Democratic Strategy for Generating "Blue Wave" Hype: DO NOT POLL inconvenient races?

[Trotsky]

Polls do nothing to effect electoral change.

They just get obsessed over by petty and paranoid partisans.

 

[JamesRussler]

Tester leads according to the latest poll 49-45. You may now return to your regularly scheduled conspiracy theory.

Did you even read the OP? That poll was from 9/22. It's been almost a month. You have no idea how Jon Tester is doing. Spoiler alter: he's probably losing. Compare that to the near-obsessive amount of polling on the Texas Senate race between Robert O'Rourke and Raphael Cruz (which, btw, is unwinnable for Dems, unlike Montana).

 

[JamesRussler]

Polls?

Polls should always be taken with a grain of salt, but until we find a way to gauge public opinion, that's all we have to work with. And I suspect there's a reason we don't have any recent polls in MT, IN, or MO.

 

[Gambit MMA]

#RedTsunami

 

[Lead]

My "conspiracy" is actually proven by your post. None of the races you mentioned have a poll after 10/2. Why? You would think Democrats would want to know the states of these races, especially since we're coming down to the wire. On the other hand, there has been a veritable avalanche of polls on districts held by Republicans incumbents, even where there is no indication that the races would be competitive. Don't you think that's a little... incongruous?

Anyway, I don't think it's conspiracy. I think it's just a byproduct of Dems' complacency and wishful thinking. The headlines on November 7th will be "Republicans mount surprise electoral victory, again."

So you are saying your "conspiracy" is proven because there aren't polls after 10/2 in the races you mentioned? I don't think that proves it correct. It just is an observation that is true and you went a long stretch in determining why. Democrats don't control independent pollsters and campaigns do their own polling usually to stay up to date more frequently. You need to connect a lot of things before any of this seems reasonable to believe.

 

[Seaside]

The Conservative dominated media is helping ferment a level of confidence among Democrat voters based on misinformation, like they did in 2016, because Republicans can't win if all the Democrats actually turn up to vote.

Here is a theory. Deep state sabataoged clinton rigged election for Trump. Now there is war between elements in deep state Trump faction vs others. Boom. Nwo is real to

 

[JamesRussler]

Polls do nothing to effect electoral change.

They just get obsessed over by petty and paranoid partisans.

There's a school of thought in political circles that positive news coverage builds enthusiasm, and negative coverage tends to dampen it. Perhaps the polls themselves aren't accurate, but Dems are hoping that the appearance of a "blue wave" will motivate the base to turn out and vote.

 

[Lead]

There's a school of thought in political circles that positive news coverage builds enthusiasm, and negative coverage tends to dampen it. Perhaps the polls themselves aren't accurate, but Dems are hoping that the appearance of a "blue wave" will motivate the base to turn out and vote.

You still haven't explained how all the pollsters are in collusion with the Democrats.

 

[HomerThompson]

You still haven't explained how all the pollsters are in collusion with the Democrats.

You just have to LOOK INTO IT.

 

[58miles]

Someone would have to bus them all in to vote, bribe people and pass a law requiring no id! Democratic Domination!

Except when it was the voting hours those responsible admitted to the acts.

 

[Lead]

@JamesRussler

How do you think this plays out. Are you saying we won't get any polls from those states going forward? What do you have to say about the Indiana race showing the change back and forth from democrat to republican leads? Why did they show it at that time but now they are all collectively avoiding showing a possible lead now?

 

[JamesRussler]

So you are saying your "conspiracy" is proven because there aren't polls after 10/2 in the races you mentioned?

Basically, yeah. There have an obsessive amount of polls for races like Texas, Tennessee, Nevada, Arizona, etc. I find the absence of any recent polls in Democratic-held seats like MT, IN, MO, etc. conspicuous (btw, this applies to the House as well, although the Senate has many more high-profile examples). The reason is because if polls are conducted in these states, polling agencies and media outlets will have to rate those races "leans GOP." The headline will change from "Blue Wave incoming" to "Democrats brace for humiliating defeat." Funding for the candidates will dry up, and Democratic enthusiasm diminishes. The Dems / MSM would rather call them "toss-up" races to perpetuate this notion that the races are actually competitive.

I don't think that proves it correct. It just is an observation that is true and you went a long stretch in determining why. Democrats don't control independent pollsters and campaigns do their own polling usually to stay up to date more frequently. You need to connect a lot of things before any of this seems reasonable to believe.

I don't think the MSM is as "independent" as you believe. In fact, you should know by now that it is not (e.g., remember WikiLeaks from 2016—these "journalists" let the Democratic Party approve articles ahead of time). Anyway, I'm not proposing any sort of grandiose conspiracy here. I'm simply proposing that Dems focus on numbers that they like, and ignore numbers that they don't.

 

[58miles]

Did you even read the OP? That poll was from 9/22. It's been almost a month. You have no idea how Jon Tester is doing. Spoiler alter: he's probably losing. Compare that to the near-obsessive amount of polling on the Texas Senate race between Robert O'Rourke and Raphael Cruz (which, btw, is unwinnable for Dems, unlike Montana).

Try to concentrate real hard and think about why the Texas Senate race is getting more coverage than the Montana Senate race? Let's see, Texas is one of the US's largest states, It was a compelling race between a young good looking candidate and a notorious serial killer, until recently the race was close. The Montana Senate race by comparison. Let's see most people couldn't find Montana on a map and even they could they wouldn't care, it is a boring campaign between not particularly interesting candidates and Montana is very hard to poll accurately.

