Another new Iowa poll out today: Hillary 45%-Bernie 17%

[SonderWoman]

https://mobile.twitter.com/pollsterpolls/status/639133377627561984

[AtomicKitten]

1. "Gravis Polling Exposed as a Fraud" researched by grantcart circa 2012.

#1: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021489250

#2: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021541113

#3: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021539890

[SonderWoman]

3. That post is from 2012.

[Scootaloo]

32. And its facts are accurate.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Maybe they improved their polling methodology?

Who knows?

But you're correct, gravis marketing sucked during the 2012 election cycle.

[SonderWoman]

7. They only seem to question the bad Bernie polls.

Good Bernie polls get posted 200x.

[AtomicKitten]

9. Des Moines Register/Bloomberg has been the standard-bearer for Iowa polling.

You are welcome to hang your hat on an outlier, this one includes Elizabeth Warren FFS or the Gravis Polling Company exposed as a fraud by DU'er grantcart, but most people acknowledge Des Moines/Bloomberg polling as bedrock accurate.

Ever wonder why Hillary spends $300,000 a month on polling? You're looking at it. Outliers in an attempt to subvert reality.

[SonderWoman]

12. Yet, no one on team Bern calls good Bernie polls "outliers".

Interesting.

[AtomicKitten]

13. it has nothing to do with good or bad, it has to do with accuracy

[SonderWoman]

16. Oh, I thought you guys were concerned about "trends".

I guess not.

[AtomicKitten]

18. Bernie's trend line is UP, Hillary's is DOWN. That's a fact.

[Godhumor]

14. Quick, which number is really different 34, 7, 25, 28

Those are the spreads in the last 4 Iowa polls, in order of completion. There are either 3 outliers or 1. More than likely it is the 1.

Even the best pollsters get skunked by bad samples, bad screens or bad adjustments.

[virtualobserver]

17. Quick, which pollster is considered the gold standard in Iowa, and rated A+

polling a caucus is not the same as polling a primary

[Godhumor]

20. Even the best have bad polls, and other independent results don't support Selzar's conclusions

Every pollster gets the occasional dud; even if you're the best pollster in a state, which Selzar is, has a 5% chance of polling an unrepresentative sample. All info right now points to the DM poll being an outlier.

[virtualobserver]

21. time will tell

[Godhumor]

26. Honestly, the last DM poll from late May implies the most recent fal outside the confidence interval

End of May, Selzar showed Clinton at +41. Even accounting for "the surge" a 34 point change in 3 months is mathematically unlikely.

[virtualobserver]

28. keep telling yourself that

you really won't like the polls after a couple of debates

[George II]

56. Interesting that the only person who alleged that Gravis Marketing is a fraud was....

....a poster here on DU, a guy named "grantcart". There doesn't seem to be any corroboration anywhere, although DailyKos had a few blog posts about it back in 2012, but they only reposted information from the DU posts.

Also, "grantcart" seems to have disappeared from here more than a year and a half ago.

[George II]

64. Of course you turn that around and avoid the obvious fact that Gravis Marketing is NOT....

....the fraud that you claimed it was earlier.

Pretty offensive calling a polling company a fraud without any reasonably proof.

[Doingto]

67. Your links are all DU posts?

Anything else?

[AtomicKitten]

69. a plethora of links lie within

meticulous research by a DU'er

[ram2008]

2. But Warren is at 13%...

She has stated she's not running... most of those voters = Bernie voters. Probably closer to 45-28% if you took Warren out of the equation.

[Godhumor]

5. Go ahead and unskew

Because trying to guess how respondents would vote if their preferred candidate was not in is an impossibility. This includes assuming Bernie would get 85% of Warren's supporters.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Here is the link to the aggregate polling

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-iowa-presidential-democratic-primary


I will leave it to dispassionate observers to divine which poll appears to be the outlier.

[ram2008]

31. I see a pretty clear trend...

That is clearly in Bernie's favor, and I trust Selzer more than any other polling outfit since they were one of the first to show movement toward Obama in 07 and one of the only to accurately predict his victory. Polling the Iowa Caucus is not like polling a regular primary.

Also if you look at the most recent polls Hillary has dropped below 50 in every single one, which means to me her support is softening and people are looking for alternatives. That's probably why Warren polled so well in the most recent poll.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. If you look at the five most recent polls she is at 48%, 50%, and 54% in three of them

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-iowa-presidential-democratic-primary

[ram2008]

35. I don't think that changes the trend...

Since the ones showing her below 50% are all three of the most recent ones, while the ones showing her above are older. The trend line doesn't lie.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. These trends aren't linear...

