Reuters: Democratic support for Hillary drops 15 points since February

[MannyGoldstein]

Many Democrats want independent Clinton email probe: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Support for Clinton's candidacy has dropped about 15 percentage points since mid-February among Democrats, with as few as 45 percent saying they would support her in the last week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll. Support from Democrats likely to vote in the party nominating contests has dropped only slightly less, to a low in the mid-50s over the same period.

Even Democrats who said they were not personally swayed one way or another by the email flap said that Clinton could fare worse because of it, if and when she launches her presidential campaign, a separate Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.

The polling showed that nearly half of Democratic respondents - 46 percent - agreed there should be an independent review of all of Clinton's emails to ensure she turned over everything that is work-related.

[dsc]

1. the right wing and its enablers are starting to do their job

congrats. Maybe we can get another President Bush which is what this behavior led to the last time. When we permit the press to behave this way, this is what we get.

[morningfog]

3. Oh come on. The primary hasn't started, she hasn't declared.

This is not a surprise or due to right wing attacks. It will tighten as the primary gets under way.

[dsc]

5. This is exactly what happened to Gore

we heard endless stories of what a big fat liar he was (with all of them incentaly being examples of him either joking (union label song) or telling the truth (love story, love canal, the internet, and the school desk)) while the same papers told us Bush was a fine man who was a little dim. Now it is Jeb is totally transparent in terms of email and Clinton is an untransparent schemer when they did the exact, precise same thing. (used a private email, released a bunch of said emails, and decided to hold a bunch more of said emails back). The entire time liberals repeated the tales with glee and that is how we got President Bush.

[namastea42]

9. I think people are tiring of the Hatfield, McCoy, McCoy Hatfield Hatfield

in a population of 300+ million. Doesn't sit well. That email thing could have been avoided, she should have known it was going to be found out and pounced on so the blame is on her and her advisors. One has to wonder what some of those emails contained if the risk of deleting them was worth it to the Clintons.

[KMOD]

15. what do you think the emails contained?

[morningfog]

19. It doesn't matter what was on them.

It is an issue that Hillary created. The right wing doesn't actually care what could be on the emails, they are just happy to be able to make an issue of it. And the issue was self-created by Hillary.

[KMOD]

25. namastea42 wonders about what is in them.

I'm very curious as to what he/she is wondering or imagining.

[morningfog]

29. But that's my point. The "wonder" is all that matters.

The wonder is out there due to Hillary's foolish email regime. The "wonder" will not go away. My hope is that the story ends at "wonder," which is bad enough, and not move to something worse. For example, if one single deleted email is produced of uncovered that suggests a business related email was deleted, she will e in serious trouble. If that is a possibility, I hope we all know about in before the nominee is decided.

[KMOD]

31. I would like to hear what one wonders,

I think it would be highly entertaining.

[morningfog]

38. I just wonder how a cabinet level official

in 2008 did not have enough sense to keep their personal and state related emails separate.

[KMOD]

50. for your reading pleasure

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/03/14/government-faces-a-patchwork-of-technology-rules/

[morningfog]

64. Nothing in that article explains her poor decision to co-mingle emails.

In fact, it suggests the it was contrary to the practice: "Analysts say it’s often those at the top of the pyramid who feel they can shun the rules. . . the State Department counseled embassy employees not to use personal emails for government business."

She has still not given a credible reason for using a single account to send business and personal emails.

[KMOD]

72. lol, I knew you cherry pick that one statement.

The article explains how the government is behind the times with regards to technology. There were other top officials doing the same. The Clinton server was actually more secure than the State Department server.

Once again, she could not have two accounts on her blackberry at that time. This was done for convenience.

Hillary has stated she has turned over all of her business emails. Since most of them were sent to .gov accounts, assuming the State Dept. IT team isn't completely inept, those emails should already be on the State Department servers.

The only people who still have a problem with this, are the people who believe she is lying, or doing something nefarious. Nothing, will change their minds. Reasonable people understand this, and have moved on.

Attack her on her policies morningfog, it will look more credible than going after her on this imagined scandal.

[karynnj]

126. She turned over the emails 6 years after the beginning of the her term

If the REAL reason was just not having phones - not a huge inconvenience in reality, why didn't she regularly have aides sort the email and give it electronically to the State Department to archive? At minimum why wasn't this done within months after she left the State Department?

I don't think she did anything nefarious - I do think she has a near paranoid desire to keep things private. The problem is that for the entire duration of her term and the last two years, every inquiry made on the State Department that should have covered her email - didn't. (This is especially true if it turns out that some top aides - Mills, Abedin and others - were also on the server. It means that ANY emails between them, that did not include others, were not there.

None of this proves - or even suggests - the Clinton did anything wrong as SoS (other than knowingly not fully comply to inquiries AND leaving a situation where after she left, the SD could not fully comply until getting those emails - AKA stonewalling), but it is a gift to the Republicans who want to make it seem like untoward things happened.

[KMOD]

140. Communications she had for work,

would have been sent to .gov emails, or at least cc'd to a .gov email.

Those emails would have been preserved on the .gov server.

The protocols at the time she served as Secretary of State, did not specify emails. That protocol changed after she had left office. Once the protocol changed, the State asked her to voluntarily turn over emails. She did.

Please keep in mind, again, these emails will be redundant, because they were already of the .gov server.

Yes, if she emailed Huma, and did not cc anyone in that communication, we have to take her word that she turned it over if it was work related. However, she and Huma are also close friends, I imagine any one on one communications between them were about personal issues, wedding planning, funeral planning, etc.

[karynnj]

158. That works if and only if every work email CC'd someone on the .gov server

This is something that I don't think that HRC has claimed. It is highly likely that MOST of the emails will be redundant. The problem is the possibility that some aren't. Obviously IF she ALWAYS cc'd a State.gov account routinely, then this is not a problem. In fact, a simple solution to her convenience problem was to always CC [e-mail] or whatever her account should have been.

Protocol referred to "electronic records" far before Clinton was Secretary of State.

I am not arguing there was a law she broke - there isn't one.

This is the problem, you say: "Yes, if she emailed Huma, and did not cc anyone in that communication, we have to take her word that she turned it over if it was work related."

You may be willing to take her word for it, but there are some even here on DU who would be less willing to do so -- and you know the RW Benghazi nuts won't. The reason some here are less willing is pure human nature.

Ask yourself, imagine there was a reason that you were asked to look through 6 years of your own email and send everything pertaining to some club you belonged in. Let's say you found a few - say 5 years old that in light of later events were embarrassing. If you had 100% control of the emails (and you knew with near certainty that the others would not release them) would you be tempted to do a tad bit of editing or deleting?

Consider the stakes - even in terms of just having to address embarrassing but inconsequential issues are far higher for HRC than for anyone here on DU being asked to give up email.

[KMOD]

162. My husband works in IT security.

He has drilled into me since 1991 to not put anything online that I could regret. So no, I don't email things that I would find embarrassing.

I'm sure the Hillary Clinton, and nearly everyone who works in top positions in government, knows this as well.

The emails will hopefully be released soon. I think once people realize what types of information they contain, anyone who had concerns, will be satisfied that this is a non-issue.

I'm not going to imagine Hillary and Huma going rogue in some email plot to take over the world.

[morningfog]

218. I'm not "going after her."

I am explaining why this was foolish, why it was her own doing, and why she is a possible liability as a candidate.

I'll attack her on the policies for which I disagree when she starts telling us what her current policies are.

[brush]

79. You're on to something

In tennis terms this whole email flap is what's called an 'unforced error'. The personal email server idea was ill advised. ANY Clinton has to know, especially one looking to run for office, that the level of scrutiny and opposition research coming from the repugs will be extremely high as they search for any little thing they can exploit to do damage.

And we may not be fortunate in knowing, like with Edwards in '08, what damaging little tidbit they've found before Hillary is nominated. They are certainly evil, and smart enough, to hold damaging stuff back until after she's nominated, and then we and the country will be doomed to another Bush or some other repug in the White House in 2016.

I just don't know whose idea it was for that personal server — not a good idea even if others did it before. Those others, like Colin Powell, weren't looking to run for president and weren't a CLINTON.

[namastea42]

83. I was about to post something similar. The risk is way too high.

The possibilities are far too possible.

[KMOD]

85. I asked you earlier,

what do you imagine is in there?

What's the big scandal the emails will uncover? Inquiring minds want to know.

[brush]

93. You asked me earlier?

Maybe you clicked on the wrong post but I will say this, those deleting the emails from the server may miss something that could be construed as damaging and the repugs will grab it and run with it.

And we all know deleted stuff is still out there in cyberspace and can be found.

It was just not a good idea to have a personal server with co-mingled personal and government emails.

[KMOD]

95. I was replying to namastea42

[brush]

99. Sorry. nt

[KMOD]

84. or maybe, just maybe

It's because she's married to a former President.

Do you think President Obama will use Gmail or Yahoo when he leaves office?

I would imagine he'll have his own server, too.

Heck, my husband has been wanting his own server for many years and has thought about getting one.

[brush]

98. Still not a good idea

President may on may not get his own server when he leaves office.

The operative phrase in that is "when he leaves office".

Hillary had the server while she was in office.

[KMOD]

106. President Clinton had the server.

Hillary set up an account on that server.

I'm happy that President Obama is trying to bring federal agencies up-to-date with technological times, by updating protocols. Yet, there is still so much to be worked out.

The protocols do not even touch on things such as text messages, Skype, instagram, etc.

President Obama will get his own server when he leaves office. All Presidents from now on will. I'm sure even W has his own server.

