Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Goukosan

Did Tulsi or Kamla make it?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

Quinnipiac University 8/1 - 8/5

Monmouth University 8/1 - 8/4

Fox News 8/11 - 8/13
CNN/SSRS 8/15 - 8/18
Monmouth University 8/16 - 8/20
Suffolk University/USA Today 8/20 - 8/25
Quinnipiac University 8/21 - 8/26

@Cookester15is uninformed.... surprise surprise :fella:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

Have no issues with her. 

 

on the other hand you had an issue with me pointing out that she wouldn't make it and her "burn" of Kamala wouldn't help her. 

 

Fast forward to today and here we are with you not accepting reality. 

Really? then why don't you want her to succeed? You seem to get enjoyment out of her voice not being in the 3rd debate. Odd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an even better question.

 

Cooke...........why don't you tell us those "23 polls" in which Tulsi qualifies under.

 

WeepyPortlyBoilweevil-size_restricted.gi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/21/gabbard_victimized_by_dncs_dubious_debate_criteria_141055.html

 

Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates -- especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang. But the Democratic National Committee has decreed that the polls constituting this average are not sufficiently “qualifying.”

What makes a poll “qualifying” in the eyes of the DNC? The answer is conspicuously inscrutable. Months ago, party chieftains issued a list of “approved sponsoring organizations/institutions” for polls that satisfy their criteria for debate admittance. Not appearing on that list is the Boston Globe, which sponsored a Suffolk University poll published Aug. 6 that placed Gabbard at 3%. The DNC had proclaimed that for admittance to the September and October debates, candidates must secure polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls -- but a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria. There has not been an officially qualifying poll in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month.

 

The absurdity mounts. A South Carolina poll published Aug. 14 by the Post and Courier placed Gabbard at 2%. One might have again vainly assumed that the newspaper with the largest circulation in a critical early primary state would be an “approved” sponsor per the dictates of the DNC, but it is not. Curious.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To recap: Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in two polls sponsored by the two largest newspapers in two early primary states, but the DNC -- through its mysteriously incoherent selection process -- has determined that these surveys do not count toward her debate eligibility. Without these exclusions, Gabbard would have already qualified. She has polled at 2% or more in two polls officially deemed “qualifying,” and surpassed the 130,000 donor threshold on Aug. 2. While the latter metric would seem more indicative of “grassroots support” -- a formerly obscure Hawaii congresswoman has managed to secure more than 160,000 individual contributions from all 50 states, according to the latest figures from her campaign -- the DNC has declared that it will prioritize polling over donors. In polls with a sample size of just a few hundred people, this means excluding candidates based on what can literally amount to rounding errors: A poll that places a candidate at 1.4% could be considered non-qualifying, but a poll that places a candidate at 1.5% is considered qualifying. Pinning such massive decisions for the trajectory of a campaign on insignificant fractional differences seems wildly arbitrary.

 

Take also Gabbard’s performance in polls conducted by YouGov. One such poll published July 21, sponsored by CBS, placed Gabbard at 2% in New Hampshire and therefore counts toward her qualifying total. But Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in five additional YouGov polls -- except those polls are sponsored by The Economist, not CBS. Needless to say, The Economist is not a “sponsoring organization,” per the whims of the DNC. It may be one of the most vaunted news organizations in the world, and YouGov may be a “qualified” polling firm in other contexts, but the DNC has chosen to exclude The Economist’s results for reasons that appear less and less defensible.

 

Then there’s the larger issue of how exactly the DNC is gauging grassroots enthusiasm, which was ostensibly supposed to be the principle governing the debate-qualifying process in the first place. Gabbard was the most Googled candidate twice in a row after each previous debate, which at a minimum should indicate that there is substantial interest in her campaign. It’s an imperfect metric -- Google searches and other online criteria could be subject to manipulation -- but then again, the other metrics are also noticeably imperfect. There is no reason why the DNC could not incorporate a range of factors in determining which candidates voters are entitled to hear from on a national stage. For what it’s worth, she also tends to generate anomalously large interest on YouTube and social media, having gained the second-most Twitter followers of any candidate after the most recent debate in July. Again, these are imperfect metrics, but the entire debate-qualifying process is based on imperfect metrics.

