This message was self-deleted by its author

[Bubzer]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Bubzer) on Mon Feb 29, 2016, 01:33 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Kip Humphrey]

1. My recollection is that it was republicons who first ordered up poles to show a certain result.

That tradition appears to have been continued and enhanced this election cycle.

[Bubzer]

8. And hillary is not above buying specific results...

[NCTraveler]

44. .

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-4167.html

[Buzz Clik]

2. The CNN poll has Clinton leading by 17%.

You're slapping at gnats but covered with leaches.

[Bubzer]

5. The errors could easily obliterate that 17% lead.

[Buzz Clik]

24. Based on that analysis, her lead might be 34%.

[Bubzer]

39. That's true enough...except that CNN has favored hillary from the word go.

So it's much more likely she has no lead at all.

[Buzz Clik]

40. Well, that explains it.

So, on Tuesday, Sanders wins.

Unless HRC bought that, too.

=================================

EDIT: you might check out fivethirtyeight.com. They have Clinton up 13 points. Did she buy them?

[Bubzer]

43. I'm not talking winners and losers... I just believe the race is much closer than CNN claims.

538's not always right:

*on edit*

According to our final polls-plus forecast, Hillary Clinton had a 67% chance of winning the Iowa caucuses.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/

[SidDithers]

49. Hillary did win the Iowa caucus....

538 was right.

Sid

[still_one]

27. They could, but they don't. For one thing, National polls mean very little at this stage. Nominees

are determined by states, not from a national opinion poll.

Here is Nate Silvers' latest polls plus analysis for March:


Just select the drop down to see the results

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/massachusetts-democratic/

Arkansas

Hillary 98
Sanders 2

Georgia

Hillary 99
Sanders 1

Mass

Hillary 88
Sanders 12

Oaklahoma

Hillary 75
Sanders 25

Tennessee

Hillary 99
Sanders 1

Texas

Hillary 99
Sanders 1

Vermont

Hillary 1
Sanders 99

Virginia

Hillary 99
Sanders 1

March 8

Michigan

Hillary 97
Sanders 3

March 15

Florida

Hillary 99
Sanders 1

Illinois

Hillary 99
Sanders 1

North Carolina

Hillary 96
Sanders 4

Ohio

Hillary 95
Sanders 5

We will know soon enough about the validity of Nate's methodology with the upcoming primaries/caucus

The only real poll that counts is the one on election day

[Bubzer]

41. I do agree with this: The only real poll that counts is the one on election day.

Tuesday will be interesting, whatever the result.

[still_one]

45. The media is obsessed with these damn polls. Just work to get your

team out to the voting booths

[Bubzer]

46. True enough. *Sigh* Can't wait till this is all done with, one way or another.

[Dem2]

3. That being said

Both the Yougov and the CNN polls show a tilt back toward Hillary and against recent trends showing the race tightening.

This on the day before Super Tuesday. Uggh. Not a good trend for Bernie.

[Dem2]

6. I think it's a normal and natural bump from SC

She overperformed in an actual primary which would tend to boost the confidence of those on the fence.

I'm not surprised that a couple of polls have come out, more surprised at the lack of recent polling actually.

[Bubzer]

21. A bump is to be expected... this isn't a bump...it's a jump.

[Dem2]

23. Not really.

CNN 2/24 - 2/27 418 RV 55 38
CNN 1/21 - 1/24 440 RV 52 38

YouGov/Economist 2/24 - 2/27 535 LV 55 37
YouGov/Economist 2/11 - 2/15 527 LV 53 39

Both are minor bumps within the margin of error.

[Bubzer]

42. That's fair. Apples to apples. I was considering other polls in the equation.

In retrospect, that might not have been the best idea. Still, there are the discrepancies in their polling methods.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. "....and we know hillary is not above buying poll results." We do???

News to me.

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Yes. It is very suspicious to poll before an election

[MaggieD]

34. LOL!

And you didn't even need the sarcasm tag.

[Buzz Clik]

25. Ah. So, you are not performing an objective analysis at all, are you?

What exactly are you doing?

You went through all those details in the OP, and then accuse Hillary of buying polling results?

[azurnoir]

30. That's the idea distract and demoralize the message is clear

your going to lose so why bother?

[Dem2]

31. So you think these polls were released today deliberately to bias the election?

I would have expected them to show Bernie's doing well so this is a surprise. Wouldn't you have liked that since I'm assuming you are an exclusive Bernie supporter?

[azurnoir]

32. I expected exactly what we're seeing here

[Godhumor]

7. Uh...huh. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. LOL ... Exhausting, isn't it? eom

[Godhumor]

19. That's a good word for it n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. I've pledged to myself to be more polite ...

so "exhausting" is what I came up with, after rejecting: "Sophomoric" and "numerically illiterate."

[Bubzer]

22. Right. That'd be why you were so quick to show me the error of my ways? Oh, I guess you didnt.

Would that be because you can't? Or will you make some excuse to avoid it?

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. It has been done EVERY time you (and others) wax sophomorically about polling flaws ...

you don't listen ... ergo, the exhausting statement.

[Bubzer]

38. You dont refute the facts, so of course I don't listen.

I'm certainly not going to take a complete lack of reasonable analysis combined with a host of insults as being anything resembling refutation. The only exhaustion you should be feeling, should be at your own inability to show the numbers are un-biased or factually representative. But hey, you can always take a note from your buddies in HRC land and howl "un-skew!!!!!11!111".

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. Okay. Perhaps the, so much more payient, Statistical Analyst ...

DUer Godhumor, will be so kind as to provi DE e you, ANOTHER, primer on polling methodology?

The 5th time ought to be the charm!

[Bubzer]

48. You mean as opposed to all the other times that had absolutely nothing to do with the cited issues?

Sure. Maybe a 5th time might be the charm...though I'm sure it would be off base too.

[MattP]

9. Who cares about polls now real vote is tomorrow

Just vote!!!

[Bubzer]

12. It's a perception issue. Low information voters tend to vote for who they think will win.

This poll tries to make it look like hillary will do exactly that.

[still_one]

28. exactly. That is the only one that counts.

[Betty Karlson]

10. So that's what happened to the most trusted name in news:

they went full Rasmussen.

[winter is coming]

33. Their new slogan: "News to keep you stupid." n/t

[olddots]

11. CNN is the station of Baloon Boy

[giftedgirl77]

13. Only trust Facebook polls!!!!

[Bubzer]

15. Don't like the facts? Refute them. Else you've got nothing.

[MrWendel]

14. Its a...

virtual tie!!!

[TIME TO PANIC]

26. People who support neoliberals are fools.

[72DejaVu]

29. Thanks!

I just had to read the thread title to know it showed Hillary cruising.

Excellent time saver.

[Attorney in Texas]

36. Try not to fetish on individual national polls. Keep in mind that this is NOT a likely voter poll -

it'a just a poll of registered voters and such polls are not nearly as accurate as likely voter polls - and this is a national poll and there is no such thing as a national primary so it is just taking the voters temperature and state-specific polls are more important (I'd show more concern if this was a Colorado poll in the eve of the Colorado caucus).

I'd rather see good numbers than bad numbers but a candidate worrying about one bad poll is like a baseball team getting worked up about one strike. The game is made up of many strikes and balls, walks and hits, runs and outs. One strike is not the game.

[vdogg]

37. Scoot over South Carolina

You've got company.