[karynnj]

147. Actually, 2008 shows the danger in an unknown (not HRC, who hasover 3 decades in the public eye)

We did NOT know of the Edwards affair in January/February of 2008 when his campaign imploded because in the real world (unlike DU) he never gained enough support. In 2008, by early February, the race really became Clinton vs Obama (the only viable not Clinton). However, let's consider a scenario where he was a stronger candidate and was considered by the Kerry people to have been incredibly good in 2004, and Obama did not run. We could have had Edwards in Obama's position in February and had him as the de facto candidate by June. It was only in July/August that people learned who Edwards was.

It would then have been ironic that the SAVING GRACE of 2008 could have been the superdelegates. In the real 2008, many of us were really appalled that some people actually thought that - in that close election, that if they chose the bulk of the superdelegates could have swung the election to the person in second place in delegates won in primaries and caucuses. If there was even a hint of this story, it is easy to see that the SDs would have functioned exactly as they were designed to -- and the nominee would have been Clinton.

Now, it could have been that had Edwards done better in Iowa of NH, the story might have come out earlier as there would have been more focus on him. However, the fact that his critically ill wife was protecting him - as she was even in August 2008, might have meant the story would not come out. It could also have been that the story might have NOT come out in summer 2008 as it did. (I would imagine that if he were close to being the defacto nominee, he would not have gone to see the baby.)

So, in essence, what we saw in 2008 -- is that we need to carefully vet our candidates. The other thing is that Edwards' main assets were his family and his MEDIA ORDAINED charisma - not a long history of service.

[1StrongBlackMan]

139. Do you REALLY believe that ...

there is "wonder" among anyone ... other than the gop (that really don't care as it give the appearance of a "scandal&quot and the few "Democrats" that are ReadyForSomeoneElse(.org)?

[morningfog]

204. Nope. But that is enough to drive the narrative and frame the campaign.

And it was unnecessary and self-inflicted.

[1StrongBlackMan]

224. Drive a campaign based on something ...

no one cares about? Well, that is what the gop does.

[Cosmic Kitten]

75. Libya, we came, we saw, he died.

Maybe there's something about the
overthrow of Libya and the resulting
destabilization of that country?

Libya is now an extremist breeding ground.
Was that possibility discussed in the emails?

[KMOD]

76. doubtful.

I'm sure that was discussed in meeting rooms and phone calls.

Everyone knows that email isn't secure, so I can't imagine emailing anything that sensitive in nature.

[Cosmic Kitten]

90. That IS the problem, you are GUESSING

And that is why this will continue to drag out.
Hillary created this mess and it won't go away
just because you or anyone say's "doubtful".

This is just accepting the REALITY that
the right-wing is playing hardball
and Hillary supporters are guessing
and using wishful thinking.

This is a losing position politically.

[KMOD]

102. I am not guessing.

It is very doubtful, 99.99% doubtful, that she sent any sensitive information over email.

Even Trey Gowdy knows this.

[Cosmic Kitten]

124. LOL, are you trying to "punk" us

How can you say you're "not guessing"?
Do you have inside information?

And then you write that you are 99.999% "doubtful"
Isn't that kinda "guessing"?

You're putting us on, right?

[KMOD]

131. lol

No, I'm not trying to punk anybody.

email would not be used for sensitive information.

[Cosmic Kitten]

136. But there is NO PROOF

And that is all the republicans need
to beat this issue all the way to the
2016 election.

They don't need proof, just the hint or suspicion
is enough to energize their rabid Faux Spews base.

Regardless of what you or Hillary supporters think
the right-wing now has one more issue to drag
down the Democratic party.

[KMOD]

145. Because it's impossible to PROVE something does not exist.

But if you want to wear a tinfoil hat, go for it. Most republicans aren't even touching this, even they know it will make them look foolish.

Look how stupid Lindsay Graham looked for saying he had never sent an email in his life.

[A Simple Game]

151. Exactly, it doesn't matter what was in them.

This could be completely innocent or completely nefarious and we may never know one way or the other. But just as you can't prove a negative, in this case neither can you disprove one.

It's not the fact that she did it, but do we want a President that couldn't see the consequences of not following the book for procedure? Maybe she didn't realize that the Republicans would use it against her, why should they, it's not like they had done anything like that in the past. Do we want someone that short sighted as President?

Losing support is no surprise, her support is a mile wide and an inch deep. It would be best if she has a couple of primary challengers and we see how the voters really feel. I suspect a repeat of 2008 if she has any challenge at all.

[fadedrose]

80. I'm terrible on names, but

there was a fella who quit working on the Clinton Initiative Fund because of (?) something he didn't like. Does anyone know who he was and what it was he didn't approve of?

I myself marvel at the Clintons' went from "dead broke" to kinda rich, and the emails, if they were all available, might clear them from suspicion of misusing CI funds for paying campaign workers or discouraging in one form another other candidates from being candidates. Competition is something they don't seem to like.

I am not saying that I think there was anything wrong, but if there is something behind my wondering, there must be others who feel the same way.
Has no one the courage to ask or am I the only idiot who wonders about it.

[KMOD]

82. The dead broke comment was assinine.

Yes, I'm sure others feel the same as you do. People have been obsessing over the CI funds since she ran for Senate.

[1StrongBlackMan]

146. You do realize that ...

I myself marvel at the Clintons' went from "dead broke" to kinda rich, and the emails, if they were all available, might clear them from suspicion of misusing CI funds for paying campaign workers or discouraging in one form another other candidates from being candidates.

your concern would be un-addressed by her turning over the server to the State Department to search for emails related to her government service ... Right?

[fadedrose]

209. You're right

The emails would be ignored, except that if she took care of these matters while she was visiting countries as the Secretary of State, not as a instrument to gain contributions to the Initiative, she was not really doing the job assigned to that office. But that would take another hearing to determine, and nobody's giving a damn, and the government is not like the cops, where they have, what do ya call it...hmm....internal services....something like that...some department the cops all hate..?

It would have to be a specific search, not just fishing...

The "dead broke" caught my attention, and her requesting somebody or other to get her some speaking engagements for $200,000 or so. That would be quite legal if that's how they stopped being broke.

So let's drop the whole thing.

[dsc]

28. and again

not one word about Bush how utterly transparent of you.

[namastea42]

33. I had and stlll have plenty of words for Bush(es) and none of them are kind.

Why do you bring that up? The topic is not about Bush.

[dsc]

41. it is about double standards

[namastea42]

56. Democrats should not lower standards to match the Bushes. It's that simple.

Otherwise torture and needless wars can also be compared and said: but Bush did it too! That is a very weak argument that erodes everything about being a Democrat.

[morningfog]

13. Do not give the theft of the 2000 election that kind of cover.

Seriously. It was fucking stolen.

Having said that, Hillary supports who want an uncontested primary with no criticism or scrutiny are living in a fantasy land. In fact, having a true primary with a robust debate about where Thw Democratic Party is no and where it is going will help neutralize the right wing attacks.

If everyone is under the assumption that it will be Hillary and that is inevitable, she will be the focus of the right, like a lightening rod.

Hillary will lose more support as we to on. THAT was inevitable and is simply the nature of American politics. When she declares, she'll get a bump, followed by another slide.

[dsc]

26. I just want a press that doesn't lie

I don't think that is too much to ask. Failing that, I want people who profess to be liberals and profess to be concerned about issues and the truth to actually act like that is the case. Instead we have people carrying water for the right wing liars. There is no difference at all between what she did and what Jeb Bush did. Yet the NYT, not a Murdock rage, not the National Review, not Breitbart, but the NYT ran an article that literally said Jeb Bush was a model of transparency while she was a scheming liar. And the reaction of supposed liberals, either silence or screaming that if we dare say what Bush did is the same we are merely deflecting the issue. A press like this is why the race was able to be stolen (remember New Hampshire was very close and would have put Gore over).

[morningfog]

34. Gore won. It was stolen. The blame for that

Is squarely with bush, Harris and the SC.

The take away for the emails with me is that Hillary had a foolish system. It wast so much the private server as much as the private server AND the use of the email for personal and business. It makes hers in-reviewable. That is a problem. It can't rest on trust. That makes her a liability to the democratic cause since she is a candidate.

[dsc]

40. that is exactly and precisely what not only Bush

but Powell as well did. In Powell's case we have none of his emails and apparently they aren't forthcoming and in Bush's case he chose what to share and what not to share. It should bother you when one candidate, and only one candidate, is held to a standard. It should really bother you when that candidate is likely to be our nominee. It is what happened to Gore, and no NH wasn't stolen, it was lost. And it quite likely would have been won had Gore not been slimed by the press while liberals like you did nothing whatsoever except blame him. If Gore had won New Hampshire, he would have won the Presidency Florida not withstanding.

[morningfog]

63. Not quite the same.

Jeb should be now held to that standard, and will be held to that standard, I think. It will unfold. Jeb's practice was apparently not the same as Hillary's, though. He used a government account, which means that his business emails are retained by someone other than him, the state of Florida. None of those were released. There have been and will be FOIA requests to see those. That is a battle that is underway and could be revealing.

He released some of his emails from a private account, but the release was totally meaningless. We don't know what he retained and whether it was actually even used for business. He has not done anything with respect to transparency. He certainly deserves scrutiny and will get it.

Last I heard, Powell has no intention of running.

[Rex]

58. Some here are invested in any narrative BUT the factual one.

I have no idea why, but they NEVER actually type, "Al Gore won and the election was stolen by the SCOTUS" oh sure they will write ANYTHING else.

So obvious imo.