 

Gabbard has a unique foreign-policy-centric message that is distinct from every other candidate, and she has managed to convert a shoestring campaign operation into a sizable public profile. (She is currently in Indonesia on a two-week National Guard training mission, therefore missing a crucial juncture of the campaign.) Other candidates poised for exclusion might also have a reasonable claim to entry -- Marianne Williamson passed the 130,000 donor threshold this week -- but the most egregious case is clearly Gabbard. If only out of self-interest, the DNC might want to ponder whether alienating her supporters is a tactically wise move, considering how deeply suspicious many already are of the DNC’s behind-the-scenes role -- memories of a “rigged” primary in 2016 are still fresh. In its December 2018 “framework” for the debates, the DNC declared: “Given the fluid nature of the presidential nominating process, the DNC will continuously assess the state of the race and make adjustments to this process as appropriate.” Now would likely be an “appropriate” time for such a reassessment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jehurey said:

Here's an even better question.

 

Cooke...........why don't you tell us those "23 polls" in which Tulsi qualifies under.

 

WeepyPortlyBoilweevil-size_restricted.gi

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) hit the Democratic National Committee (DNC) over its polling criteria for upcoming primary debates, asking it to "ensure transparency and fairness" in selecting the qualifying surveys.

The campaign noted that Gabbard has exceeded 2 percent support in 26 national and early state polls but said only two of those are on DNC's "certified" list, even as "many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable organizations such as The Economist and the Boston Globe, are ranked by Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some DNC 'certified' polls."

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi1jtbzpKnkAhXZJTQIHYvzATwQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fcampaign%2F458551-gabbard-hits-dnc-over-mysteriously-incoherent-poll-criteria-for-debates&psig=AOvVaw0Q1RGUsJwgkoKeFIYiGfL2&ust=1567209613495547

 

Sorry, 26 polls. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cookester15 said:

Really? then why don't you want her to succeed? You seem to get enjoyment out of her voice not being in the 3rd debate. Odd. 

Really... That's your spin? lol

 

Who are you voting for in the United States elections for President? :tophat2:

 

Seems Odd. 

Edited by Goukosan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

If nothing else it would have been nice to have two nights of smaller debates. 

yes, 10 on stage is stupid. They always end up giving much more time to Biden who just looks like an old senile man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cookester15 said:

yes, 10 on stage is stupid. They always end up giving much more time to Biden who just looks like an old senile man. 

I would argue the short time allowance for talking actually helps him; if you give him long enough he turns into mush mouth.

 

 

 

And in related news, Biden tells a false war story...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-he-campaigns-for-president-joe-biden-tells-a-moving-but-false-war-story/2019/08/29/b5159676-c9aa-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html?noredirect=on

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cookester15 said:

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) hit the Democratic National Committee (DNC) over its polling criteria for upcoming primary debates, asking it to "ensure transparency and fairness" in selecting the qualifying surveys.

The campaign noted that Gabbard has exceeded 2 percent support in 26 national and early state polls but said only two of those are on DNC's "certified" list, even as "many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable organizations such as The Economist and the Boston Globe, are ranked by Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some DNC 'certified' polls."

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi1jtbzpKnkAhXZJTQIHYvzATwQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fcampaign%2F458551-gabbard-hits-dnc-over-mysteriously-incoherent-poll-criteria-for-debates&psig=AOvVaw0Q1RGUsJwgkoKeFIYiGfL2&ust=1567209613495547

 

Sorry, 26 polls. 

Well, you haven't listed any of these 26 polls.

 

So just looking at that text, they only mention two:

 

The Economist and the Boston Globe.

 

Okay, let's go to Real Clear Politics and see their latest polls.

 

The Economist/YouGov poll from Wednesday has her at 1.4%

 

That's not 2%

 

So let's look for the latest Boston Globe poll. It has her at 3.2%, yet the poll is from August 6 and is literally 3 weeks old. Though technically that is still within the window, I mean there's 21 other polls, if the Boston Globe were as credible with that particular poll, she would've been able to get 2% in any of the other 19 outlets.

