¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Submitted by konondrum on Sat, 02/01/2020 - 9:23pm

In a fascinating turn, just two days before the Iowa caucus, "The Gold Standard in Polling" has decided to nix their results moments before release. Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register decided at the last minute to cancel their CNN special and toss out the results.

From The Hill:

The media outlets decided to nix a planned live televised release of the survey after a supporter of former Mayor Pete Buttigieg received a call from the pollsters — and Buttigieg’s name was not one of the options offered.

From NBC News:

But on Saturday, a Buttigieg supporter, who said they were surveyed by a survey taker working for Selzer, claimed the former mayor’s name was left off a list of candidates' names she read. The supporter raised the issue with the campaign, who took it up with Selzer.

So, a Buttigieg supporter told the campaign that they didn't list his name when surveyed, and just like that.... poof!

I gotta say I really don't know what the hell to think of this... but it sure is interesting. I guess we'll know the "real" results soon enough.

Tags: 
Iowa Caucus
Polling
lulz
Wut?
Share
up
39 users have voted.

Comments

Submitted by Le Frog on Sat, 02/01/2020 - 9:27pm

They should have just said "we pulled the poll because Bernie Sanders isn't in second through last place." If Bernie Sanders had been left out, that poll still would have been published.

up
32 users have voted.
Submitted by gjohnsit on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 1:52pm

@Le Frog

up
9 users have voted.
Submitted by Shahryar on Sat, 02/01/2020 - 10:00pm
Shahryar's picture

Saying his name was left off a list on at least one phone call

At least one. Meaning one, as far as anybody knows. One interviewer forgot to mention Boot, the person being interviewed told the Boot campaign, the campaign got in touch with the Des Moines Register and they cancelled the thing.

Or, alternatively, Bernie's ahead

up
31 users have voted.
Submitted by humphrey on Sat, 02/01/2020 - 10:25pm

up
22 users have voted.
Submitted by humphrey on Sat, 02/01/2020 - 10:32pm

@humphrey

up
26 users have voted.
Submitted by WoodsDweller on Sat, 02/01/2020 - 10:28pm
WoodsDweller's picture

and it's just a guess, based on no more information than the rest of you have ... Bernie is the only candidate who is viable state wide. Everyone else is under 15%, and Buttigieg has swapped fifth place with Klobuchar.
A new variation of the media blackout -- a polling blackout. No more polls with Bernie in the lead.
How will people know how to vote without the polls to tell them?

up
34 users have voted.
—

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by travelerxxx on Sat, 02/01/2020 - 10:48pm
travelerxxx's picture

@WoodsDweller

How will people know how to vote without the polls to tell them?

Evidently, the political "pros" think Eye-wegians are too stupid to think for themselves. The fact that they aren't is what ought to be scaring the beltway crowd more than any polls.

Bernie Sanders should be able to sweep the Midwest with no problem. I don't think any type of tomfoolery can stop him. And in particular, if the voters in Iowa begin to sniff that some Washington DC hacks are attempting to manipulate them like they're a pack of rubes, look out!

up
28 users have voted.
Submitted by PriceRip on Sat, 02/01/2020 - 10:36pm
PriceRip's picture

 

          real solution is for Bernie to win with such a margin that the win cannot be ignored.

          No other option is viable. The "vote blue no matter who" and other such nonsense will just reproduce the results of four years ago. If you are of such a defeatist mindset, please stay away and let the rest of us try to change the world (well, okay, it's only the USofA and not the world, but you know what I mean …).

RIP

up
28 users have voted.
Submitted by Le Frog on Sat, 02/01/2020 - 10:46pm

@PriceRip

The Green New Deal is for the entire planet.

Scaling back MIC profiteering is for the entire planet.

And ousting Trump is for the entire planet.

up
24 users have voted.
Submitted by humphrey on Sat, 02/01/2020 - 10:52pm

The number of donors speaks volumes.

up
22 users have voted.
Submitted by PriceRip on Sat, 02/01/2020 - 11:53pm
PriceRip's picture

@humphrey

… to reveal the "real" truth:

          There is nothing nefarious here. The creators of the graphic are just dismayed that the original was so very boringly monochromatic.

          To really see any evidence of an extant pattern one must disregard the obvious truth overwhelming noise hiding the signal.

          Only a true scientist knows how to get to a real understanding of data at its core.