[Rex]

55. That's an interesting fantasy about how Bush won in 2000.

It has nothing to do with facts, but hey who cares about being accurate right? The 2000 election was stolen from the rightful winner (Al Gore in case you forgot actually did get the most votes) by the SCOTUS. No amount of revisionist history by you or others will change the facts.

Sorry Charlie.

[dsc]

59. Had he won NH then Flordia wouldn't have mattered one bit

He had 268 electoral votes without Florida and New Hampshire. New Hampshire has 4, you need to 270 to win.

[Rex]

61. He won, why can you not say it?

I find it funny how you will say anything BUT that narrative. Sorry Charlie.

[Enthusiast]

129. +1

[karynnj]

112. Note that the reaction in the poll is entirely in the primary question

- NOT the general election question.

My guess is that many of us Democrats really do not think it was a good idea for HRC to have commingled all her mail on one account on a private server. Seriously, if her ONLY real reason was the convenience of one device - just going to the private server would have let her have 2 accounts on the same device. Then she could have ELECTRONICALLY moved all messages from the "work" account to the State Department on a monthly basis. This would have put her in the same position Secretary Kerry put himself -- just done in a different way. (The only difference is that she would have the time between a message and the monthly pull to remove or edit things on her account - significant, but small compared to what was done.)

The "other people did it" argument does put it in perspective, but it still flies in the face of HRC's and Obama's comments on greater transparency. I also remember a few SFRC hearings where Lugar was unhappy with the information the State Department withheld - and not one Democrat, including Kerry, defended it. One time was Lugar's obvious annoyance that State refused to send anyone when Kerry and Lugar held hearings on Afghanistan at the point where the surge was being considered. Another was detailed information on the distribution of aid in Pakistan.

If someone values transparency in government and sees it as needed for checks and balances to work, this is an issue HRC for decades has not been good on. However, when choosing a President, there are many many issues that people consider and it may be that for many this one is not a deal breaker or even all that important. However, as I think she should not have done this, I will not defend her for doing it. (To HRC supporters - plenty of people here had no problem questioning actions of our President even in the months before his election, at this point, HRC is not even officially running and is not our nominee. When she becomes the nominee, it STILL would be better for people to advocate for her only for reasons they believe in. It would also be good for them to look at DU 2004 and DU 2008 - in both years, while DU did not allow smears of the candidate, there were plenty of less then laudatory posts. For instances, in 2004, I never mistook DU for the Kerry blog - and that was as it should be. )

Given that the 2 parties are so polarized on most social and economic issues, in the general election - even if the Republicans found someone really clean and ethical which is unlikely - I suspect there would be almost NO Democrats who would prefer the "clean" Republican to HRC. Note that recent polls have NOT shown a decline in the GE race.

[sabrina 1]

196. Gore WON the 2000 election. The SC stole it for Bush.

You are acting as if the Democratic Party has no good Democrats who are qualified to run for the WH.

I disagree, I can think of several great Dems who would make far better candidates than Hillary.

Better the party learns this now than later.

Dem voters are sick to death of the war mongering and the obscene amounts of money being wasted on these wars for profit, all of which Hillary supports.

[hedda_foil]

250. The media were marching in lock step against President Gore from the get go.

It was as if they had been given their talking points and marching orders from some all-powerful guy in the sky.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

16. Not sure Hillary will declare, but if she does, she'll need to step up her game. Competition from Elizabeth would help.

[namastea42]

4. I don't think this is bad news. This may ensure more candidates participating

and that is good news. If Clinton is not able to recover before or during the primaries that might be a sign she is not fit for the job to begin with. Competition is always good, let the ideas flow from more than one person I say.

[dsc]

6. just what we heard about the stories about Gore

they were all his fault because of inherent flaws in him.

[RiverLover]

14. The Progressive Wing, or the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, I think you mean.

Reporting the truth.

That's the Progressive Way.

[earthside]

37. The "vast right wing conspiracy"?

Not hardly.

This is due to the inherent weakness of a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

She has feet of clay and once a brave Democratic challenger takes a hammer to those feet, her pursuit of the nomination will collapse.

[dsc]

45. I have no idea if it is a conspiracy

or people in the press auditioning for better jobs, the end result is the same. And people who profess to care about issues and progressive values ought to care. I guarantee you if it were Warren with this lead in the polls we would be hearing stories about her (just like we did when she ran against Brown).

[karynnj]

86. I don't think this is the right wing and its enablers

The closest connection to them is that it was the Benghazi Congressional inquiries that made Clinton's use of a private server for all her mail "unhideable".

1) The emails requested were ones the Congress were entitled to AND when given (even if just from the recipient side) someone was going to notice that the email address. Redacting that address would only have been a red flag, delayed when they learned the address, and made the current State Department complicit. (I will not defend HRC's actions here - this is a problem of her own making and very possibly signalling that she has and had no intention of being transparent.)

2) The results Manny is pointing to show that this has - at least temporarily decreased Hillary's support among Democrats. To say this is real, it would be good to have more than one poll. Note that even with this decline Hillary is supported by around half the Democrats - a huge lead in an open primary. If the decline is seen by other polls, it MIGHT be showing that some of Hillary's support is very shallow and is almost entirely based on the fact that she is highly likely to win -- and there are not polls to point to showing that for other Democrats. However, it is important to note that ANY candidate would be thrilled to have over 50% in the primary a year out. She is still a prohibitive favorite.

3) More importantly, current polls STILL show her 10 or so points ahead of any Republican. This makes sense if you hypothesize that this news upset Democrats more than Republicans. It could be that the Republicans already either believed the worst of her or were ideologically unlike to vote for her or any Democrat. (On the other side of the mirror, I thought (NJ Senate, 2002) I would reluctantly have to vote for Torecelli, for whom worse things were known, because the alternative was a RW Republican.) Note that in the general election polls, HRC does not lose the Democrats that she lost on the primary question - see my NJ example.

4) What it seems to show to me is that as long as HRC polls that far ahead of the Republicans and there are no polls showing a comparable thing for any other Democrat, she is highly likely to survive this AND any other negative story to get the nomination.

5) The only exception will be if a Democrat could get a surprise win in Iowa. This is harder than ever because the Clinton team started so early and will do whatever they can to prevent any other candidate from quietly gaining steam. Note how bitterly some HRC supporters speak of Warren, who is currently not running, but is guilty of being popular for fighting for good government, regulation of banks, and helping kids with horrendous student loans.

6) The last point is that the willingness of people - on either side - to ignore things that bother them when it people on their own side, means that they likely have to defend other offences down the road. In retrospect (I certainly did not think it in 1993), the Democratic party knew the bad - as well as the charm and intelligence of Bill Clinton in the primaries. The electorate narrowly chose him even after most knew he lied, scapegoated others on both Gennifer Flowers and the draft. We also knew that his connection to Tyson chicken had led to a worsening environmental situation. Imagine if Democrats would have ignored those in the media charmed by him and considered the more upright Tsongus, Harkin or Brown (or Kerrey for that matter. (Before people say it - GHWB was at below 40% by election time and Perot was unlikely to be the winner. Clinton, far from winning a tough battle - made the battle tough because his "issues" erupted and were put down by his "war room". This was a year where almost any Democrat would have one once GHWB imploded - more due to Perot than the Democrats.)

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

104. They hate women and the idea that one can be president is unacceptable to the Koch

bros and Bill Kristol who orchestrated the email bullshit

[L0oniX]

107. Voting for someone just because the person is a woman is also unacceptable.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

110. Repeat after me, both parties are the same...keep saying it until you believe it

[L0oniX]

171. Enjoy your Goldman oligarchy vote.

[1StrongBlackMan]

133. It's not the right wing ...

Wait. You DID a say its enablers ... Never-mind!

[DonViejo]

134. Today, it looks like we have a choice....

Believe the Reuters/Ipsos poll or believe the CNN poll;

Poll: Hillary Clinton still tops in 2016

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush tops the possible field for the Republican Party's nomination race, followed by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson all in a tight cluster. But none of the top candidates in this field gets within 10 points of Hillary Clinton in a series of hypothetical general election matchups.

Rand Paul comes closest, with 43% saying they'd be more likely to back him while 54% choose Clinton. The two candidates who currently top the GOP field, Bush and Walker, match up equally against Clinton, with each carrying 40% to her 55%. Huckabee gets 41% to Clinton's 55% and Carson has 40% to Clinton's 56%.

In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton holds a nearly 50-point lead over Vice President Joe Biden, her closest competitor in the field, 62% to 15%. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren rounds out the top three on the Democratic side with 10%. No other potential candidate tops 5%.

-snip-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141042630

And Nate Silver has an opinion about both, with CNN faring better. I wonder if Ipsos/Reuters still relies on the internet only to gather its polling data..

[Cosmic Kitten]

142. Sweet! Polling A la Carte ;~)

We are free to choose our "facts"!

[DonViejo]

155. I was interested in learning if Ipsos/Reuters was still conducting their polls on the internet...

I followed the link provided by Manny; it leads to the story he's posted where it's revealed

The online poll of 2,128 adults from March 10 to March 17....

I'm surprised Ipsos/Reuters still uses online polls, they worked so fabulously in 2012!

[MannyGoldstein]

231. Are you sitting down?

You might want to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6391004

[DonViejo]

235. ....

From the post you linked to:

Ipsos, which conducted online polls for Reuters, came close to the actual results...

"Close" only counts in horseshoes. I'm surprised the Great Manny, Third Way Manny or, whatever name you're going by today, didn't know that.

Shabbat shalom, Manny.

[MannyGoldstein]

239. So while Nate Silver said Internet Polls were the most accurate,

That doesn't matter because only perfect predictions by polls, which can never happen in real life, count.

