Hillary's Poll numbers in free fall

[L0oniX]

Last edited Thu Jul 16, 2015, 02:46 PM - Edit history (4)

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fe1229cfc5384d7d95d3caa3535a7cc6/ap-gfk-poll-clintons-standing-falls-among-democrats

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton's standing is falling among Democrats, and voters view her as less decisive and inspiring than when she launched her presidential campaign just three months ago, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

The survey offers a series of warning signs for the leading Democratic candidate. Most troubling, perhaps, for her prospects are questions about her compassion for average Americans, a quality that fueled President Barack Obama's two White House victories.

Just 39 percent of all Americans have a favorable view of Clinton, compared to nearly half who say they have a negative opinion of her. That's an eight-point increase in her unfavorable rating from an AP-GfK poll conducted at the end of April.

The drop in Clinton's numbers extends into the Democratic Party. Seven in 10 Democrats gave Clinton positive marks, an 11-point drop from the April survey. Nearly a quarter of Democrats now say they see Clinton in an unfavorable light.

more at link

Note: Corrections made to source of image since people didn't see the AP credit in the image.

[MADem]

1. LINK, please? That would be POWERLINE.com? The right wing blog?

Mmmmm hmmmm!

[Bjorn Against]

2. It is not from Powerline, it is from the AP

I have no idea why you would think it was from Powerline,
the AP is cited in the graphic and Powerline does not even conduct polls. A quick Google search found me the AP story very quickly.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fe1229cfc5384d7d95d3caa3535a7cc6/ap-gfk-poll-clintons-standing-falls-among-democrats

[MADem]

32. The ORIGINAL LINK went to POWERLINE.

You, too, can go back to the original post, and see that.

All you have to do is click on the red edit line, then click on the original post, then right click on the graph, and .... VOILA...

It goes to THIS LINK:



Now, that shows as a picture, so I'm a gonna break it down with a few spaces and a dot instead of a period so you can see the "verbiage" behind the image:

http:// i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2015/07/435368687807-CLINTON_POLL_20150716 dot jpeg

So.....we know that the poster had eyes on POWERLINE when he cut and pasted that graph to helpfully show us why we should be "concerned" about SOS Clinton's standing in this long, long race.

So....whatever.

[Bjorn Against]

38. The original image was from the AP

Powerline may have hosted a copy of the image which other sites could have linked to as well. Just because the image was hosted by Powerline does not mean the OP visited Powerline to obtain it. The image was originally put out by the AP, just because Powerline hosted a copy of that image on their server does not make it their image.

[MADem]

52. The original LINK in the thread starting POST went to POWERLINE.

Linking straight to the least accurate polling company in the presidential politics game would have been a step UP...but that's not what the OP did.

He linked to POWERLINEBLOG dot com....and I noticed.

Everyone can look, and see. You should do so as well, rather than defending the indefensible.

[merrily]

71. So what? Either it's wrong info or it isn't. If it's wrong, refute.

[MADem]

94. It's always wrong to link without attribution, or to post headlines without links.

Of course, if the links are to right wing blogs, I can see why that would be a cause for concern.

You know, because most of us here don't think that rightwing blogs are a terribly good place to get that unbiased news.

But gee--I guess what you are saying is that you will WELCOME DUers posting shit from rightwing sources, like this:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/bernie-sanders-women-fantasize-about-being-raped/

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/bernie-sanders-recruited-socialists-to-congress/

All things being EQUAL, of course--hey, you can "just refute!!"

You know, the TOS tells us to not be wingnuts:

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

--so I don't understand why you would advocate that we DUers post crap from wingnut blogs. Makes no sense.

"Anything to win" is not a winning strategy. And "So what?" is an abrogation of everything the TOS stands for.

Major fail, there.

[merrily]

101. I didn't advocate anything other than reducing meaningless knee jerk source shaming.

If it's wrong, refute it. If it's not wrong, then it's not wrong.

But, you knew that.

Please stop twisting what I post. It's annoying and pointless.

[MADem]

104. Unnnnh....yes, you did. Your words are not invisible.

I am not twisting a damn thing--you said what you said--"Just refute!"

The TOS says "Don't be a wingnut." We shouldn't have to "just refute" wingnut dreck because "Merrily" thinks it's "OK" to drag that nasty shit into our house.

THAT's what is "annoying and pointless."

[merrily]

107. See Reply 106, As usual, this got tedious fast. Last word is yours.

[MADem]

114. Hard truth is always tedious. nt

[sabrina 1]

143. Is the information right or wrong? You have made several posts now about

something irrelevant, but thanks for kicking the post, I probably wouldn't have seen it otherwise.