RIP

up
13 users have voted.
Submitted by MinuteMan on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 8:40am

@PriceRip Don't you know it's a standard practice in radio to dampen those pesky signals to enhance the reception of noise. /s

Sometimes I think I would rather listen to white noise than what NPR has coming out off my radio. Thank Dog for music off the Intertubes.

up
7 users have voted.
Submitted by Shahryar on Sat, 02/01/2020 - 11:36pm
Shahryar's picture

so I'll edit this one...

EDIT:

So the power behind the curtain must have deleted the other one! Funny!

The gist: Bernie supporters freeped the poll by there being too many of them in a representative sample.

There!

up
17 users have voted.
Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 12:06am
snoopydawg's picture

@Shahryar

spin the wheel and choose your excuse.

IMG_3985.JPG

up
21 users have voted.
—

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt

Submitted by WaterLily on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 8:39am
WaterLily's picture

@snoopydawg Lol

---
formerly bald avian now flying under the radar

up
9 users have voted.
Submitted by konondrum on Sat, 02/01/2020 - 11:41pm

The stunning announcement by the media sponsors and West Des Moines-based pollster Selzer & Co. means the results of the historically accurate survey won't be released before Monday caucuses. The decision left the campaign and political media universe, which has descended on Des Moines, dumbfounded.

Lis Smith, a senior adviser to Buttigieg's campaign, confirmed on Twitter that the former South Bend (Ind.) mayor's campaign had been in touch with the media outlets about the issues and hailed their decision to withhold the results.

"Our campaign received a report from a recipient of the Iowa Poll call, raising concerns that not every candidate was named by the interviewer when asked who they support," Smith tweeted. "We shared this with the organizations behind the poll, who conducted an internal investigation and determined not to release it. We applaud CNN and the Des Moines Register for their integrity."

According to two sources familiar with the poll, one interviewer at the call center used for the survey enlarged the font size on their monitor, potentially cutting off some names on the randomized list of candidates — including Buttigieg's in the interview in question.

The media outlets couldn't determine how many interviews may have been affected and whether other candidates may have been left off lists read to respondents in the course of conducting the poll.

So... yeah. I've actually worked in a call center, and I guess I could see this happening. Whatever actually did happened, this is certainly a black eye for Selzer, and it's obviously driving the DC crowd nuts.

up
17 users have voted.
Submitted by leveymg on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 8:10am

@konondrum his/her results, why not recalculate the rest of the results, and release the poll? It makes no sense to withhold all the results, unless there's another motive.

up
10 users have voted.
Submitted by Wally on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 8:42am
Wally's picture

@leveymg

. . . is that Buttigieg dropped way down. He would have been happy enough if he came in at 15%. That would've given his folks incentive to get out the vote. Below 15% discourages them because then they have to caucus with their second choice and their first vote counts for nothing. Why bother unless a caucus goer has unbridled enthusiasm for their second choice? Not very likely.

I'd also guess that the poll showed everyone except Bernie under 15% and Bernie at least 15 points up. That would have dampened the voter turnout of all of Bernie's neoliberal opponents.

Just speculation but there is also the element of Butt having been in the CIA Naval Intelligence (does a CIA Naval Intelligence employee ever get out?) and the CIA IC (17 or however many agencies) having a big say over what gets in or is taken out of newspapers, even the NYT.

up
10 users have voted.
Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 12:08am
snoopydawg's picture

So we can all stay home and let the big wigs choose who gets to play president.

up
24 users have voted.
—

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt

Submitted by Wally on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 8:40am
Wally's picture

@snoopydawg

Last time around for the primaries in 2016, the overall Democratic eligible "voter turnout of 14.4% was well below the record 19.5% in 2008, but it was still the second-highest since 1988’s primary season."

That kind of turnout wasn't really all that different than previous recent contests:

The overall Democratic turnout of 14.4% was well below the record 19.5% in 2008, but it was still the second-highest since 1988’s primary season.

Hello? At least 80% of eligible Democratic voters don't vote in primaries.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/10/turnout-was-high-in-the...

It's always boggled my mind why anyone outside the 1%wants to play into their game.

up
8 users have voted.
Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 10:03am

@Wally that most voters and eligible ones are not even remotely as engaged and informed about politics as the regulars on political online boards like this one. I think most would be hard pressed to name more than two Ds running for the nomination. But I do expect relatively very high voter participation levels this year, with Ds highly motivated by anti-Trump sentiment to register their preferences.

up
5 users have voted.
Submitted by Wally on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 10:50am
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

I admit it. I'm a political junkie. And weak. Mea culpa. I almost made it cold turkey without MSM through four years, so there's that.