Do I understand you correctly?

(Oy vey.)

[MannyGoldstein]

237. Self delete

posted in wrong place.

[Enthusiast]

150. I have a question.

During the primary season leading up to the 2008 election Rush Limbaugh encouraged his listeners to vote for Hillary in the primary in open states. Limbaugh had a name for this. Maybe it was operation Chaos. Can't remember.

What motivated Limbaugh to do this? Seriously. I do not know.

Can the Righties® run the anti-Hillary Citizens United infomercial on TV?

[dsc]

168. He was hoping for an extended primary

which he thought would hurt us, as usual, he was wrong.

[Enthusiast]

188. No, this was before Obama became the clear front runner. This was right from the start.

I would remind you that the primary went down to the wire, almost.

I think there might be some other reason for Limbaugh's Support Hillary campaign. I just don't know what it is. I certainly don't think Limbaugh wanted Hillary to win the presidency.

[dsc]

213. that is baldly false

he started it after Obama won Iowa which made him the front runner you just don't know about which you speak.

[dsc]

236. BTW here is a link proving you told a big fat untruth

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/03/03/rush-limbaugh-explains-why-urging-republicans-in-texas-and-ohio-to-vote-for/

In the "Back of the Book" segment tonight: radio talk show giant Rush Limbaugh making waves over Tuesday's vote. He's been urging his Republican listeners in Texas and Ohio to vote for Hillary Clinton next week to keep the battle going within the Democratic Party.

By March there is no planet upon which Hillary was the front runner. You just plain are telling a big fat untruth.

[Enthusiast]

243. Untruth as in lie? You are mistaken. I thought Limbaugh started with the vote for Hillary

stuff right off. I said I was uncertain. I asked you about it. I wanted to know the motive behind it. You're turning it into a conflict with me. Why? It's hard to remember that long ago with complete accuracy.

I still don't know the motive behind it. Why did Limbaugh want Hillary to win?

[dsc]

244. In post 188

AFTER I STATED THE TIMING YOU WROTE THE FOLLOWING

No, this was before Obama became the clear front runner. This was right from the start.

I would remind you that the primary went down to the wire, almost.

I think there might be some other reason for Limbaugh's Support Hillary campaign. I just don't know what it is. I certainly don't think Limbaugh wanted Hillary to win the presidency.

so yes that was a big fat untruth, no other word for it.

[Enthusiast]

245. You have an unfair heart.

[840high]

228. BS - she brought it

on herself.

[morningfog]

2. She's only the powerhouse inevitable nominee...until she isn't.

Anyone who has any basic understanding of US politics has known that her HUGE lead was purely theoretical and based solely on name recognition.

As the actual primary begins, with actual candidates actually declaring that they are running and actually discussing the issues and actually campaigning, the numbers will tighten even more.

This whole narrative of her sizable lead is her strategy to dissuade others from considering a run. Others Democratic candidates will run, there will be a race.

[jeff47]

161. There's a reason so many are so vested in all-but declaring her the nominee now (nt)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

252. Yes, they know Hillary can't withstand scrutiny on the issues & that her poll#s cant survive a rigorous campaign.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. Yet she is still outperforming every Republican in the clown car

For me, I'll start worrying with THAT changes. This e-mail is a nothingburger and probably being whipped up by the news media and emphasized by Clinton-haters to try to tear her down before she gets out of the starting gate IMHO. Republicans, in particular, have little else to do with themselves other than to hound her and have no substantive policies or candidates to offer us, so they're using this as yet another distraction. Unfortunately, they failed to learn from the 1990's that Hillary has already went through all of this BS (and worse) before and only emerged stronger.

[Cosmic Kitten]

8. If Hillary loses, Democrats will not regain the Senate

And without the presidency
and the Senate, Democrats
can't seat any SCOTUS
nominees without
republican votes.

Too many eggs in the
Hillary basket.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

20. We need a "Plan B"; just not sure Bernie is the answer. Maybe a "Plan E"?

[Cosmic Kitten]

27. The DNC has hollowed out the party

Pelosi and Reid have done
virtually NOTHING to groom
successors within the party.

Plan B may represent a turnover
of leadership roles throughout the party?

[RiverLover]

30. +1 for "Plan E"

[brooklynite]

44. What "E" are you thinking about?

Since Elizabeth Warren isn't running and hasn't withdrawn her encouragement of Hillary Clinton to run.

"She's terrific".

[Capt. Obvious]

48. Their infatuation with Elizabeth "New Money" Warren is amusing isn't it?

[demwing]

68. Not really amusing at all

more like "inspiring"

[brooklynite]

69. I was inspired to support her campaign for the Senate...where she wants to stay

[demwing]

78. And many of us are inspired to encourage her to run for POTUS

Where she'll do the most good.

As to whether Warren is running or not...remind me of the candidates who have already declared?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

92. Thanx demwing, well said. Oh and btw, Elizabeth WILL run, Hillary can "bank" on it.

[brooklynite]

100. With no financial or political resources?

She's not hiring staff

She's not securing financial commitments

She's not lining up political support

And based on their last FEC filing, neither is "Ready for Warren".

Every serious candidate is already doing these things. She is not.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

121. Agree with you 100%, which is what distinguishes Elizabeth and makes her, as the "reluctant candidate," all the more attractive.

[brooklynite]

149. What is attractive about a failure?

I have no objection to her running, I think she damages her effectiveness if she ends up as an under-competitive Presidential candidate because she can't afford to be better. Eventually, retail politics will give way to advertising and ground game, and that costs money.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

200. U mite b rite, $ talks, unfortunately, but Elizabeth cud lead by example & swear off big $ donors & get major media buzz that way. It's possible.

[brooklynite]

210. She didn't swear off big $ in her Senate race...why do it now?

I think you're projecting on her. She's not against playing the political game the way it's played. She took money from Wall Street folks (my wife included) who agreed with her principles.

[demwing]

206. Not sure. What do you see in Hillary? /nt

[brooklynite]

212. Pro choice, pro-gay rights, pro infrastructure, pro safety net, voted against Bush tax cuts...

successful US Senator, successful Secretary of State ...in other words, a Democrat to just about everyone but some folks here.

[demwing]

219. Clearly she's a Democrat. So is Elizabeth Warren.

but one sides with the banks, and one sides with the people.

Your definition of "failure" is sad commentary on "success,"

[brooklynite]

223. I reference failure only in the context of campaigning...

(moot since she doesn't want to run). The reality of our current political system is that if you aren't already lining up the significant political and financial capital you'll need, you'll be hard-pressed to get your message out on a national level.

[demwing]

230. In the context of campaigning

Elizabeth Warren won her last campaign. Hillary did not

[brooklynite]

234. Elizabeth Warren won the State of Massachusetts...and so did Hillary Clinton

Next witty rejoinder?

[demwing]

238. Oh c'mon, it's fun in here!

Clinton got about 705k votes in Mass. Warren got about 1.7 Million.

Two hearts born to run...who'll be the lonely one? I wonder, who's cryin' now?

[namastea42]

96. Wouldn't that be wonderful if Warren runs? I sure hope that is in the cards and stars.

She would flatten the Repugs in a General, flat as the miserable ugly pancakes they are.

[HereSince1628]

54. Seems like an ascertion with little presented behind it

perhaps you could build that up with evidence that strengthens your claim.

Meanwhile, as a matter of food for thought about dogs and tail-wagging and who as candidates will move what...

It's pretty clear in WI that the New Dem gubernatorial candidate was not received with barn-burning enthusiasm. There's no obvious reason to think that HRC would do any better. Bill Clinton campaigned here for Mary Burke and it didn't really super-charge anything. Progressive pro-Union sentiment is strong here among active democrats, New Dems still have the reputation of being more pro-corporate than pro-union.

The election of US senator is going to be a really big deal in WI.

The oversized favorite going into that is Russ Feingold...from the progressive wing. Feingold supports Bernie Sanders which isn't such a great thing for HRC, but that may be a moot point by the general. Feingold represents a progressive alternative to recent WIDem offerings and has a better than even chance of reigniting enthusiasm here.

The odds on alternative senate candidate to Feingold is Gwen Moore, who will be an overwhelming favorite of urban voters in SE WI. But Moore doesn't want to challenge Feingold, and Moore has said she will sit out if he runs for senate.

It's unclear yet if Feingold will actually run, so things are a bit up in the air. If Moore runs, it's pretty clear she will bring out voters who would likely vote for Clinton although Moore will have a big task to climb over the rural vs urban voting divide of WI.

So it seems that at least in WI, it's as likely that HRC would be looking to get a boost from the person who runs for senate against Johnson as it would be for that dynamic to work the other way around.

I can't speak to other states where senate races will be tremendously important as to whether they will have similar bottom up influence. But, I don't think it can just be assumed that the senate races will be all about running on the presidential nominees coat-tails.

[Cosmic Kitten]

66. Good points! I agree with your WI scenario

However WI is the exception,
not the rule when looking at
the Senate races.

Feingold is an outstanding candidate.
We need him back in DeeCee.

As to the other Senate races.
Democrats need to hold the 10 seats
up for election, and gain 8+ to get a majority.

Looking at the map it's unlikely
Democrats can make those gains
WITHOUT a really inspired and
fired-up base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016#Race_summary

[HereSince1628]

103. I don't really know that WI is an exception...

It does seem to stand against the argument you laid out.

Nonetheless, the importance of not allowing the teahadist the ability to solidify control of Congress cannot be overestimated. They and their politics of selfish self-reliance on fraudulent economic arguments against the social fabric overtly stated in things like national UNION and UNITED States is a clear and present danger to the present and future of the nation.