[LWolf]

3. Try this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/06/03/hillary-clintons-poll-numbers-are-falling-among-democrats/

or this one

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

Or this:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/03/16/clinton.poll.pdf

Summarized:

Hillary Clinton's image is worse than at any point since 2008. That's the big takeaway from a new CNN/Opinion Research poll released late Monday. And it's true; 44 percent now have an unfavorable opinion of her -- the highest that has been since June 2008, shortly after Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/17/hillary-clinton-is-increasingly-unpopular-its-not-because-of-her-e-mails/

Or this: https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/1167a32016.pdf

I could keep going. Mmmmm hmmmm.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Yet she is handing the Rethuglicans their asses and that's all that matters to me

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html


BTW, many of your links are old but you know that.

[LWolf]

8. I think almost any Democratic candidate would do that.

The Republicans are bat-shit crazy and we're going to beat them regardless of whom we nominate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Yet the little polling we have shows Senator Sanders trailing the Republicans./nt

[merrily]

76. And, as you know, polls this far out are meaningless. However,

a recent poll shows Bernie behind Jeb by only 1 point, which is margin of error.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

68. Yes and Bernie will handle em just fine.

[L0oniX]

18. Hell ...Skittles could do that too.

[merrily]

83. Nice work. Being assidously ignored, though.

Knee jerk source shaming is silly, IMO.

[MADem]

86. Concealing sources is shameFUL. If there was nothing to be ashamed of, why hide it?

But hey, take up the POWERLINE banner, and wave it proudly....!!!

[merrily]

88. In your mind.

[MADem]

96. Post 94. nt

[Ed Suspicious]

90. AP is the source, is it not?

[MADem]

98. Nooooo---the source of the DIRE headline, and the source of the posted jpg, was

POWERLINEBLOG. I should have said "The DIRE, UNATTRIBUTED headline..."

You can click and look, too, you know!!!

[Ed Suspicious]

109. I did. Maybe it was edited. Either way, don't kill the messenger. It was data derived from an

AP poll.


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fe1229cfc5384d7d95d3caa3535a7cc6/ap-gfk-poll-clintons-standing-falls-among-democrats

[MADem]

113. No "maybe" about it--and the headline was lifted right off POWERLINE.

No defense for that kind of shit.

Never mind that AP-GfK is the most INACCURATE pairing when it comes to polls in a list of 28 posted downthread...! Hey, Romney in a walk~~!

We're all smart people here--we should know how to "consider the source."

This thread is a five-star stinker.

[MADem]

121. Surely you're not trying to distract from the fact that the OP used a far rightwing blog

as the source of both his subject line and images, are you?

Why, if ah didn't know bettah, ah'd suh-WAY-uh that's whut you all are tryin' tuh do!!!

Mmmmmmm hmmmmmmmm!!! Never mind that pesky "Don't be a wingnut" admonition in the ToS!!!

[LWolf]

134. Of course not.

I'm simply pointing out that the OP's information is valid, and is available from many sources; I only posted links to a fraction.

[MADem]

135. Ah yes--that "free fall" characterization from the right wing blog is just so "valid."

Please. What the OP did was dead wrong. Enabling and mitigating bad behavior doesn't do anything for your reputation, either.

[LWolf]

138. No matter what words you want to use,

Clinton's support is trending the wrong way.

That's the bottom line.

[MADem]

139. Not at all true, but the real bottom line is that people shouldn't use unattributed

right wing sources and headlines to try and spread FUD at DU. It's UNCIVIL.

Backing people who do that kind of thing is equally uncivil. You're known by the company you keep.

[LWolf]

140. So use all the links I provided.

The information is the same, and I'm sure there is at least one source you'd find acceptable, unless your criteria has something to do with spinning for Clinton.

[yeoman6987]

27. So what! It doesn't mean they won't vote for her. They will.

[MADem]

29. I think the use of right wing sources on this website -- particularly when they

aren't attributed and explained --is problematic.

[yeoman6987]

30. Yes you are right.

[LordGlenconner]

53. Hell, they'll be posting shit from The Blaze before this is over with

Probably World Net Daily, too.

Kind of pathetic but when you're desperate you're desperate.

[MADem]

117. The tortured defenses of this egregious conduct are what I find most amusing.

Anything To Win!! Pathetic, yes, desperate, certainly ... and sad. What's integrity worth, these days?

[merrily]

78. Only if the info is wrong, in which case it should be refuted.

[MADem]

82. Why am I not surprised?

Do continue your defense of the stealth use of POWERLINE!!