 

[Lead]

Basically, yeah. There have an obsessive amount of polls for races like Texas, Tennessee, Nevada, Arizona, etc. I find the absence of any recent polls in Democratic-held seats like MT, IN, MO, etc. conspicuous (btw, this applies to the House as well, although the Senate has many more high-profile examples). The reason is because if polls are conducted in these states, polling agencies and media outlets will have to rate those races "leans GOP." The headline will change from "Blue Wave incoming" to "Democrats brace for humiliating defeat." Funding for the candidates will dry up, and Democratic enthusiasm diminishes. The Dems / MSM would rather call them "toss-up" races to perpetuate this notion that the races are actually competitive.



I don't think the MSM is as "independent" as you believe. In fact, you should know by now that it is not (e.g., remember WikiLeaks from 2016—these "journalists" let the Democratic Party approve articles ahead of time). Anyway, I'm not proposing any sort of grandiose conspiracy here. I'm simply proposing that Dems focus on numbers that they like, and ignore numbers that they don't.

But you are going a step forward saying the pollsters are in collusion together listening to the Democratic Party. Pollsters don't completely overlap with MSM. Some aren't connected to news orgs at all. The ones connected to a news agency are in different divisions and really don't have as much of an impact on each other. Like for example, a Fox News poll for a race wouldn't lean more republican just because it's Fox News.

 

[JamesRussler]

@JamesRussler

How do you think this plays out. Are you saying we won't get any polls from those states going forward? What do you have to say about the Indiana race showing the change back and forth from democrat to republican leads? Why did they show it at that time but now they are all collectively avoiding showing a possible lead now?

I think we will get some polls on these underpolled races pretty soon. In some of them, I'm pretty sure it will be bad news for Dems. The headlines will change commensurately in order to manage expectations. After the election is over, there will lots of finger pointing about how it was irresponsible to report on the "blue wave," and how the press essentially tried to manufacture it. There will be several surprise losses in the House, especially in those districts in which Dems / MSM never bothered to poll.

With regard to your question about Indiana, the prior polls showed a tight race, on average, with Donnelly ahead. By not conducting any polls for 2 weeks (or longer), the MSM can perpetuate this idea that Donnelly is leading for 2 straight weeks, when in reality he's probably in the middle of a nosedive. Personally, I think that's a shortsighted strategy, but I believe that's the reason.

 

[JamesRussler]

But you are going a step forward saying the pollsters are in collusion together listening to the Democratic Party. Pollsters don't completely overlap with MSM. Some aren't connected to news orgs at all. The ones connected to a news agency are in different divisions and really don't have as much of an impact on each other. Like for example, a Fox News poll for a race wouldn't lean more republican just because it's Fox News.

No, not in complete collusion. But I do believe most of them have a preferred outcome, and the objectives of the transactions are rather tacit—the polling agency polls a district, the media spins the outcome into a news story about Democratic enthusiasm, Democrats use the news as fuel for stump speeches and to solicit donations. No contracts or handshakes necessary.

Fox may have similar reasons for polling or not polling (the sword cuts both ways), and I wouldn't be surprised if they play this game in some way. However, Fox doesn't operate in a comparably partisan manner as outlets like CNN or MSNBC (Fox merely panders to an audience, while the other outlets lately have attempted to influence outcomes), so I don't find their polling patterns suspect under these circumstances.

 

[JamesRussler]

Try to concentrate real hard and think about why the Texas Senate race is getting more coverage than the Montana Senate race? Let's see, Texas is one of the US's largest states, It was a compelling race between a young good looking candidate and a notorious serial killer, until recently the race was close. The Montana Senate race by comparison. Let's see most people couldn't find Montana on a map and even they could they wouldn't care, it is a boring campaign between not particularly interesting candidates and Montana is very hard to poll accurately.

Democrats are going to lose Texas. They always were. "Beto Mania" is clickbait, pure and simple.
Meanwhile, in Montana, Democrats are in blissful in suspense. They would rather be surprised by an "upset" loss than endure three more weeks of every major outlet gossiping about how Dems blew a winnable race.

 

[Madmick]

• The Montana Senate race between Senator Jon Tester (D) and Matt Rosendale (R) is extremely close, with an average margin of +3 in Tester's favor. However, the most recent poll was on 9/22.
• The Indiana Senate race between Senator Joe Donnelly (D) and Mike Braun (R) is extremely close, with an average margin of +2.5 in Donnelly's favor. However, the most recent poll was on 10/2.
  
• The Missouri Senate race between Senator Claire McCaskill (D) and Josh Hawley (R) is extremely close, with an average margin of +.5 in Hawley's favor. However, the most recent poll was on 10/2.
  
• In the race for Minnesota's 7th Congressional district, where Trump won by about +30 in 2016, there is NO POLLING whatsoever. The long-time Democrat incumbent, Collin Peterson, won by a surprisingly tight 5-point margin in 2016.
• Almost all House races rated "likely" or "leans" Democrat have been the subject of NO POLLING whatsoever, or no recent polls. By contrast, just about every "likely" or "leans" Republican district has been subject to polling, many of them recent.

The huge majority of these public polls are conducted by independent outfits and not the Democratic party. Pollsters only have finite resources to spend on individual races and races that are not competitive for some reason or races in places that don't attract much public attention don't get polled as often. That's why you don't see polls very often for the races you cited so you can now come up with another lamebrain conspiracy theory.

 

[JDragon]

I spend at least an hour every day (or more) perusing polls and political forecasts

You sound... lonely and/or unemployed?

 

[hillelslovak87]

You just have to LOOK INTO IT.

He's just russlin questions