There is a concept known as reversion to the mean.

Humans get taller with every generation but there won't come a time when the average height for a human is ten feet.

[ram2008]

38. So far theres no evidence of reversion

Didn't happen in 07, might not happen this time either. We probably won't know until after the first debate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Please bookmark this post

So far theres no evidence of reversion

Didn't happen in 07, might not happen this time either. We probably won't know until after the first debate.

Embodied in your observation is the assertion that Senator Sanders can put together as large a coalition as Senator Obama put together. It is my firm conviction he won't even come close.


Please bookmark this post

Thank you in advance.

[ram2008]

42. Bernie will do better with whites and slightly worse than Obama with minorities

The coalition doesn't need to be as big as Obama's however, if Biden enters the race it will be a bit unpredictable. A tacit Obama endorsement could shift AA's toward Biden and then Clinton would probably fall beneath Bernie and Biden.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Please bookmark this post

Barack Obama was winning the African American vote to 8-1 or 9-1 and mitigating his losses among Latinos losing them 1-2. Senator Sanders won't come remotely close to those benchmarks.

[ram2008]

46. He doesn't need to if Biden is also splitting the minority vote

But we will see what happens. I don't see any reason for minorities to choose Clinton over Sanders.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. I let everybody speak for themselves...

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/08/24/who-clintons-biggest-threat/

[ram2008]

55. Which is changeable once people start paying more attention

1/3rd of the electorate doesn't even know who Bernie is, most of them being minorities- it is still very early. I don't expect a shift until after the first debate when people start paying attention, also if Clinton's head to head numbers continue to decline and Bernie's favorability continues to increase there will be a general election viability argument to be made which could also shift the numbers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Well

If Clinton's head to head numbers continue to decline and Bernie's favorability continues to increase there will be a general election viability argument to be made which could also shift the numbers.

Now, back to my question. Out of 40 head-to-head polls against 11 Republican candidates, Clinton trails in exactly two. There’s one Fox poll from mid-August where Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio each lead her by two points. But 38 other times, she’s ahead, and usually not by especially close margins. She’s +9 on John Kasich and +8.8 on Donald Trump and +4.7 on Scott Walker. Only Bush and Rubio are close. That seems to me a pretty enviable position for a floundering campaign to be in

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/02/hey-hillary-time-for-a-reboot.html

Plus, I will just be blunt...The press has been beating the shit out of Hillary Clinton since it was revealed she used a private server in March. That's six months of pillorying. It's specious to compare her numbers with Biden, with Sanders, whomever when they haven't been pilloried in the press for such a long period of time.

[ram2008]

59. Again its the pattern that's alarming

Falling behind against R's in the state polling and holding onto a slim National lead at this point is alarming.

The press has been hitting Hillary and rightfully so, her campaign has made error after error and so far she's proven to be lethargic and closed off on the campaign trail. If she can't withstand questions about her e-mail server without tanking, wait until she gets attacked on her record among other things. She just doesn't seem to be good at connecting with people which is why the longer she's in the spotlight, the more she falls.

If Bernie enters the first debate with national numbers at around 45Clinton-30Sanders he'll be in great shape. The message counts and Bernie has a superior one.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. Despite the pillorying she is doing quite well...

If you believe that any candidate will get a free ride in the press and from his or her opponents there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. They will get beat up by both and look a lot different. A sports metaphor in images:


It's the difference between how a fighter looks like at the opening bell and the closing bell:


Opening bell:





Closing bell:




And the suggestion that Hillary is a poor debater is specious. Most dispassionate analysts say she is an outstanding debater. She certainly has infinitely more experience than her opponents.

[ram2008]

61. We will see

It will be hard for her to defend her positions on Glass-Steagall, the TPP, Keystone, her interventionist policies in Iraq and in Syria, her poor stance on civil liberties re: the NSA, Patriot Act, and her close ties to Wall Street who are also funding her campaign. Even for the most skilled debater...

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. Slightly worse than (President) Obama with "minorities" ...

Bernie would have to do a couple order of magnitude better with "minorities" to approach (President) Obama's "minority" numbers.

[ram2008]

66. I don't see anything holding him back

He's better on the issues.