[merrily]

85. I am not defending any source, simply objecting to meaningless, knee jerk source shaming.

[MADem]

102. Yes, you are--anyone can read your posts and see what you're saying.

You can, if you'd like, start to back away from your "Waaah, just refute" comments, and that is probably a good idea. You don't want to be the third person in this thread to die on that ignominious hill.

TOS, and all....

It's not "source shaming" to say that the source is a rightwing piece of shit.

Post 94.

[merrily]

106. Good grief. Yes, anyone can read my posts. So there's no need for you to pretend my posts say

something other than what they say or to re-word them. That's such a cheap, transparent tactic.

[MADem]

112. Telling us "So what? ...refute" wingnut shit, from wingnut sources, does not support the

"Don't Be A Wingnut" imperative in the TOS.

A much better thing to say would be "Just don't TOLERATE Wingnut shit at DU," not "So what? Either it's wrong info or it isn't. If it's wrong, refute." Which was--WORD FOR WORD--your lousy advice in post 71.

And there's nothing cheap or transparent about repeating what you said. FAIL at distracting/changing the subject. It's your words that are problematic, here. You own those words you wrote, and to try to play like someone is being mean to you for pointing out EXACTLY what you said is totally LAME.

[senz]

74. Is Politico right wing?

They published a poll yesterday showing Hillary's support dropping among Democrats.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/poll-hillary-clinton-lead-shrinking-democrats-120140.html

[MADem]

84. Is the Pope Catholic? It's owned by the same family that kicked Bill Maher off ABC.

They're the creepy right-to-lifey Albritton family--hateful, mean, conservative shits.

They try to play the site off as "Even though WE'RE conservative, we're going to hire ourselves some Alan Colmes-style lapdog liberals, and front like we're not!"

So yeah, POLITICO most certainly IS right wing--we've gone over this before, here at DU. It's not a surprise to most.

[Indepatriot]

4. In all fairness ALMOST a third describe her as trustworthy!!!

Seriously- this is at the core of why I feel HRC to be the LEAST capable in the G.E. The fact that she's been in the public eye means serious amounts of baggage. Some of that baggage is RWnutjob nonsense. Some of it is not. The Bosnian Sniper Story is to me a MAJOR reason I have honesty issues with HRC. People want to trust the candidate they're voting for and Hillary has given us reason not to have faith in her ability to tell us the truth. Big Problem. Big Problem. I know everybody embellishes a story now and then. Not everybody is running for President. Not everyone "embellishes" the story to include military action that did not occur. She told a lie several times and got a lil' short when a reporter asked her about it. CBS then did a story on it and it turns out they were with her on the trip she lied about. To double-down on the Tale Of Tuzla when you went there WITH the media suggests HRC is either unaware of the existence of videotape or that she thought she could just bullshit her way through the incident. Either way it makes her unsupportable to me and I'm sure there are more voters who feel the same way. Policy differences aside this lack of HONESTY deeply disturbs me about HRC's ability to be a good POTUS.

[zappaman]

5. What a wonderful site you took that from.

Great articles like...

CLUELESS REPORTERS QUESTION PRESIDENT PINOCCHIO: A PATHETIC PRESS CONFERENCE

WALKER DERANGEMENT SYNDROME OFF TO A FAST START

LIBERALS SHOULD BE CAREFUL WHAT THEY WISH FOR

LEMONADE SOCIALISM STRIKES AGAIN

DONALD TRUMP WAS RIGHT

DEMOCRATIC PARTY JOURNALISTS AREN’T FOOLING ANYONE

http://www.powerlineblog.com

So, do you spend a lot of time there?

[Bjorn Against]

11. The image is not from Powerline it is from the AP

How did you know Powerline copied the AP's image, do you spend a lot of time there?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fe1229cfc5384d7d95d3caa3535a7cc6/ap-gfk-poll-clintons-standing-falls-among-democrats

[zappaman]

12. Top story on powerlineblog.

Hey, if the RW loves it, it must be true!

[Blus4u]

34. Power Line cites the AP source

in the first sentence of their article.

[R B Garr]

41. LOL, here's what else your "article" says....

"The Democrats’ problem, of course, is that they don’t have anyone else. The geriatric party’s main alternative to Hillary, at this point, is a 73-year-old socialist. Good luck with that."

I bet now you'll all see the "problem" with the source credibility. But ANYTHING that mentions Hillary in a negative light is all you people need to run on.

[Ed Suspicious]

72. Use the data, not the shitty analysis from the site. The data doesn't lie, only the people

building a case surrounding the data do.

[R B Garr]

87. Nice try. The article said what it said.

I quoted it. But your comment confirms that 'shitty analysis' that slams Hillary is all that's important...lol.