Consequently I'd be much interested in reading how all or any of the other senate seats can be show to critically depend on coat-tails that only HRC can provide.

[Cosmic Kitten]

113. Voter turn out.

Harry Reid is hanging by a thread in NV
Pat Toomey already beat Sestack in PA
Colorado went repub in 2014, hurting Bennet

Clearly, presidential elections have higher turnout
than off year elections because people want
to vote for president.

WHO they come out to vote for or against
is reflected in the coat-tails.

If Hillary lacks sufficient coat-tails, down ballot
candidates will suffer in competitive states.

If Democrats don't control the Senate they
don't get their SCOTUS picks seated.

[HereSince1628]

125. Yes thats obvious, but HRC as the only source of said coattails needs fleshing out.

I don't see anything yet that argues HRC -has- such indespensible coat tails.

Any candidate with enormous populist support might provide that. I rather suspect, for example, that Warren's charisma, as much as Warrens positions supporting common people would quickly develop into powerful popularity magnets going into a general election (I do understand that Warren and for that matter Clinton are not announced candidates).

The issues at hand is really whether HRC would generate coattails and whether only HRC generates the sort of coat tails that could bring the dems to control of the senate.

If that argument can be made in an evidence based, rational way, that would be very important to the cause of HRC, imo.

[Cosmic Kitten]

132. Unless Hillary can pickup independent voters, not likely.

The reality is EVERYONE already knows
how they feel about Hillary.
She's unlikely to pickup any non-traditional voters.

Only a candidate that appeals to the majority
of voters would hate the coat-tails to capture
the Senate.

Populists policies are favored by the majority.
Hence, Hillary is trial ballooning populist themes.

[tkmorris]

73. How is retaking the Senate in any way tied to Hillary?

I am trying to see some logic in that, but it isn't coming.

[Cosmic Kitten]

88. Coattails, SCOTUS, effective governing

There are 3 intertwined issues with Hillary's run.

1) Will her candidacy inspire HUGE Democrat turnout?

2) IF she wins, will it lead to SCOTUS nominations

3) How can she govern effectively with Republican dominated Congress?

There are too many eggs in Hillary's basket

Democrats are the minority party in Congress.
We NEED a huge turnout to win seats, in part
because of gerrymandering.

Hillary supporters say we need to support
Hillary because she will nominate the next
SCOTUS replacements.

The Senate votes on SCOTUS nominees.
Without the Senate Hillary could not seat
any SCOTUS justices.

Without Congress, a Hillary presidency
would be a lame duck as republicans have
no interest or incentive to cooperate with Dems.
If you doubt this, just look at how they deal with Obama.

So the question is, can a Hillary run for president
create enough enthusiasm FOR HER, rather than against her,
to unseat republicans in Congress?

Hillary WILL mobilize the republicans to vote AGAINST her.
Gerrymandering gives the republicans an advantage.
Can Hillary mobilize the left and millenials to vote for her?
It does not seem likely.

And rather that accept responsibility for a
lackluster candidate, 3rd-Wayers will blame
the left for not voting hard enough for Hillary

[jeff47]

165. Gerrymandering does not apply to the senate.

You can't gerrymander a state's borders. All Senate seats are statewide races.

That being said, the underlying point is still valid - lackluster support for Clinton could harm down ticket races.

[libdem4life]

91. Coat tails, maybe?

[ieoeja]

215. In the Primary? n/t

[libdem4life]

254. Yes. In the Primary. That's where the momentum is created, choices down ticket

get made, candidates decide to run or not to run, etc. Lots of reasons. And like her or not, and I'm still "meh", but she's got Coat tails.

[rock]

10. Garbage

[SidDithers]

11. Keep trying, Manny...nt

Sid

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

12. It'll drop even more after she announces.

Absence manes the heart grow fonder, presence lets you see and focus on the defects again. (Of anyone, not just Hillary.)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

23. Hillary does seem to be her own worst enemy, when she starts campaigning & her poll numbers then eventually drop over time as her views become known.

[Cosmic Kitten]

24. Exactly, this is a preview of the carnage to come

Hillary will single-handedly
set the Democrats back.

Clinton fatigue could seriously
damage the ability to gain seats
in the Senate.

Once the right-wing rallies
to beat Hillary, the down ballot
Democrats candidates will suffer.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

135. You're dead on about the Senate. Hillary is not goin to inspire Dems to come out n vote like a true progressive candidate would.

[namastea42]

205. Agreed. She is as motivational and inspiring as a flat Stanley.

[FSogol]

17. Wow, it's that time already?

[11 Bravo]

18. Remember, Manny, after four hours call your doctor ...

if it hasn't subsided.

[Capt. Obvious]

21. The respondents to the poll are useful idiots

They don't understand this is a manufactured scandal by the tea party and their far left allies. This has already blown over as all trumped up Clinton "scandals" always do.

We can't trust the right wing Reuters anyway.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

46. So what?

You think the voters are any less 'useful idiots' than those who responded to the polls?

You go to the election with the voters you have, not the voters you wish you had.

If this scandal costs her votes, that's all that actually matters, not whether or not it's a 'real' scandal.

[Capt. Obvious]

53. There is no scandal

Sure the republicans and their left wing allies want to read all about her brownie recipes and her daughter's wedding dress but the American public doesn't care.

Your giving credence to this non-issue is going to ensure a President Jindal.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

62. What I 'give credence to' or not doesn't matter diddly squat.

What ANYONE on this blog 'gives credence to' doesn't matter diddly squat.

What ACTUALLY matters is what tend of millions of people who will go to the polls in Nov 2016 'give credence to'. And what is most likely to 'ensure a President Jindal' is a Democratic Party that thinks it can simply ignore those voters and tell them who to vote for without caring about whether or not they want to do so.

Now I think whoever wins the Dem primary has a pretty even shot of winning the general, thanks to simple demographics. But to actually make sure whoever wins the primary has the BEST chance to win the general, it would be helpful to find a primary nominee who is gung ho to help the poor, not just the wealthy or the occasional pander to the middle class. Because more people are slipping from the middle class into poverty.

[Capt. Obvious]

67. Hillary will not ignore those voters

She'll remind them how much worse a Republican President would be.

[jeff47]

170. Then she's ignoring those voters.

Those voters want a change from the status quo. "Republican would be worse" is not a change.

We ran on "Republicans are worse" in 2014 and 2010....and 2004 and 2002 and 2000 and.....

We ran on "change the status quo" in 2012, 2008, and 2006.

Stop trying to run on a losing strategy. It does not matter how shitty the Republicans are. We have to offer a change from the status quo or we get low turnout and lose.

[demwing]

71. There you go Erich, if Hillary loses, it's all your fault. /nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

116. "Republicans and their left wing ALLIES"? You gotta be fuckin' kiddin...talk about throwin people under the bus! Wow, nice!

[Badass Liberal]

22. I guess we better embrace *cricket chirp*

Hillary 2016.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. It's a online poll!!!

The online poll of 2,128 adults from March 10 to March 17

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0MF0DV20150319?irpc=932

[Cosmic Kitten]

39. And...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. Online polls are not random samples and do not meet the standards

Online polls are not random samples and do not meet the standards of peer reviewed social science research. It's voodoo social science.

[Cosmic Kitten]

51. Hmm?

What is this "random sample"
of which you speak?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. That everyone in the population that is measured has a theoretically equal chance of being polled

Statistics 101...

[Cosmic Kitten]

70. Hmm, again?

So when a poll says it has a
"random sample" who do they call?

How exactly does a polling group ensure
that everyone has a theoretically equal
chance of being polled?

BTW, what is the sample in this OP called?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. Random sample

In statistics, a simple random sample is a subset of individuals (a sample) chosen from a larger set (a population). Each individual is chosen randomly and entirely by chance, such that each individual has the same probability of being chosen at any stage during the sampling process, and each subset of k individuals has the same probability of being chosen for the sample as any other subset of k individuals.

Yates, Daniel S.; David S. Moore; Daren S. Starnes (2008). The Practice of Statistics, 3rd Ed. Freeman. ISBN 978-0-7167-7309-2.

[Cosmic Kitten]

94. How does a political polling group ensure this?

And does the "probability of being chosen"
make any difference when the "probability
of participation" is a greater determinant?

What kind of sample did the Reuters poll employ?
It looks random?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. What kind of sample did the Reuters poll employ? It looks random?

All of our panel participants are fully opted into our panel and participate willingly in research, meaning they come to us , and can drop off the panel at any time.We actively and continuously recruit for panel members, ensuring that respondents remain fresh and engaged.

http://www.ipsos.ca/en/products-tools/public-affairs/syndicated-studies/conducting-public-opinion-research-using-online-panels.asp

[Cosmic Kitten]

119. Isn't that random?

Does the recruiting prohibit anyone from joining?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

127. Of course not . Not everybody is aware of their existence.

[jeff47]

175. That's what actually makes it random.

If everyone knows of the poll, then the people most motivated by the issue will be over-sampled - they'll bother to go and vote in the poll.

Thus a poll on something like a news site is not random. The people who care the most about the issue will vote in that poll and attempt to organize like-minded people to vote in that poll.

Posts to "DU this poll" skew the sample, and equivalent requests on places like FreeRepublic skew the sample in the other way.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

183. What makes a poll random is that every type of person has an equal chance of having their views...

What makes a poll random is that every type of person has an equal chance of having their views captured.


