Sanders supporters, please list the polls that you find acceptable.

Those are only polls that start to count in the primary. Before that is blather.

You can do better than that.

Hey libs who....

Here we have an op touting a post-debate online click-bait poll from FOX as proof that Sanders is the people's choice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251816776

I called out cali democrat here not long ago for saying Sanders supporters were in desperation mode. Seems I owe c d an apology.

EOM

Can't imagine why.

I saw that silly WSJ poll and didn't comment because I didn't want to be seen as a whiner.

Amazing that they don't see it.

And they cite 538 as an authority to vouch for Google Survey when they dismiss almost everything else Nate Silver writes.

Not recognizing that he's only referring to polls like Google Consumer Survey, not the online click-bait widgets.

eom

My choice of candidates is not based on polls but on concepts like whether a candidate is viable in a general election contest. Good luck with the concept of ignoring polls. That theory worked really well for Karl Rove and Mitt Romney back in 2012.

eom

Open an Irish securities account and place your bet on the outcomes. You would get really good odds and make a good return on such a bet

If HRC wins the general I will donate the $500.00 I won from the person who takes my wager to charity. I am not interested in filthy lucre or pecuniary gain. If someone takes my wager and I lose I will give $500.00 to him or her to do with as he or she pleases.


I doubt we gets Trump but when Team Clinton gets done with Trump's tired ass he will look to the public like some mongrel mix of Bull Connor, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Adolf Hitler.

Sixty seven percent of Democratic primary voters said Clinton won the debate, Public Policy Polling (PPP) found in its survey, conducted for the pro-Clinton super-PAC Correct The Record.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260196-poll-clinton-clear-winner-of-second-debate

So acceptable polls can start by being independent of campaigns.

None of them.

If this thread was intended simply to remind us that Sec. Clinton began the campaign with an enormous advantage in name recognition, believe me, it's not needed. Sen. Sanders' path to victory was never going to be as quick or easy.

A look at Sen. Obama's poll numbers from eight years ago might or might not be relevant. Hard to say as yet.

That we are just getting a grip on this online polling. That line of thought just falls flat. The only thing more intellectually insulting is for someone to claim they are proof of anything.

Check out this online poll from '98.

Madonna, Leo Bested By Angry Drunken Dwarf In Beautiful People Poll

Who is the most beautiful person in the world? According to users of “People” magazine’s website, the answer is Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf.

As they have for three years now, “People Online” staged the poll in conjunction with the annual Most Beautiful People issue of its print counterpart, and offered a collection of celebrity nominees including Leonardo DiCaprio, Madonna, Mariah Carey, Kate Winslet, Brad Pitt, and the usual pack of suspects. In a sign of just how democratic the Internet can be, the peripheral character from Howard Stern’s radio show raked in more than 230,000 write-in votes to crush the more conventional competition.


Hank, who is a real live human being, benefited both from exposure on the Stern show and from a chain e-mail campaign that inundated mailboxes across the Internet with detailed instructions as to how and where to vote for him.

http://www.mtv.com/news/1431607/madonna-leo-bested-by-angry-drunken-dwarf-in-beautiful-people-poll/

Notice the email instructions given out telling them how to vote. The only difference today is that it is more efficient. Post after post from Sanders forums of people directing others to vote for Sanders in online polls. The game is rigged and it isn't rigged in Clintons favor. Just the opposite. If she becomes the first woman president, she will get there through difficulties no man has ever had to go to in getting there. Just look at the new online polling brigade. Anything they can do to avoid reality.

The people touting these polls haven't learned a thing. Lord, the things I can show you this country believes in if one put weight behind online polls.

I've signed so many I can't count them from DU links. Although I always want "my side" to win the poll I have no illusions that these polls are scientific. They are just fun. FYI can't remember signing one for Hillary. But if I had I wouldn't take it seriously.

Reminds me of this old famous poll. http://www.pbs.org/now/palin-poll.html

where's he's leading 90%

I believe Bernie Sanders will get a lot more Republican votes than one might expect. There are a number of Republicans who think there is no acceptable candidate for President in the current GOP lineup. "They are all nuts." But there is also the fact that a lot of Bernie's positions on certain issues are positions many main-stream Republicans support, for instance, Social Security and Medicare. It is not often discussed, but on many, many issues Americans agree in large positive percentages on key points. Yes, the usual divisive social issues are dragged out gain to split Americans' -- but everyone is catching on to the fact that is is simply a ploy to distract from the true goals of the Republican party.

So the polls usually sample (if I can use that word loosely in light we have learned about methods being utilized) Republicans and Democrats separately instead of just polling all likely American voters in one group and presenting the potential for a cross-over impact.

And then there is the fact 25% of the people have no clue who Bernie Sanders is. Since he has started advertising, that will slowly change.

And then there is the recent incident of Bernie Sanders of being shown by a reporter the huge gap between his numbers and Hillary's number while being asked how did he think he could win the election when these numbers showed him so far behind? He looked at the numbers on the papers and simply said, "those are not the numbers I am seeing." I felt this was a true statement. I believe both Hillary and Bernie Sanders have totally different numbers than the ones the public is being fed.

And finally, now that I see that Mark Penn (the man in the middle) is involved in polling, I can only add what more does one need to believe the results are skewed than that?

Sam

But I would start by excluding any poll that has an 80% land-line base. Also, 21st century polling must be very difficult to adapt to the changing dynamic of cell phone use. Other factors would be not to use an exclusively Democratic base. It should include independents and Republicans to be more accurate about an unconventional candidacy. Also, rather than repeat voters, it should include self-described likely voters who have never voted before.

That's my lay opinion. I suspect my described methodology changes would be so expensive and unconventional that nobody is conforming to those criteria. I presume that the methodology currently used is basically the same as it has been for at least several cycles, which means it is getting progressively less reliable.