Reddit won't allow them to be posted (categorizing them as an "unacceptable source").
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/41v5yq/clinton_holds_3_point_lead_over_sanders_in/

I do not understand why anyone would pay attention to them until they were vetted. I do not understand why these numbers are being put into the Atlas poll db.

[Broken System]

It seems that not a single reputable media outlet or polling site has covered these blog posts from 'Fred'.   And now evev /politics at Reddit won't allow them to be posted (categorizing them as an "unacceptable source").
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/41v5yq/clinton_holds_3_point_lead_over_sanders_in/

I do not understand why anyone would pay attention to them until they were vetted. I do not understand why these numbers are being put into the Atlas poll db.

You are right, they probably shouldn't be put in the database. But, we should still have this thread to see and discuss the results.

[RI]

It seems that not a single reputable media outlet or polling site has covered these blog posts from 'Fred'.   And now evev /politics at Reddit won't allow them to be posted (categorizing them as an "unacceptable source").
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/41v5yq/clinton_holds_3_point_lead_over_sanders_in/

I do not understand why anyone would pay attention to them until they were vetted. I do not understand why these numbers are being put into the Atlas poll db.

Because there's virtually no harm in doing so and there's no evidence that they're fraudulent? Besides, they mostly poll highly underpolled states leaving the choice either potentially flawed data or no data.

[This account no longer in use.]

It seems that not a single reputable media outlet or polling site has covered these blog posts from 'Fred'.   And now evev /politics at Reddit won't allow them to be posted (categorizing them as an "unacceptable source").
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/41v5yq/clinton_holds_3_point_lead_over_sanders_in/

I do not understand why anyone would pay attention to them until they were vetted. I do not understand why these numbers are being put into the Atlas poll db.

Because there's virtually no harm in doing so and there's no evidence that they're fraudulent? Besides, they mostly poll highly underpolled states leaving the choice either potentially flawed data or no data.

Plus, we do let in Gravis.

[Likely Voter]

Dubious data is absolutely worse than no data at all. I understand the desire to fill in the blanks on a map, but that doesn't mean we should throw out all objectivity and accept any numbers that appear on some random anonymous blog. And polling in states after the first four, especially for post-Super Tuesday states is pointless anyway. 

This thread discussing the postings from this blogger are fine, but I see no reason why they should be considered 'polls' or 'data' until there is some kind of vetting.

[RI]

Dubious data is absolutely worse than no data at all. I understand the desire to fill in the blanks on a map, but that doesn't mean we should throw out all objectivity and accept any numbers that appear on some random anonymous blog. And polling in states after the first four, especially for post-Super Tuesday states is pointless anyway. 

This thread discussing the postings from this blogger are fine, but I see no reason why they should be considered 'polls' or 'data' until there is some kind of vetting.

We don't "vet" pretty much any other source. I don't see what makes Overtime special, nor do I see their numbers as more out of line than anyone else's.

[Ebsy]

Dubious data is absolutely worse than no data at all. I understand the desire to fill in the blanks on a map, but that doesn't mean we should throw out all objectivity and accept any numbers that appear on some random anonymous blog. And polling in states after the first four, especially for post-Super Tuesday states is pointless anyway. 

This thread discussing the postings from this blogger are fine, but I see no reason why they should be considered 'polls' or 'data' until there is some kind of vetting.

We don't "vet" pretty much any other source. I don't see what makes Overtime special, nor do I see their numbers as more out of line than anyone else's.

I mean, we've pretty much analyzed Overtime's numbers to hell and back and concluded they are junk. It's not out fault that you haven't bothered to follow the debate we had.

[RI]

Dubious data is absolutely worse than no data at all. I understand the desire to fill in the blanks on a map, but that doesn't mean we should throw out all objectivity and accept any numbers that appear on some random anonymous blog. And polling in states after the first four, especially for post-Super Tuesday states is pointless anyway.  

This thread discussing the postings from this blogger are fine, but I see no reason why they should be considered 'polls' or 'data' until there is some kind of vetting.

We don't "vet" pretty much any other source. I don't see what makes Overtime special, nor do I see their numbers as more out of line than anyone else's.

I mean, we've pretty much analyzed Overtime's numbers to hell and back and concluded they are junk. It's not out [sic] fault that you haven't bothered to follow the debate we had.

"Junk" is not fraudulent. Law of large numbers implies more data moves you closer to the true mean. The averaging process takes care of most of the problems Overtime might present.

[RI]

Apparently the guy who does these polls is doing an AMA on Reddit today.

[The Other Castro]

Apparently the guy who does these polls is doing an AMA on Reddit today.

Everybody think of questions that only a legitimate pollster could answer.

[The Other Castro]

Nevada Democratic Poll

Hillary Clinton – 47%
Bernie Sanders – 43%
Martin O’Malley – 3%
Undecided – 7%

[RI]

Nevada Democratic Poll

Hillary Clinton – 47%
Bernie Sanders – 43%
Martin O’Malley – 3%
Undecided – 7%

18% Hispanic in poll. 15% Hispanic in 2008.

8% Black in poll. 15% Black in 2008.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Nevada Democratic Poll

Hillary Clinton – 47%
Bernie Sanders – 43%
Martin O’Malley – 3%
Undecided – 7%

18% Hispanic in poll. 15% Hispanic in 2008.

8% Black in poll. 15% Black in 2008.

Some decline in the black turnout is expected with Obama not running, but that's a steeper decline than I expected.

[Eraserhead]

Nevada Democratic Poll

Hillary Clinton – 47%
Bernie Sanders – 43%
Martin O’Malley – 3%
Undecided – 7%

Ha. I wish.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Nevada Democratic Poll

Hillary Clinton – 47%
Bernie Sanders – 43%
Martin O’Malley – 3%
Undecided – 7%

18% Hispanic in poll. 15% Hispanic in 2008.

8% Black in poll. 15% Black in 2008.

Not too unreasonable. Will probably be close like 2008.

[The Other Castro]

The guy from Overtime Politics is doing an AMA on Reddit in like 45 minutes.

[/]

The guy from Overtime Politics is doing an AMA on Reddit in like 45 minutes.

Link?

Anyway, I am also proud to say that this thread is the fourth non-overtimepolitics.com website that shows up when "Overtime Politics" is searched on Google.