While we appreciate people who want to participate, we can’t base our polls on volunteers. A survey of volunteers is a “non-probability sample” and the results cannot be generalized to the public as a whole. The key to survey research is to have a random sample so that every type of person has an equal chance of having their views captured. Polls of volunteers would violate this principle since not everyone would have had an equal chance of being included.(See probability and non-probability sampling for more information.) And more specifically, the kinds of people who might volunteer for our polls are likely to be very different from the average American – at the least they would probably be more politically interested and engaged.


http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/frequently-asked-questions/

[jeff47]

185. And that's why this poll used a panel the pollster selected. (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

189. There is no systematic way to collect a traditional probability sample of the general population...

Surveys of the general population that rely only on the internet can be subject to significant biases resulting from undercoverage and nonresponse. Not everyone in the U.S. has access to the internet and there are significant demographic differences between those who do have access and those who do not. People with lower incomes, less education, living in rural areas or age 65 and older are underrepresented among internet users and those with high-speed internet access (see the Pew Research Internet Project for the latest trends).


There is also is no systematic way to collect a traditional probability sample of the general population using the internet. There is no national list of email addresses from which people could be sampled, and there is no standard convention for email addresses, as there is for phone numbers, that would allow random sampling. Internet surveys of the general public must thus first contact people by another method, such as through the mail or by phone, and ask them to complete the survey online.


http://www.people-press.org/methodology/collecting-survey-data/internet-surveys/

[jeff47]

192. And the same thing applies to your "gold standard" landline polls.

They used to be a reasonable approximation for "everyone". That stopped being the case about a decade ago.

Internet polls are going to have to replace telephone polls, and they will become a reasonable approximation for "everyone". At the moment, we're in a transition period where both have problems.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

197. No poll is perfect but those that rely on them still do well in predicting the final results

Statisticians and political scientists like Drew Linzer, Sam Wang, and Nate Silver do a unbelievably good job of predicting Final results by using "The Law Of Large Numbers" method and combining several polls and not cherry picking one or two.

My problem with this poll is that it isn't a random sample and more importantly it's contradicted by every other pollster in the field, ergo:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html


If eleven orthopedists tell me the tumor on my femur is malignant and one tell me it's benign you can rest I assured I'm having it removed.

[jeff47]

217. What contradiction?

How 'bout we pick Quinnipiac from your link instead. Clinton went from 67% in January to 57% now. Hey look, it also shows a large fall off in support.

So if your huge problem was contradiction, why did you start with the random canard of trying to claim all Internet polls are crap? And then argue about how superior phone polls are, only to concede they have problems too, then move on to other polls disagree. Which isn't true either.

Shoving our heads in the sand when problems arise is not a good idea. Neither is running around with our hair on fire. These polls show something that should be a concern, but don't indicate a huge problem yet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

222. So now the timing of when I make my points is an issue

Internet polls are not random samples. I stand by that. Saying they are not random samples and saying they can still be accurate is not mutually exclusive.


There are over dozens of polls by over a dozen of different pollsters cited with leads of anywhere from forty one to sixty points with an average lead of 45 points:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html#polls

You cherry picked the Quinnipiac poll... She was at 58% in June of 014. She's at 56% now. There is such a thing as reversion to the mean...

Here's why you don't cherry pick polls...


On the CNN poll taken from 2/12 to 2/15 she had a 45 point lead. On the poll taken from 3/13-3/15 she had a 47% lead. If one is hanging their hat on one poll they can say the e-mail brouhaha actually helped her, which would be inane.


i see a bunch of polls, all showing huge leads, and largely bumping around the margin of error.

[jeff47]

225. It is when you constantly change your argument and contradict yourself.

Internet polls are not random samples. I stand by that.

Then you're wrong. Some Internet polls are not random samples. Some are.

There are over dozens of polls by over a dozen of different pollsters cited with leads of anywhere from forty one to sixty points with an average lead of 45 points:

Lead doesn't matter. We aren't talking about her lead going down, we're talking about her support going down. Those are two completely different things.

You cherry picked the Quinnipiac poll... She was at 58% in June of 014. She's at 56% now.

No, cherry picking would be selecting a time period that agreed with the point you wanted to make. The poll in the OP is from early February. I picked one from about the same time (mid January).

Instead, you went back looking for a poll that showed about the same support. That is cherry picking.

On the CNN poll taken from 2/12 to 2/15 she had a 45 point lead. On the poll taken from 3/13-3/15 she had a 47% lead.

And if lead was what the OP was talking about, you'd have a point. It isn't.

i see a bunch of polls, all showing huge leads, and largely bumping around the margin of error.

This early in a campaign a lead is an exercise in name recognition. Thus what is important is support, not lead. A drop in support should concern Team Clinton, but doesn't yet mean they are in trouble. It's something they should keep an eye on.

Instead, you're arguing Team Clinton should completely ignore it.....which is what they're going to do because so far Team Clinton is running an extremely inept pseudo-campaign.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

240. Please provide evidence that an online internet poll is a random sample as...

Please provide evidence that an online internet poll is a random sample as recognized by statisticians or social scientists.


And evidence has to be more than your assertion that it is

I will then address all your other points one by one.


Thank you in advance.

[Nay]

211. Thank you. A set of ppl who have volunteered to be on a panel is NOT a random

sample.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

216. I am nothing if not honest

Several posters have made the point that online polls can be accurate...and some of them indeed are. I suspect there's a lot of weighting and guessing that goes on, well beyond the weighting and guessing that goes on in phone polls. But that's different than suggesting it's a truly random sample. So we were left with "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" debate.

In any case it's a clear outlier with every other pollster in the field finding something else:



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

[jeff47]

226. It depends on how the panel is formed.

You get a giant pile of volunteers that reasonably replicates society. Then you select a subset from that panel. That gives you a random sample.

Keep in mind the supposed "gold standard" of calling random landline phones still had self-selection - the person being called could refuse to answer the questions.

[jeff47]

174. Online polls can be random samples.

It all depends on how you run the poll.

A poll on a news site that lets anyone vote is not a random sample. The poll will represent only the people who care the most about the issue being polled.

You can do a random sample by only inviting people to your poll instead of leaving it open to anyone.

Keep in mind the alternative, telephone polls, stopped being random samples a while ago. They can't call cell phones, and landline usage is plummeting, especially among younger and more liberal voters. Telephone polls over-sample older and more conservative voters due to this.

[MannyGoldstein]

117. "Which Pre-Election Poll was Most Accurate?"

Fordham University: Which Pre-Election Poll was Most Accurate?

Which public poll came closest to the actual 2012 presidential election results?

...

The following list ranks the 28 organizations by the predictive accuracy of their final, national pre-election estimates (as reported on pollster.com).

1. Ipsos/Reuters
2. YouGov
3. PPP (D)
3. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP
4. Angus-Reid*
5. ABC/WP*
6. Pew Research*
6. Hartford Courant/UConn*
7. Purple Strategies
8. NBC/WSJ
8. CBS/NYT
8. YouGov/Economist
9. UPI/CVOTER
10. IBD/TIPP
11. Democracy Corps (D)*
12. CNN/ORC
12. Monmouth/SurveyUSA
12. Politico/GWU/Battleground
12. FOX News
12. Washington Times/JZ Analytics
12. Newsmax/JZ Analytics
12. American Research Group
12. Gravis Marketing
13. National Journal*
14. Rasmussen
14. Gallup
15. NPR
16. AP/GfK

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. ...

And in the current instance their findings are contradicted by every other pollster in the field, ergo;


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html


The poll is an outliar, ooops, outlier.

[MannyGoldstein]

130. So, to be clear, we agree that Ipsos- Reuters online polling

is acknowledged as having been one of the most accurate in 2012.

Yes?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

148. Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster in 2008 according to...

Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster in 2008 according to Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos, the gentleman you cited:

The Pew Research Center and Rasmussen Reports were the most accurate in predicting the results of the 2008 election, according to a new analysis by Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos.

The Fordham analysis ranks 23 survey research organizations on their final, national pre-election polls, as reported on pollster.com.

On average, the polls slightly overestimated Obama’s strength. The final polls showed the Democratic ahead by an average of 7.52 percentage points — 1.37 percentage points above his current 6.15-point popular vote lead. Seventeen of the 23 surveys overstated Obama’s final victory level, while four underestimated it. Only two — Rasmussen and Pew — were spot on.

...

In 2012 Rasmussen dropped to 14 in pollster accuracy according to the gentleman you cited, ergo;


http://legacy.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/topstories_2590.asp

Can we therefore agree that polling from one election cycle is not dispositive of a pollster's efficacy or lack thereof and in the present instance:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Ipsos Reid's findings are contradicted by every other pollster in the field?

[MannyGoldstein]

182. So your point is that *all* pollsters are bad,

and we can't have a meaningful measure of predictive accuracy?

So then why are you complaining about Reuters-Ipsos methodology, if they're all impossible to evaluate?

FYI, Nate Silver found that online polling worked best in 2012: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6391004

[DemocratSinceBirth]

186. I hope you aren't smoking when you are standing so close to a strawman.

I would hate to lose you, especially via immolation.

You are also way too smart for those tactics any way.

My point is a simple one and my point is one polling cycle is not dispositive of a pollster's efficacy or lack thereof and it's silly to rely on this pollster or that pollster when that pollster's findings are contradicted by every other pollster in the field:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html


as in the current instance. It's the Law Of Large Numbers...The larger your sample the more robust your results.


If a dozen dermatologists told you the mole on your loved one's back was a melanoma and one dermatologist told you it was benign would you wait a couple of years to see what happens?

[MannyGoldstein]

198. So what is your point in bringing up Rasmussen?

What did you hope that people would think after reading your point?

