Poll Of Three Crucial Swing States Shows Sanders May Be More Electable Than Clinton

[L0oniX]

A Qunnipiac University Swing State Poll released on June 22, 2015, turns conventional wisdom on its head, by showing that Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, might be the Democrat’s best hope for holding the White House in 2016. The survey, which polled over 1,200 voters in each of three swing states — Colorado, Iowa and Virginia — finds that voters have a much less favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton than they do of Bernie Sanders. The poll also found that Sanders was as competitive as Clinton in head to head match-ups against the top Republican candidates in both Colorado and Iowa. Clinton still had an edge over Sanders in Virginia.

more at link

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/22/poll-crucial-swing-states-shows-sanders-electable-clinton.html

[still_one]

1. unless of course you look at PPP poll released yesterday which says something different

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_72215.pdf

[virtualobserver]

4. People have a negative view of her in key battleground states

that is the point.

[Adrahil]

13. Based on one poll?

And in any case, Bernie doesn't do any better than here, even in that flawed poll.

The poll incorrectly weighted the responses to reflect an unrealistic electorate.

[Cosmic Kitten]

26. "Incorrecly weighted the responses"... LOL

If polling groups had any credibility
they would release the raw data along
with the "weighted" numbers.

If out of 500 people only 25 represent
a minority population, "weighting" results
is a pathetic game of smoke and mirrors.

Consider the REFUSAL RATE of polling.
Generally, only 1 in 10 people agree to
participate in a telephone poll.

That indicates the poll results are biased
towards those who REALLY want their
opinion heard! IOW, the most zealous.

How are polls "weighted" to reflect
a 90% refusal rate?

When 90% of the public refuses to
participate in a poll, what does it really represent?

Not an objective "snapshot" of public opinion,
because 90% or the pubic can't be bothered
with a pollster.

But pollsters want to keep making money!

[Adrahil]

27. Polls always have to deal with refusal rates.... they can still be accurate.

By your argument, polls can never give accurate results, yet many polls do very well (and many do very poorly).

The statistical models are developed over time to deal with anticipated biases, etc. For example, responses are often weighted to correct for demographic deficiencies of the sample. The larger the sample, the less risk of bias, of course, since in smaller samples, the impact of demographic errors is magnified, especially if the segment responses do not reasonably reflect the opinion of their demographic segment overall. Of course, the statistical model, and sample demos tend to be what separate good polls from bad ones. But even good companies with good models can get a sample that gives misleading results. It does happen every now and again.

One serious issue polling companies have to adjust for anticipated electorate. And this where this poll is a little goofy. Their anticipated electorate model does not represent presidential election years well at all.

[Cosmic Kitten]

28. Technocracy is not a substitue for transparency

Polls should release the raw data
along with their "weighting".

Failure to be open and transparent
serve only to maintain the smoke and mirrors.

Can you determine what "weighting"
is applied to any poll you believe is accurate?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

24. Republicans have a negative view of her

So if you oversample Republicans, you're going to get results like this.

This pollster has oversampled Republicans before. In 2014, they had a Republican up by 6, which is huge. But he lost by 2.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[virtualobserver]

25. oversampling does not explain the extreme negativity of these polls

56-33 and 56-35 unfav to fav .....

[ConservativeDemocrat]

37. A poll being inconsistent with everything else...

...is the very definition of "outlier".

This is why tracking polls are so important. Because while a poll's methodology may be suspect, if they keep the same methodology, it will tell you if there are real changes or not. So far, the tracking polls haven't blipped much at all for Hillary.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[L0oniX]

41. ~

[JaneyVee]

2. Hillary is +50 against Bernie in Virginia.

[virtualobserver]

5. Based on that she will win the Virginia primary and lose Virginia in the GE.

[JaneyVee]

19. There are 10 swing states, and...

We're supposed to worry that one obscure poll has her within the margin of error to win all 10?

[virtualobserver]

20. No, I am not saying that.

Polls this far out don't have a lot of meaning.

[Cosmic Kitten]

29. Just worry that Hillary is untrustworty according to the polls

most polls find Hillary is untrusted
by those polled.

How Hillary will Champion those
who don't trust her is puzzling?

[Indepatriot]

3. Its early to put too much meaning into polls

but I'll bet that by Christmas "The Most Admired Woman In The World" will be asking Santa for some favorable polling numbers🌽

[LynneSin]

6. Just wait until Biden jumps into the race

then things will get real interesting

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. Biden would take,Hillary's support away

[valerief]

8. The people may want Bernie, but...

the people aren't billionaires.

I'm still voting for the Bern.

[Adrahil]

15. Well, so far, only about 20% of democrats want Bernie....

Just sayin'....

[Metric System]

9. Y'all are clinging to that poll for dear life as the Sanders campaign sinks.

[L0oniX]

10. ~

[imthevicar]

14. In your Dreams!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. Feel better now?

[Metric System]

22. I do know that the new PPP poll shows this was an outlier.

Last edited Thu Jul 23, 2015, 07:52 PM - Edit history (1)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. I'm sure you'll be able to find another one when it happens again....

After all, Hillary has been paying $300,000 a month to polling services.

[Metric System]

32. I assume she's paying for internal polling, which is a normal part of modern political campaigns.

You seem to be insinuating that she's paying these public polling companies to release favorable polls. Riiiiight.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

34. Ever hear of a "push poll"?

[Metric System]

38. Yes, but PPP and Q are not push polls.

[Android3.14]

11. Ruh-roh

[lark]

12. Wonder what the result would have been if FL and OH were polled?

Those are the main swing states, so why not include them? Think they probably did this on purpose to reach a specific goal.

[Adrahil]

16. Quinnipiac is usually a decent pollster....

... but I do find it odd that chose such an unrealistic weighting of the electorate. It certainly biased their results, in my view.

[lark]

18. Exactly!

[turbinetree]

21. Correct when ..........................

you have to ask which formula did they use to base this assumption.
You already have over 500 republicans against over 450 democrats the statistics say that the right wingers will lead the poll and give you a biased finding-----------it happens every time

http://www.stattrek.com/statistics/formulas.aspx

[MisterP]

30. pssh, since when did polling better against the Pubs matter for the party establishment?

they'd rather let the GOP win a seat with a sitting member than allow a more popular candidate if he's a challenger--remember, they define primaries as sabotage

we can't just sit around as though Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, Buono, Lutrin, Sykes, Weiland, Davis, and Grimes never happened

[bobbobbins01]

31. I'm in VA and he has my vote.

Unelectable my ass.

[CharlotteVale]

39. Mine too.

[sabrina 1]

36. That's bad news for Clinton. A candidate who is not taking Corporate Money

who is still pretty much an unknown, and who attacks Wall St something no other candidate will dare to do, tells the truth, pushes a REAL PROGRESSIVE MESSAGE and we're only in the first two months.

Go Bernie!

[Babel_17]

40. Wait till most most voters know Sanders isn't bought and paid for

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:09 AM - Edit history (2)

Most voters are used to having to accept that all candidates come with that baggage. They've never had the choice of someone who wasn't "brought to the dance" by wealthy interests.

They will tend to favor the independent candidate, just on principle. We are a polarized country, but we are also a country with a lot of anger regarding the fundamental fairness of our system.

With Sanders as the Democratic candidate these fundamentals are going to be in the spotlight and his opponent will not be able to hide from his or her connections to those that the majority of Americans are disgusted with.

Election after election this isn't a deciding issue because both sides have a history of taking the money.