Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Democratic Primaries
In reply to the discussion: Not many polls in December for first states in Democratic primary [View all]Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)24. I did.
If it's a conspiracy against your candidate, why have they decreased each cycle since 2008?
You've failed at backing up your initial assertion that it shouldn't be harder to reach voters in 2019 than it was in 2016 and I outlined, pretty reasonably, I might add, why it is, in fact, more difficult to reach voters today than four years ago. You had no answer for my evidence, so, you do what many who can't concede defeat do and you deflected by asking an avoiding question. It's cute but you're the one who posted the initial claim and I refuted it. You started the dialogue and I responded. It's my fault that I expected actually having an intelligent conversation based around facts with someone on here - oops. Instead, you took the Donald Trump approach and made an easily disprovable claim and then, when confronted with evidence about why that claim doesn't hold up, you pivoted to something different altogether.
Whatever. Your initial post was wrong. I showed you why you were wrong. I feel I did my due diligence in proving how wrong you were. If you refuse to answer the information I provided, that's on you. It just indicates to me to never enter into another conversation again with you because you're clearly not here for actual debate and rather just lobbing bullshit accusations with the occasional gas-lighting. So, good luck.
But to answer your ridiculously vague question: polls are most valuable and accurate when the resources, and costs, are invested into 'em, which means, maybe fewer, but more accurate polls, are the wave of the future despite your whining about there being less polls conducted than four years ago. Since more resources go into mining polling data today than a decade ago, the cost + effort likely means fewer overall polls so not to undermine the data.
It's a big reason I am skittish about the accuracy of the weekly polls from the Economist/YouGov and Morning Consult, even if they show Biden doing well.
So there you go. Peace.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
They knew Bernie would be surging in December but didn't want to promote it. n/t
Uncle Joe
Dec 2019
#2
Not everything that happens is an anti-Bernie conspiracy, Uncle Joe. maybe they just got tired of
beastie boy
Dec 2019
#7
He will need to do a hell of a lot more sliding before he can challenge anyone for the #2 position!
beastie boy
Dec 2019
#10
That changes in December; only six weeks away from the vote. In 2016 they had 14 polls
Uncle Joe
Dec 2019
#12
It's not bullshit - & there's a clear trend. Polling has significantly decreased each election cycle
Drunken Irishman
Dec 2019
#14
I guess that's one advantage individual donors and donations have over polls,
Uncle Joe
Dec 2019
#17
If it's a conspiracy against your candidate, why have they decreased each cycle since 2008?
Drunken Irishman
Dec 2019
#20