Chucky T. on Meet the Press was pushing socialism vs. capitalism. It seems like he knew Biden is a loser but it was from an "he's all we really got" perspective. I was kinda amazed when he concluded something to the effect "what we are witnessing is the disintegration of the two main parties."

Then I turned on MSNBC to test my mettle by watching the unforgiveably DNC-driven Joy Ann Reid. First, she was sorta pushing Mayor Pete (he was actually on the show). Then, Bloomberg via one of his top operatives, I forget who. He pushed the FDR was a great rich guy trope. Then itsm, the concluding push was for Biden.

I have a feeling that once black voters see so many Bernie supporters at the caucuses, they will turn against whatever preference they had for Biden.

South Carolina's going to be really interesting. Am I being too overconfident about Iowa and NH? I figure Bernie's gonna get cheated in Nevada coz that's what they are best at doing there.

up
7 users have voted.
Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 11:24am

@Wally this most interesting piece from Ryan Grim that is from a survey he asked readers of his newsletter to complete on why they are switching their voting preferences. Notice the many replies from readers looking to switch to Bloomie and their reasoning.

Scroll down to read the lengthy reply from the guy who voted for Bush in 00 and 04, then Obama both times, then backed Sanders early in 2016 only to vote for Trump later, then backed Warren but is now supporting Bernie. Just wow. This is the kind of maddening voter confusion that the pitiable hardworking candidates have to put up with. So glad I turned away from any temptation to run for office in this lifetime.

up
4 users have voted.
Submitted by Anja Geitz on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 11:42am
Anja Geitz's picture

@wokkamile

This is the kind of maddening voter confusion that the pitiable hardworking candidates have to put up with.

up
6 users have voted.
—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 1:02pm
snoopydawg's picture

@Wally

either people are missing my snarky comments or I am failing to make them snarky enough.

up
5 users have voted.
—

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt

Submitted by Wally on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 1:13pm
Wally's picture

@snoopydawg

I was doubling down and trying to make the point even more emphatically.

I love your ardour and indefatigableness.

Eh, and sometimes we disagree.

up
5 users have voted.
Submitted by ggersh on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 9:49am
ggersh's picture

@snoopydawg

up
5 users have voted.
—

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

Submitted by Dr. John Carpenter on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 11:04am

@snoopydawg Yeah and the general isn’t about winning the popular vote either. It’s about who has the most electoral college votes. But, well, do I even need to point out which people won’t let that die?

up
7 users have voted.
—

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 2:21am
Alligator Ed's picture

"Any Blue will do except Bernie (Tulsi, Yang)".

This sentence needs repetition to the party faithful. Can't have Bernie, even if he could whip Trump. Nope. Won't allow that.

up
14 users have voted.
Submitted by Snode on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 7:56am

@Alligator Ed Both r's and d's agree, the left is their common enemy. I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie takes the nomination some of the dem "leadership" throw their support to Trump. Lesser of 2 evils.

up
9 users have voted.
Submitted by magiamma on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 8:50am
magiamma's picture

From the nyt

...
This year, Iowa Democrats will release more information on the preferences of Iowa caucusgoers. They will show the vote choice of caucusgoers when they initially show up at their precincts. They will also release the tabulated vote count of the so-called final alignment, which happens after caucusgoers who support “nonviable” candidates (usually those with less than 15 percent of the vote) have an opportunity to switch their support to viable ones.
...
The Four Measures
There will be four results on caucus night, each corresponding to a different step in the delegate selection process. All will be available on the Times website, though only the state delegate equivalency results will be used to characterize the winner:

The first alignment. This reflects the first preference of Iowa caucusgoers when they arrive at their precinct. At this point, the votes are tallied for each candidate. For a candidate to remain viable, he or she usually needs at least 15 percent of the vote in a precinct. This is not exactly like a popular vote, but a candidate who fares well by this measure will probably portray it as one.

The result for the final alignment. This reflects the preference of Iowa caucusgoers after those who support nonviable candidates have an opportunity to realign to a candidate who remains viable.

The state delegate equivalency results. At this point, each precinct selects delegates to county conventions (who later elect delegates to the state convention). The selection of the county delegates is based on the final alignment, but adjusted into so-called state delegate equivalents — the estimated number of delegates each candidate will get at the state convention. Historically, these equivalents are the basis for projecting a winner in Iowa.

The pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The state delegate equivalency results statewide and by congressional district are used to award pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention. A candidate needs 15 percent of the state delegate equivalents in a congressional district or statewide to be eligible for pledged delegates.

Could a different candidate win each step? The answer is yes.

A candidate could fare better on second alignment than on the first if he or she is the second choice of the caucusgoers who initially support nonviable candidates.

The same candidate could fall behind in state delegate equivalency, losing out to a person who fares best in precincts with low caucus turnout, typically in rural and older areas. (The number of state delegate equivalents is based on turnout in recent elections, so if a precinct has lower turnout in the caucus relative to those recent elections, a candidate will get more state delegate equivalents per caucusgoer than in a precinct with relatively high caucus turnout.)

And the winner of state delegate equivalents might not win the most pledged delegates in any number of arcane ways, whether because of rounding or because of the 15 percent threshold for earning delegates in a district

up
7 users have voted.
—

Stop Climate Change Silence - Start the Conversation

Hot Air Website, Twitter, Facebook

Submitted by Wally on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 9:15am
Wally's picture

@magiamma

Yea, this is stomach turning.

Just keep on pushing:

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrHl7BNgYpM]

up
7 users have voted.
Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 9:55am

an unnecessary overreaction to one minor flub involving one poll participant. The DMR/Selzer could have released the poll with a small caveat about the one trivial issue, and then stated they still have "very high confidence" in the overall results.

After all the media shenanigans that have gone on this campaign, almost always at the expense of Sanders or Tulsi, probably not by accident, it would be naive not to assume there is more here than meets the eye.

That said, it seems more likely than not that this could be another sign that Bernie is surging and will take 1st place easily in IA. I expect turnout to be higher than normal, perhaps exceeding 2008 levels, weather permitting, just as I expect record turnout by Ds in the general. This non-disclosed poll will have no effect on discouraging turnout.

up
8 users have voted.
Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 12:00pm
Not Henry Kissinger's picture

a local, small city newspaper achieves national prominence by publishing a survey of its state's residents just before the start of the Presidential primary season. It is a proud moment for the publication and the state, and has become a quadrennial staple of the electoral calendar.

EPyVd7ZXsAEq97h.jpg

Then one year the results showed a candidate running on free health care and education in the lead, so the newspaper decided, "Fuck it. Let's just not tell them."

The End.

up
13 users have voted.
—

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 12:40pm
Anja Geitz's picture

@Not Henry Kissinger

up
7 users have voted.
—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by i dunno on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 11:44am

If accurate:
Des Moines Iowa poll was spiked, here are the results:

Sanders: 22%
Warren: 18%
Buttigieg: 16%
Biden: 13%

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1223804822891032576

The results may have been suppressed to prevent Biden / Boot supporters from becoming discouraged and not showing up.

At the caucuses if Biden is not viable and his supporters move to Boot then Boot _could_ have a very good showing. If that happens consistently -- which it might not.

May be more likely Boot ad Biden split which caucuses they pick up delegates in.

up
5 users have voted.
Submitted by Anja Geitz on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 11:57am
Anja Geitz's picture

@i dunno

I suspect the poll was withheld not necessarily because Bernie was in the lead but because Biden is tanking.

So, I guess telling the voters in Iowa to "vote for someone else" worked, eh?

up
8 users have voted.
—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by Wally on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 12:23pm
Wally's picture

@i dunno

Bernie has 24.7% on the RCP aggregate. My guess is that Bernie gets 30%.

up
4 users have voted.
Submitted by Dr. John Carpenter on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 2:36pm

@i dunno iirc his two previous runs, he couldn’t break double digits. Granted, this time he’s had most favored candidate status, but his numbers always looked inflated to me.

And to give you another thing to take with a grain of salt, I’ve read the polling controversy is that some (how many?) of the pollsters made some (again, number unknown) calls with the candidate list zoomed in on their computer screen and unless they scrolled, the last name was cut off. Lest anyone think this just cut off Mayo Pete, I guess the list randomizes between calls so the order should be different every time.

Take that for what it’s worth...

up
6 users have voted.
—

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

Submitted by Mark from Queens on Sun, 02/02/2020 - 3:47pm
Mark from Queens's picture

the YouTube page for alternative Left Media host Marcus Conte's show:

up
4 users have voted.
—

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:

THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"

- Kurt Vonnegut