[virtualobserver]

19. a legitimate poll wouldn't be polling Warren at this stage

[Godhumor]

23. Besides my point. You can't just assume Warren voters will go 85% to Sanders

That is "unskewing" results.

[virtualobserver]

25. I don't assume it, but they did in NH....

the poll is invalid if they added someone who is DEFINITELY not running. That is a poll with an agenda.

[SonderWoman]

15. I'm a Warren supporter who is now voting for Hillary.

My first DU post was hoping Liz would still run.

[George II]

30. And most of the Biden voters would be Clinton voters.

[Scootaloo]

33. What are Lieberman and Kerry polling at this year, I wonder?

[Sancho]

6. Seem to go along with a separate poll out today too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251565969

[SonderWoman]

8. True.

[Sancho]

10. Ok...I followed links...two polls out today. Hillary ahead in both in Iowa

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-iowa-presidential-democratic-primary

One is Gravis: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-iowa-presidential-democratic-primary

The other is Loras College: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/loras-college-22651

Both are similar, about the same 45 to 17; 48 to 23 Hillary over Sanders.

Both about a thousand LVers.

[riversedge]

65. Good news. Thanks

[cali]

22. The Worst Poll in America

Not that I'm not willing to consider he's not doing as well as the Reuters poll indicates, but it will have to come from a reputable concern.

Gravis ain't that.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/05/21/the_worst_poll_in_america.html

[Puzzledtraveller]

24. Isn't Iowa becoming increasingly irrelevant as a weather vane?

[Armstead]

36. That was the LAST poll that showed Sanders gaining

That one was irrelevant for hat reson. THIS poll is the one to pay attention to. Very important.

[Puzzledtraveller]

41. I get it.

I was really wondering this because I recall at one point reading or hearing about Iowa being less reliable from some pundit no doubt that was trying to explain away their miscalculations. I did some searches and I found every election cycle someone is claiming Iowa is becoming irrelevant etc..

[George II]

39. It wasn't the other day when a poll declared Sanders "in striking distance", but.........

.....now that TWO polls show Clinton with a sizeable lead its irrelevant again.

[George II]

27. Here is today's pie chart for the Sept. 1 2015 poll:

http://www.chartgo.com/share.do?id=e0c701afaa

Clinton 45.1
Sanders 16.9
Biden 13.4
O'Malley 4.9
Warren 4.6
Webb 1.2
Chafee 0.5
Undecided 13.5

Biden is within the margin of error for Second Place.

Also released today is the updated Loras College Poll

Clinton 48
Sanders 23
Biden 16
O'Malley 4
Webb 0
Chafee 1
Undecided 6

[HerbChestnut]

44. First of all, that's not a pie chart...

Secondly, where on earth are you getting those numbers?

[George II]

48. Sorry, I typed too fast, obviously meant bar chart (many of the charts on the page below are....

....pie charts).

Here's where it came from:

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-iowa-polling-2/

[HerbChestnut]

50. Fair enough, but why include Warren?

[George II]

53. It's not my poll, I just provided the numbers.

Biden is in it too.

[HerbChestnut]

54. True, except...

Biden has publicly admitted he is considering a run. Warren has publicly denied that she is considering a run. Pollsters have haven't included Warren in their samples for a couple of months.

[George II]

70. No, and no. Where did you find that 3 year old story?

[arcane1]

29. Why are they including Warren?

[HerbChestnut]

45. Great question.

Her inclusion pretty much negates the credibility of this poll. It's one thing to include Biden, who is publicly considering a run, but it's another to include Warren, who has publicly denied she is running.

[okasha]

72. Her inclusion

differentiates between Sanders' "hard" support and his "soft support.". Nearly half of "progressive" voters are not firmly committed to Bernie but to "progressive" ideas. Come the crunch, they might or might not go with Sanders.

[HerbChestnut]

47. It's disingenuous to post that headline...

When Elizabeth Warren is included in that poll. Everybody knows that most of Warren's support goes to Sanders.

[SonderWoman]

49. See post 15.

[HerbChestnut]

52. I said most.

You are clearly in the minority.

[Doingto]

68. No. Everyone doesn't know that

Cite a poll or expert proving that.

[Persondem]

71. Even if you add Warren's support to Sanders's, HRC is still up 2-1

Nothing wrong with the headline. Most folks at DU are now interested in HRC and Sanders, and that is reflected in the headline.

You just don' t like the numbers.

[R B Garr]

73. k&r