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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Unskewing Monmouth's Iowa Poll [View all]tblue37
(68,474 posts)133. Yes, in 2008 the Dem Party in my state had a caucus rather than a primary.
It was my first time to vote in a caucus, though I had always voted in primaries and in general elections.
Therefore, at age 58, after being a regular voter for decades, I participated in a party caucus for the very first time. If a pre-caucus poll taken in 2008 had excluded people who had not participated in a previous caucus, I would have been excluded.
Nevertheless, I suspect that first time caucus voters who have always voted but who have never voted in a caucus rather than a primary make up an extremely small percentage of caucus voters, so probably the polls that would exclude people like me are actually not significantly skewed.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
142 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I predicted LONG AGO that the "unskewing of polls" by Sanders supporters would begin at some point
MohRokTah
Oct 2015
#1
We don't have to. Hillary's own campaign is now saying the poll is rdiculous and actually
sabrina 1
Oct 2015
#141
Trump is also now complaing about the scientific polls now that he is a loser!
Fred Sanders
Oct 2015
#24
The methodology is sound based on past voting patterns....are those going to change?
Fred Sanders
Oct 2015
#28
And this is what's going to make watching y'all get blindsided all the sweeter..
frylock
Oct 2015
#77
Has it occured to you that "the population that is OVERWHELMINGLY supporting Bernie" isn't in Iowa?
brooklynite
Oct 2015
#41
Yeah the portion of the population that never shows up at the voting booth!
workinclasszero
Oct 2015
#62
Yeah, me too. A lot of the people being outright dismissed as unreliable also voted for Obama..
frylock
Oct 2015
#91
I'm not worried about people that will sit home against their best interests
workinclasszero
Oct 2015
#104
Explanation: Alerter really had to struggle to come up with a reason for alerting and has failed
Cha
Oct 2015
#138
You can't make a freakin' move without those itchy alert fingers tracking you down. Lots of fun
Cha
Oct 2015
#137
Believe it or not, there really are people who pay for hundreds of thousands of Facebook likes
Zorra
Oct 2015
#69
exactly!! prior caucus participation may miss larger trends of newly motivated voters
zazen
Oct 2015
#72
Not as prideless as the time DU went all 19th century on the Ebola propaganda, but close.
Fred Sanders
Oct 2015
#57
Look at the demographics of the electorate, especially in Iowa. They're right on!
George II
Oct 2015
#66
You should start a facebook page where you and those similarly concerned can lodge your complaints
DemocratSinceBirth
Oct 2015
#124
And like the Monmouth poll, it excluded younger and new voters who are not yet registered
magical thyme
Oct 2015
#128
Neither "excluded" younger and new voters - both used a sampling that reflects the demographics...
George II
Oct 2015
#129
Excellent analysis, thank you. Apparently even her own campaign doesn't believe that poll.
sabrina 1
Oct 2015
#134