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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
In Kentucky and Oregon Primaries the Polls Say Clinton, But the Dynamics Scream ‘Bernie!’
Tomorrow, the last Democratic presidential primaries before the June finale will be held in Kentucky and Oregon. There's very limited polling in either state (which is why FiveThirtyEight is refusing to set odds), but the one available poll in each has Hillary Clinton in the lead. Everything else about the two states tells you she's not.
Outside of Vermont, the Pacific Northwest has been the area where the Bern has probably reached its most intense levels. Sanders won over 70 percent of the vote in the caucuses in next-door Washington. Oregon's primary electorate was 85 percent white in 2008. It also has a "good government" and reform tradition that's friendly to Sanders's "political revolution"; it is, after all, the place where Gene McCarthy beat Bobby Kennedy (who referred to Oregon as being like "one big suburb"
in 1968. The Sanders campaign has been talking about running up the score there, and path-to-nomination scenarios for Bernie have him winning big in Oregon. As far as I'm concerned, it would be a big upset if Clinton won.
And yet: The one recent poll — and it's a very recent one (May 6-9) — from a reputable Northwestern pollster (DHM), has Clinton up 48-33. It is a closed primary state, which isn't good for Bernie. Its most distinctive characteristic is its 100 percent mail-ballot process, which tends to produce high turnout and probably helps campaigns with highly sophisticated field efforts. It also makes polling tricky. DHM shows Clinton running even with Sanders among voters who had not mailed their ballots in as of the polling date, but Clinton holding a comfortable lead among those whose votes are already "banked." If that's accurate, her organization may have beaten Bernie's to the punch. But if Sanders wins, the poll makes it arguably an upset.
The only public poll taken in Kentucky this year was in March, when PPP found a small Clinton lead of 43-38. But this primary is being held in the long shadow of Bernie Sanders's big win in West Virginia last Tuesday. The two states are by no means identical, but they do share a tradition of dependence on the coal industry — which Hillary Clinton is thought to have disrespected crucially in a recent quote on the impact of green energy technologies — and an unusually large number of relatively conservative Democrats (it's another closed-primary state where conservadems cannot stray into Republican primaries and caucuses). In the PPP survey, Sanders was beating Clinton badly among self-identified conservative Democrats. If it gets even worse, she probably cannot win.
Outside of Vermont, the Pacific Northwest has been the area where the Bern has probably reached its most intense levels. Sanders won over 70 percent of the vote in the caucuses in next-door Washington. Oregon's primary electorate was 85 percent white in 2008. It also has a "good government" and reform tradition that's friendly to Sanders's "political revolution"; it is, after all, the place where Gene McCarthy beat Bobby Kennedy (who referred to Oregon as being like "one big suburb"
in 1968. The Sanders campaign has been talking about running up the score there, and path-to-nomination scenarios for Bernie have him winning big in Oregon. As far as I'm concerned, it would be a big upset if Clinton won.
And yet: The one recent poll — and it's a very recent one (May 6-9) — from a reputable Northwestern pollster (DHM), has Clinton up 48-33. It is a closed primary state, which isn't good for Bernie. Its most distinctive characteristic is its 100 percent mail-ballot process, which tends to produce high turnout and probably helps campaigns with highly sophisticated field efforts. It also makes polling tricky. DHM shows Clinton running even with Sanders among voters who had not mailed their ballots in as of the polling date, but Clinton holding a comfortable lead among those whose votes are already "banked." If that's accurate, her organization may have beaten Bernie's to the punch. But if Sanders wins, the poll makes it arguably an upset.
The only public poll taken in Kentucky this year was in March, when PPP found a small Clinton lead of 43-38. But this primary is being held in the long shadow of Bernie Sanders's big win in West Virginia last Tuesday. The two states are by no means identical, but they do share a tradition of dependence on the coal industry — which Hillary Clinton is thought to have disrespected crucially in a recent quote on the impact of green energy technologies — and an unusually large number of relatively conservative Democrats (it's another closed-primary state where conservadems cannot stray into Republican primaries and caucuses). In the PPP survey, Sanders was beating Clinton badly among self-identified conservative Democrats. If it gets even worse, she probably cannot win.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/look-for-two-more-sanders-upsets-in-ky-and-or.html
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Response to GreatGazoo (Original post)
because we don't watch TV, have landlines, etc. and we are too busy attending massive rallies to sit home waiting for the phone to ring.
Some of it is late momentum that the polls don't catch. There is also an enthusiasm gap so that if you ask people on the phone they may say they will get out and vote for Hillary but when it comes down to it.... they don't (!)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenberg/polldefying-pattern-predi_b_9434118.html