 

Boston Globe had her at 3.2%, and nowhere else has her over 2%. You don't need to be an statistic expert to know that the Boston Globe/Suffolk poll is clearly a statistic outlier for that particular poll they made.

Edited by jehurey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Well, you haven't listed any of these 26 polls.

 

So just looking at that text, they only mention two:

 

The Economist and the Boston Globe.

 

Okay, let's go to Real Clear Politics and see their latest polls.

 

The Economist/YouGov poll from Wednesday has her at 1.4%

 

That's not 2%

 

So let's look for the latest Boston Globe poll. It has her at 3.2%, yet the poll is from August 6 and is literally 3 weeks old. Though technically that is still within the window, I mean there's 21 other polls, if the Boston Globe were as credible with that particular poll, she would've been able to get 2% in any of the other 19 outlets.

 

Boston Globe had her at 3.2%, and nowhere else has her over 2%. You don't need to be an statistic expert to know that the Boston Globe/Suffolk poll is clearly a statistic outlier for that particular poll they made.

I'm not going to go searching for every poll. They say it's 26 then it's 26. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cookester15 said:

I'm not going to go searching for every poll. They say it's 26 then it's 26. 

No, it means you're gullible.

 

I just completely disproved one of the polls that her campaign tried to use.

 

And you're response is to ignore the person who actually went verified the information......and just continue believing a source that gave you bad information.

 

Make no mistake........I'm noticing (and so are others).

Edited by jehurey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jehurey said:

No, it means you're gullible.

 

I just completely disproved one of the polls that her campaign tried to use.

 

And you're response is to ignore the person who actually went verified the information......and just continue believing a source that gave you bad information.

 

Make no mistake........I'm noticing (and so are others).

You didn't disprove anything. It's a poll done by the largest newspaper in the state. Her numbers are trending upwards. 3.3 % is completely reasonable. She's polled 2% and up and 26 polls. The DNC is only accepting 2 of them because they are corrupt and they hate Tulsi for calling them out last election. She's got balls, you don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cookester15 said:

You didn't disprove anything. It's a poll done by the largest newspaper in the state. Her numbers are trending upwards. 3.3 % is completely reasonable. She's polled 2% and up and 26 polls. The DNC is only accepting 2 of them because they are corrupt and they hate Tulsi for calling them out last election. She's got balls, you don't. 

Yes I did. I specifically found the latest The Economist/YouGov poll that just came out this Wednesday, and she was at 1.4%

 

Did you not read my post at all?

 

I just disproved it. And it seems like you pretended to ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jehurey said:

Yes I did. I specifically found the latest The Economist/YouGov poll that just came out this Wednesday, and she was at 1.4%

 

Did you not read my post at all?

 

I just disproved it. And it seems like you pretended to ignore it.

How does that disprove the Emerson poll though? The polls poll different people lol. It's not like the same 500 people are polled everyone. Do you not like Tulsi? She's my brown mama, she's more black than that two faced bitch kamala :puke:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jehurey said:

Well, you haven't listed any of these 26 polls.

 

So just looking at that text, they only mention two:

 

The Economist and the Boston Globe.

 

Okay, let's go to Real Clear Politics and see their latest polls.

 

The Economist/YouGov poll from Wednesday has her at 1.4%

 

That's not 2%

 

 

Jerry's just determined to hold on to his title as the World's Stupidest Man for another year.

 

 

The Economist poll she's referring to was conducted prior to their new August 28th poll, and beyond that, their August 28th poll also has her at 2%.

 

You mistook the RCL average for the August 28th Economist poll because you don't even know how to read a basic spreadsheet.

 

 

Here's The Hill reporting on her campaign getting 2% in a prior Economist poll on August 23rd:

 

xoPpvQM.jpg

 

Here's where you moronically confusing the RCP average with the Economist's poll:

gJM78uG.jpg

 

Here's the actual polling data on the Economist's August 28th poll:

X3hcLnB.jpg

 

 

Edited by Saucer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×