I'll address your other issue once this is cleared up.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

201. That one election cycle does not break or make a pollster...

And it's silly to cherry pick one poll when that poll is contradicted by every other pollster in the field:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html


as in the current instance.

If eleven geologists state there is a fault line in the area and one geologist says there isn't you can rest assured I'm not going to approve a nuclear power plant there.

[MannyGoldstein]

202. "It's a online poll!!!"

That was what you originally wrote.

I offered a way to demonstrate that online polls can be fine. You are rejecting my evidence.

OK.

Then what evidence do you offer that "It's a online poll!!!" means it's an inaccurate result?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

203. The poll has two flaws. It's an online poll and consequently it's a non-probability sample...

and more importantly it's contradicted by every other pollster in the field, ergo:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html


If eleven mechanics tell me the rotors on my brakes are worn beyond the legal limits and present a potentially lethal situation and one mechanic says they are fine I'm not going to take my family on a cross country trip in that car, am I right?

P.S. When you fashion your response please note I am immune to sophistry, casuistry, and obscurantism.

Thank you in advance.

[msanthrope]

166. Not using online/panel polling, Manny.....which Nate Silver notes here....

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/fivethirtyeight/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

[MannyGoldstein]

199. And again... did you SERIOUSLY not read the article you link to?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6391004

[msanthrope]

221. Chart to chart, Manny....you claimed #1, but it's #6. nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

35. Is unopened Cialis returnable?

This could be a moneysaver.

[Mike Nelson]

36. ...and Morning Joe had a "Monica Story"!

The anti-Hillary media is hard at work!

[Cosmic Kitten]

42. Isn't that reason enough not to nominate a LIGHTNING ROD

Since Hillary is a LIGHTNING ROD
how do you expect her to govern
if she is elected?

She won't have the House,
and the Senate is not likely
to turn blue.

[Mike Nelson]

251. She will be attacked like no other, and so will any Democrat!

Republicans will smear and smear, like they did with Clinton and Obama. The name of the candidate will make no difference to them!

[Cosmic Kitten]

253. Exactly! That's why we can't afford "unforced errors"

[Autumn]

43. I expect when she actually starts campaigning it will drop a little more.

I don't give a crap about the e mail flap other than it gives the pukes a chance to rattle their mouths. I'm waiting for Bernie. Or Liz. Or anyone else to throw their hat in the ring. It would be foolish to put all our hope on just her.

[JoePhilly]

47. Be careful, you don't want to make any predictions.

[tracks29]

52. E-mail "scandal" is BS

This is simply uninformed Democrats following the narrative being pushed on TV. Then again, that's why most say they're voting for Hillary (not that she won't win).

[RiverLover]

60. Sure, all cabinet members conduct ALL offical state business on private servers

Transparency-shmarency. pfft! Who needs it.

[fadedrose]

65. I get the sense that MSNBC hosts

are not for HC. A few guests are, Rendell, Karen (?), Tippi (?), the Cajun Ragin, but other than them, I can't think of anyone else who is defending her or cheering her.


I think they used to have fun covering Iowa and New Hampshire, and HC's candidacy is so lack-luster that they're happy when something controversial happens just to have something to say.

[NCTraveler]

77. Over and over again it is shown how strong she is currently set up to run.

Even online polls attempting to create division within the party show how strong she is. Almost all news about the current Democratic frontrunner and generic polls show how good of a position we(progressives and all democrats, not trolls) are in. Those who have been swooning over Gowdy will be left bitterly disappointed. Every one of Gowdys supporters will be left with nothing but their own tears after the election. If Hillary isn't the next President, another democrat will be. Nothing you can do about that with all of your negative posting. As the post above states, if the morning joy you received from reading this lasts more than four hours, call your doctor. Hannity doesn't obsess over Clinton this much.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. It's not only a online poll but it's a panel study...

They are going back to the same self selected group and questioning them again and again. So not only do you not have a random sample but you have folks responding to questions knowing they are being observed. This gives them an incentive to make themselves look good.

From Ipsos Reid's website:

All of our panel participants are fully opted into our panel and participate willingly in research, meaning they come to us , and can drop off the panel at any time.We actively and continuously recruit for panel members, ensuring that respondents remain fresh and engaged.

http://www.ipsos.ca/en/products-tools/public-affairs/syndicated-studies/conducting-public-opinion-research-using-online-panels.asp

[NCTraveler]

87. Thank you for the additional info.

I did go to the link for more info. I just found it pathetic. Thanks again. I want to call this posting behavior what it is, but then I would be the one who gets hidden.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. It's getting harder and harder to conduct "conventional" polls

It's getting harder and harder to conduct "conventional" polls because of lower and lower response rates and the proliferation of cell phones...

But these online panel polls of self selected individuals stand social science research on its head and violates the number one canon of polling and that is that each individual in the population that is measured has an equal probability of being queried.

[NCTraveler]

97. I do agree about it getting harder and harder.

I think the main part of that is costs. With the land-lines samplings were fairly easy. They seem to be trying different internet methods that will provide similar sampling errors to that of the land-line surveys. There are other ways to do it that aren't as cost effective as they take more labor hours. What they have done with this method is give people different power in polls. They feel they can sway an image. Not all respondents of course.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. I read that a live caller national telephone survey cost $20,000.00

For a major media outlet that doesn't seem like a lot of money but to a non profit organization that seems like a lot.


You can reduce that by about $15,000.000 to $5.000.00 if you use an automated caller but then you miss out on cell phone users and that skews your survey badly. You can also supplement your automated survey with live callers to reduce costs.

However, live callers to both landline and cell phone users is the gold standard.

I have serious reservations about online polls because they are not random samples and my reservations about online political panels are beyond serious because the same people are polled over and over again. A lot of the bias introduced into online political polls is likely a function of the fact that only the most interested will continue to be queried.



You seem to have a background in social science research, do you?

[jeff47]

176. You can't live-call a cell phone unless they agree to be called.

meaning you get the same self-selection bias you decry.

And landlines are very heavily skewed towards older and more conservative.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

180. Bias would only be introduced if you could demonstrate ...

Bias would only be introduced if you could demonstrate that those who refused to be polled were different than those who agreed to be polled except for refusing or agreeing to be polled.

And random sample polls are weighted toward national sample to help ensure groups are properly represented.

As I noted I understand the difficulty of conducting a poll and it can be art as well as science but that doesn't mean pollsters use science as a foundation.

[jeff47]

184. Same applies to the online panel you decry. (nt)

[Cosmic Kitten]

108. HA HA This gives them an incentive to make themselves look good.

And that isn't relevant in ANY study?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

111. That is always a problem in any longitudinal study.

That's why most social science researchers use due diligence when asking same people the same questions over and over again. You are introducing bias as the person queried knows he or she is being observed

[Cosmic Kitten]

118. Every poll has bias

It's curious how you defend political polling.

Do you really think who actually replies to a poll
and their calculation of how their replies reflect
on how they are perceived DOESN'T bias all polls?

What is the research on WHO completes polls
versus those who refuse polls say about "typical"
poll respondents?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

154. I don't defend political poling per se. I defend polling that strives to meet industry standards./NT

[geek tragedy]

144. panel studies are actually a pretty innovative and credible approach to polling.

Problem with the methodology is that it's WAY too early for this, and also of less use in a primary than it is in a general election.

What they do a good job of doing is accounting for the significant drift that can happen due to low response rates.

[fadedrose]

101. I hope King does another book

and makes a gang of robbers who do other bad things - all Republicans.

Revenge would be so sweet.

And who could sue him? - he writes fiction.

[libdem4life]

115. I wish there was a Decree for Democrats...stop apologizing...stop mea culpa-ing

Text I would have preferred prior to taking the Republicans to task...

"There have been some questions about my emails. Let me be clear. I was within the law and rules of the time, as were many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Hacking was then and is more so today a serious problem. In the meantime, other government servers have been hacked. Mine was not. Today, the rules have been changed and I would follow those rules. Every government employee faces a decision for each email ... is it private or government and from which account to send it. Mine just happened all at once due to this partisan attack."

"Now as to the egregious and stunning lapse of judgment of 47 Senators writing and signing a letter of encouragement to our enemies casting doubt on our government and President. Maybe they did not know the Ayatollah's email address?" (They surely did not know that most members of the Ayatollah's group are US PhDs who seem to understand our political system better than some 60-day wet-behind-the-wacky-ears Senator.)

Next question?

Your email? Answered. Your email? Answered Your email...Next question?

PS...after all these years, no one noticed the absence of .gov instead of .clinton? Blows me away.

[anotojefiremnesuka]

120. IRL I do not know a single living breathing person

Who is interested in Voting for or supporting Hillary for POTUS and I live and work in a very liberal area

Bernie and Elizabeth support is over the top, Hillary get a meh at best.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

160. I live in arguably the most liberal and diverse large city in the nation; Los Angeles

I talk to working class folks every day, mostly Latino, Pacific Islander, and African American; the folks who are busting their asses all day to take care of their families and don't have the luxury to wax eloquently about the state of the world and not one mentions Bernie Sanders and Warren... In fact the only woman my Mexican friends seem to hold in higher esteem than Hillary Clinton is Mother Mary.

[anotojefiremnesuka]

163. That is good for Hillary I guess

Not so much for America but good for her

[DemocratSinceBirth]

164. She will be a great president for working people if her tenure is anything like her husband's

-longest economic expansion in the history of the republic
-lowest unemployment rate in a generation
-lowest poverty rate in a generation
-lowest African American unemployment rate in a generation
-highest rate of African American home ownership in a generation
-lowest abortion rate in a generation; folks were having sex and keeping the kids because they were optimistic about the future.

