Overtime Politics Thread (WARNING: Possible fraud)

[Holmes]

I don't trust this poll.

1. Fresh pollster, no previous experience.
2. Nevada is a tough state to poll. Clinton strength is probably underrated for the same reason that D strength is underrated in general election matchups.
3. It's a caucus state.

[Holmes]

All things considered, Clinton has a whole delegation of Latino Congresswomen, in the state of NV who supports her.

Then why is Bush not leading with all his endoresments? Lol

Because GOP primary voters are tired of party leadership and are in an anti-establishment mood. They don't want to be told who to vote for by people who promised them everything and delivered nothing.

[Holmes]

I think Overtime Politics is overestimating Clinton's support here by about 45%, maybe even more. This is Colorado after all.

[Holmes]

It will probably be Sanders's 4th best state on Super Tuesday, after VT, CO, and MN.

That's not really saying much... he'll lose the remaining states by 20-40 points.

And what about Trump...?

March 1st will be one of the toughest days for Trump during the primaries but if he can keep the southern primaries competitive with Cruz, he walks away the winner. Especially since they're all proportional this year because they're before March 15th when winner-take-all primaries begin.

[Holmes]

A shift from Romney to Trump is a bit odd

Is it really?

[Holmes]

LMAO

[Holmes]

AR has a huge number of de facto Republicans voting in the Dem primary; Obama got only 58% of the vote there against a perennial candidate in 2012. So potentially possible, although I'd like to see it confirmed by other pollsters.

But if that's true, would they even be represented in a poll like this?

[Holmes]

Holy sh**t. [/jfern]

[Holmes]

http://overtimepolitics.com/changes-to-overtime-politics-for-2016/ Overtime Politics just announced they will be asking and including demographic info now.

We did it Atlas!

131 emails, so it probably was't just Atlas, unless one of you e-mailed him 100 times.

Anybody else willing to bet that r/sandersforpresident had something to do with this?

Why would they? These polls have their boy doing so well, why would they want anything to change?

[Holmes]

Overtime is the only polling firm that doesnt disclose phone number, address or owner name.

For comparison, PPP's "contact us" information has a physical address and phone number. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/contact/contact-us.html

CNN's ORC International is located at 315 Park Ave S, New York, NY 10010

Yougov is owned by Stephan Shakespeare and their phone # is. 650-319-0702

Overtime has something to hide. Who are they?

Sandernistas.

[Holmes]

I expected Missouri to be somewhat close due to it being almost entirely white outside of its most urban areas, but this close?!? Wow, Go Sanders!

Careful, you're entering jfern territory!

[Holmes]

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Overtime Politics polls entering the US Election Atlas until our forum's representatives can figure out what is going on."

And we will take its oil.

[Holmes]

I can only guess at how close Sanders is to Clinton in their Florida poll. Are old white Jews #FeelingtheBern?

[Holmes]

He's cooking up numbers.

[Holmes]

He's cooking up numbers.

Even with the demographics now your still going to complain?

What exactly am I complaining about? "Muh Hillary is not at 70%"? You can believe this garbage all you want. It's your life. But it's easy to make state polls that mirror national polls and pass them off as legitimate.

[Holmes]

Male: Sanders (48-46) 194
Female: Clinton (52-40) 202

18-30: Sanders (56-38) 71
31-45: Clinton (51-41) 119
46-59: Clinton (53-41) 127
60+: Clinton (51-42) 79

Just a small comment, but these demographic numbers don't look anything like what the caucuses probably will be. In 2008, the Democratic caucus was 57% Female and 43% male, and the 60+ group was 29%. I'm thinking they drastically undersampled white women.

They didn't sample anyone.

I've still been given no reason to believe that these are real polls.

Finally someone speaks some sense.

[Holmes]

There's already a thread for this trash.

[Holmes]

This is coming from someone with no emotional attachment to the results of this primary:

These polls are incredibly sketchy.  The releases look like someone who's looking at polling releases and trying to duplicate their appearance, but missing nuances like age distribution on a caucus sample.  For someone who produces so many polls in so many jurisdictions, he acts like someone with very limited experience in the industry...or any political industry, for that matter.  He sounds like a guy with limited experience operating out of his basement, and that's not commensurate with the scale of operation he claims to be running.

I hate to malign someone over "bad vibes," but man there are a lot of things that just seem "off" here.  Even if there's not fraud going on, he's produced enough dubious subsample results to make me skeptical of the firm's competence.

Ockham's razor says fraud; nearly every other remotely plausible explanation says either fraud or substandard practices.

But it's more accurate than Gravis!

[Holmes]

if this is true

[Holmes]

Overtime Politics is the best. They were only off by 48 points in Alabama.

Pretty terrible, but somehow Mason Dixon's Clinton +34 poll on 1/20 in MN was worse. 55 points off

I don't think that was a poll of likely caucus goers...or even registered voters.