Hillary Clinton Support Dips In New Poll

[1step]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by azurnoir (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: huffington

Hillary Clinton's lead over potential 2016 Democratic rivals has shrunk considerably, a new poll finds.

According to the poll, from ABC News and the Washington Post, 61% of likely Democratic voters say they would vote for Clinton. This is down from last month's lead of 63%, and January's 73%. This latest poll was conducted earlier this month and released on Sunday.

Vice President Joe Biden is a distant second with 14% of the potential vote.

Mass. Senator Elizabeth Warren comes in third at 13%. The same survey last month found that she was only commanding 11% of the vote. In January, that number was only 9%. Warren has repeatedly denied that she is seeking a bid for president.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/21/hillary-clinton-2016_n_6362276.html

[JDPriestly]

1. K&R.

[olddots]

2. who and where do they poll ?

[Recursion]

5. 346 Democrats by landline and cell phone

out of a total sample of 1000 respondents

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1165a5DemocraticPrimaryPreference.pdf

[1step]

6. there's a link to the actual poll in the article

[billhicks76]

3. She Will Lise A Whole Lot More Support By 2016

She's only a great candidate for a Wall St, weapons manufacturers and the drug war industry. I look forward to someone better running against her.

[NotHardly]

4. Seriously...LOL... who writes this crap???

Could we focus on something that might be important? Could we have a poll with information associates with it ... like how may people were polled, their demographics including $$$, when it was done and such?? Unless you can offer that... it's a Pepsodent commercial. Do you all know anything about polling or are only the amateur screamers allowed on this site?

[1step]

7. Alana Horowitz

and i don't think she'd appreciate your 'crap' remark. she didn't conduct the poll, she's merely reporting it.

[pnwmom]

14. It was crap reporting.

Every poll should be reported with details about sample size and margin of error -- at the very least. If the writer had paid attention to those details, she would have not drawn the conclusion that Hillary's support had recently dropped.There is no statistical difference between her 63% last month and her 61% this month; the 2 percent difference is well within the poll's 6 point margin of error for registered leaned Democrats.

This is from the original ABC news account, not the over-hyped and under-reasoned Huffington post story:

METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone interviews Dec. 11-14, 2014, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults, including 346 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who reported being registered to vote. Results have a 3.5-point error margin overall, and 6.0 points for registered leaned Democrats. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York.

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1165a5DemocraticPrimaryPreference.pdf

[mimi85]

8. Enjoy your stay! nt

[Cha]

10. LOL.. it's been "staying" since "2008".. just not much interaction.

Aloha mimi

[Cha]

9. Oh yeah, please jump on a thread and start ignorantly insulting everyone.. that always works out

well.

If you want something that you think is "important" then start your own damn OP.

[pnwmom]

16. The poster made a valid point. Those criticizing the poster are the ones

who appear ignorant. Whenever a poll is reported, a responsible reporter will provide information about the sample size and margin of error. If the reporter had done that, it would have been obvious that Hillary's performance cannot be said to have "dipped" from last month's 63%. This month's 61% is a statistical tie.

[Cha]

17. Then he should ask with more respect.

[pnwmom]

18. Why? Why does this reporter deserve special treatment?

I don't see others criticized for not exercising proper "respect" for poor reporting.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. Think THAT'S bad? Did you hear Chuck Todd?

First he declared Elisabeth Warren wasn't fit to be President, then he claimed the only way she could even get near the office was if she was Joe Biden's running mate (which he said would be a losing ticket too) and then he did a love fest for Jeb Bush.

[1step]

12. poor chuckie

he should've stuck with child's play.

[pnwmom]

13. Reality check: 61% vs. 63% is within the margin of error.

That is not a drop from last month; it's a statistical tie. And she's still 47% above the next highest candidate.

Similarly, Ms. Warren's 13% is statistically tied with her previous 11%. No conclusion may be drawn from that 2 point difference.

[azurnoir]

15. Locking

Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1014