Historians will look back at the 90s as the most prosperous and peaceful decade of the twentieth century, all due to the stewardship of the Clintons.

[anotojefiremnesuka]

167. That is nice she still won't get my support

[DemocratSinceBirth]

172. It's a free country. You can do as you like./NT

[namastea42]

227. It's not so free if only two families rule it.

[randr]

123. I am a Democrat who will support whomever my party nominates

That said, I do not want to live through the inevitable, constant, distraction of Clinton bashing that the Republicans and the MSM have made into a national sport. I do think Hillary is highly qualified to serve as our President and I will celebrate the election of the first woman to serve in that capacity if it comes to pass.
I am beginning to think that the Clinton's and the Democratic Party have somehow be come codependents in this charade. I am ready to move on and am willing to look within our ranks for a candidate that does not draw so much fire and is willing to address the issues of our younger more progressive movement.
I want the Democratic Party to design it's own manifesto for our future and move on into the future that awaits us all.

[marym625]

128. KICK KICK KICK

And a kick!

[B Calm]

137. huh. . . In February I wasn't sure. But now after all the email bullshit and the made up Benghazi

scandal, I support her just to watch the republicans go bat-shit crazy when she wins!

[libodem]

138. I blame the vast right wing conspiracy

Who have been here since well before the Blue Dress. I was just thinking this morning how our former first lady and her more frail looking husband were going to be harranged, badgered, and drug through knot holes, for the privilege of serving the country again.

I suggest good rain gear and tall boots for our National Treasure. I hate to see this shitshow happen to them but there is no civility in politics anymore.

Go sister! Be protected!

[workinclasszero]

141. If we get a president Adolf Walker

and a totally bagger/koch/religious Reich controlled Congress and SCOTUS in 2016, I will know who to blame.

It won't be fox fuckin news either!

Its getting beyond fucking ridiculous to come to the democratic underground to read freeper/redstate horseshit/opposition research/talking points/lies every other damn post lately!

[jeff47]

179. A candidate is not entitled to votes.

A candidate has to earn votes. If Clinton can not earn enough votes, it is her fault if she loses.

Just like Gore accepts responsibility for losing (or "losing&quot in 2000. He admits he ran a bad campaign.

[stonecutter357]

152. Clickbait.

[msanthrope]

153. Did you just cite an "online poll" as something authoritative? Like the time you cited

your own poll of DU? Or the Fox News poll you cited on Benghazi? That was fun!

[MannyGoldstein]

159. "Which Pre-Election Poll was Most Accurate?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6390461

Got some links for the other stuff?

Thanks.

[msanthrope]

169. Not using Online polling Manny....Nate Silver demolished that....

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/fivethirtyeight/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

[MannyGoldstein]

181. Did you seriously not read the article you linked to?

It says the opposite of what you claim!

"Instead, some of the most accurate firms were those that conducted their polls online

...

Ipsos, which conducted online polls for Reuters, came close to the actual results in most places that it surveyed, as did the Canadian online polling firm Angus Reid. Another online polling firm, YouGov, got reasonably good results."

...

Among the nine polling firms that conducted their polls wholly or partially online, the average error in calling the election result was 2.1 percentage points. That compares with a 3.5-poinbt error for polling firms that used live telephone interviewers, and 5.0 points for “robopolls” that conducted their surveys by automated script. The traditional telephone polls had a slight Republican bias on the whole, while the robopolls often had a significant Republican bias. (Even the automated polling firm Public Policy Polling, which often polls for liberal and Democratic clients, projected results that were slightly more favorable for Mr. Romney than what he actually achieved.) The online polls had little overall bias, however."

Incredible.

[msanthrope]

187. On the chart you posted, they were #1. But they were actually #6 on my

chart, because online polling was broken out.....

Chart for chart, Manny....and I can see why you picked your chart over the one that more accurately broke out the online polling.....I guess citing #6 doesn't have the same punch.

[MannyGoldstein]

190. You. Are. Incredible.

First off, you wrote

"Not using Online polling Manny....Nate Silver demolished that...."

Does your linked article support or refute what you wrote?

(Your amusing attempt to bail out is also nonsense, but one step at a time.)

[msanthrope]

193. You, Manny, posted a chart, claiming they were #1. I posted a chart showing that with

the online polling broken out.....they were #6.

Having been shown that, now you want to discuss "articles. " Withdraw your claims based on a chart, then.

[MannyGoldstein]

194. YOU BROUGHT THE ARTICLE UP

YOU

NOT ME

YOU

Perhaps you should read your own article before claiming it "destroys" something.

I actually read your article.

It says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you claim.

[msanthrope]

220. Chart to chart, Manny.....that what I compared. #6, not 1. nt

[Marr]

191. Wow-- thanks for highlighting that.

Previously I made a comment about not taking polls conducted online seriously in comparison to traditional polls. I'll have to rethink that.

[MannyGoldstein]

195. Well, there are online polls and online polls...

Just posting a poll online for random people to answer is, indeed, garbage.

But using the Internet as a mechanism to ask questions of a carefully-selected group seems to be at least as good as doing the same using phones, etc.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

207. Let's stipulate to move the argument forward that the poll is acceptable...

You are still left with the dilemma that the poll is an outlier and contradicted by every other pollster in the field:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html


The Law Of Large Numbers suggests the IPSOS-REID poll is an outlier and should be viewed through those lens.

If eleven meteorologists predict that a Cat 5 hurricane is going to make land in Key West and one says it going to make land in Palm Beach I'm getting the Hell out of Key West.

[MannyGoldstein]

246. What were the different questions asked

by the different polling organizations? Therein lies the answer.

Sample size was reasonably good, so likely they asked a different question.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

247. Can you please link me to the IPSOS REID polls so I can see the actual question and data?

Support for Clinton's candidacy has dropped about 15 percentage points since mid-February among Democrats, with as few as 45 percent saying they would support her in the last week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll. Support from Democrats likely to vote in the party nominating contests has dropped only slightly less, to a low in the mid-50s over the same period.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0MF0DV20150319?irpc=932

What group is at 45% and what group is in the low to mid 50s? What is slightly less?


I need a lot more than this to work with. Where's the actual recent poll results and the poll from February results. Again, I need more than a description.

Thank you in advance.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

177. Wasn't your assertion addressed In post #148

I don't see anybody holding out say, Rasmussen, as authoritative because they were the most accurate pollster in 2008 and consequently arguing we should accept their findings now and ignore the findings of every other pollster in the field

Actually I am having a hard time comparing Ipsos Reid to other polls because they are so opaque.

Can you please link me to where I can find the crosstabs from this poll and the ones it is being compared to. As i understand it , according to Ipsos Reid she is polling in the mid 50s among likely voters and her Democratic opponents are polling in the mid teens, and this is down from where she was polling in the 60s, 70s?

Thank you in advance,

[ChiciB1]

156. I'm Not So Sure This Is Only About The Email Situation...

There are many Democrats who aren't "all in" for Hillary. Need I say I'm one of them? While the email situation is the part of the reason she doesn't have my full support because if it's NOT this issue, it will be something else ad infinitum! I don't seeing the attacks stopping now or EVER! I'm more than furious, fed up and just plain worn out with insipid, stupid and nauseating attacks from people who want to ruin anyone they hate! And I do mean hate. Gullible, unintelligent idiots who only need to "hear" something negative and any story that starts rolling along until you hear something like what Santorum heard from a hysterical piece of crap frothing at the mouth with indignation about Obama! And Santorum, KNOWING FULL WELL this was going to be flashed all over the news just let her go on and on, never having the decency to interrupt her or even trying to tone it down! He then gives an equally stupid response. So much for his CHRISTIANITY or even common sense!

This is what we're in for with Hillary. Will every Democrat get this treatment, of course. Still Hillary has baggage that "the goonies" probably have alphabetized and filed for future reference. I was never impressed with Hillary's style of campaigning and the effort that it's going to take to fend off all this crap will cut into anyone's ability to get a message out!

Then of course there's my own beliefs as a much more left of right Democrat who finds DLC types bothersome. Don't like to constantly have to vote for a Democrat simply because what's on the other side would be committing suicide.

So perhaps some who say the emails bother them might include people who feel as I do.
JMHO

[LittleBlue]

157. Hopefully people are waking up to the disaster she'd be as president

Especially to the poor and middle class

No more Wall Street representatives on our side plz. Let them run as Republicans

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

173. Politics is a rough racket if you're carrying a lot of baggage on the campaign train. K&R

[Purveyor]

178. And it will continue to drop every time she gets in front of a microphone and cameras.

She is not likable and hence, unelectable. Akin to dragging ones fingernails across a chalkboard.

[Dawson Leery]

208. An online poll with a fixed sample is NOT accurate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026389888#post81

The trolls really want to get a Rethug into the Whitehouse to start a war with Iran.

[AtomicKitten]

229. DU polling analysis: Like it? It's solid. Hate it? It's crap.

Last edited Fri Mar 20, 2015, 06:14 PM - Edit history (2)

It's all about the trend.

[cherokeeprogressive]

232. LOL. In the context of DU...

How many situations can that be applied to?

[AtomicKitten]

233. Quite a few no doubt. /nt

Last edited Fri Mar 20, 2015, 06:14 PM - Edit history (1)

[NYC_SKP]

249. Peaked in 2011 and all downhill from there.

[Doctor_J]

242. it's all the fault of DU!!!!!

[MisterP]

248. same thing happened with Whitman--a lot of votes, but no CA Pub I know wanted her

or ever talked about her

also Hillary keeps going for the "Evita" button but keeps hitting the "Isabel" one