[Ed Suspicious]

110. I didn't read the article, I can do my own analysis of polls, and don't need the help of

MSM or any other paid shill. Look at the data.

[R B Garr]

120. It doesn't work that way.

If you didn't read the article, then your analysis is meaningless and just reflects your bias, not what the article states.

Here's the quote again:

"The Democrats’ problem, of course, is that they don’t have anyone else. The geriatric party’s main alternative to Hillary, at this point, is a 73-year-old socialist. Good luck with that."

[appalachiablue]

116. What's wrong with Marty O'Malley?

[Capt. Obvious]

13. Is it just a coincidence then the title of your thread?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/hillarys-poll-numbers-in-free-fall.php

[zappaman]

14. Total coincidence!

[Bjorn Against]

15. It is not my thread and it is not Powerline's graphic

[Capt. Obvious]

16. You're right, not your thread

The image is taken from powerline however.

[Bjorn Against]

19. Wrong, it was taken from the AP

Numerous sites have posted the same image and Powerline may be one of those many sites, but the image was created and distributed by the AP.

[Capt. Obvious]

21. No shit

However, the OP is linking his image from Powerline.

This is a pretty weird hill to stake your flag on.

[sufrommich]

24. It looks like the OP edited out the image from Powerline

and found a new one. When I first right clicked the image it was from Powerline,now it's not.

[Bjorn Against]

25. I see no reference to Powerline in the OP

[MADem]

36. That's because you didn't right click on the ORIGINAL (not the edited) image.

Like I did, and see the POWERLINEBLOG attribution. The OP got that image, initially, from POWERLINEBLOG, and his original link--which is still available with a few clicks for anyone to check--is right there to prove it. We know he cut and pasted that link from POWERLINE, because that's where the image was originally sourced before he edited it.

Look upthread.

All is explained.

[Bjorn Against]

42. All that means is Powerline hosted a copy of the image on their server

That same copy could have been linked to multiple sites and would still show the same URL , it is meaningless. The image belongs to the AP not Powerline.

[MADem]

54. You really ARE determined to die on that hill with the thread starter!

You do realize, with every defensive, BUT BUT BUT post, defending the fact that the OP had to READ the blog in order to steal the image from it, you are damaging your credibility IRREPARABLY?

Never mind that the AP poll was the least accurate in the bunch last go - round, being beaten out by such bastions of the Democratic Process as FAUX News, NEWSMAX, and the nutso-wacko MOONIE TIMES?

Talk about a two-fer...a fer-shit poll, and a fer-shit source! But hey, keep touting--I notice you're the one taking all the hits to your reputation, because the OP is wisely keeping his head down and letting you be the one who is embarrassed/humiliated.

There's no upside here. This entire thread is a huge RIGHTWING SOURCED fail. If I were you I'd at least acknowledge the obvious.

[Bjorn Against]

60. False, the OP did not have to read Powerline to get that image

If I were to copy the same image from DU it would also link back to Powerline despite the fact that I never visited the site. The AP is the original source of the image, they own the image not Powerline.

[Capt. Obvious]

64. NOT ONE INCH!

[Dawgs]

73. You should really stop.

You're making a fool of yourself.

[irisblue]

128. alert results

Thu Jul 16, 2015, 02:21 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You should really stop.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=449635

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Captain Obvious is doing the opposite of making a fool of himself--he's pointing out the use of a right wing source, and calling him a "fool" is an abusive personal insult.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jul 16, 2015, 02:31 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: geez, leave it
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[Capt. Obvious]

137. You posted this in the wrong spot

[MADem]

115. And he got the POWERLINE headline by magic, too?

I link to it ONLY to prove a point, not as an endorsement of that atrocious, rightwing, hateful, nasty, total FAIL of a wingnut shitbird website:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/hillarys-poll-numbers-in-free-fall.php

You're running out of ammo, and the enemy is charging the hill!!!!

This OP, as of this post, has been edited FIVE times!!! Let's review the ORIGINAL, one more time:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=1251449159&info=1#edits

And, as mentioned previously, a rightclick on that image brings us to--taaadaaaaa!--a POWERLINEBLOG link!!!


We DUers shouldn't be using rightwing sources. I find it troubling that people bring that shit over here, and when they do track it in, like dogshit on the heel of a walking shoe messing up grannie's just cleaned carpet, I am gonna point it out.

Last, but not least, when you post shit that isn't your own intellectual material, particularly a work product like a poll and a HEADLINE, it's polite to provide a source.

[Capt. Obvious]

37. Here, I made pictures for you

then when you paste the image URL into your browser it takes you to a magical mystery land.



if you look closely you can see the mysterious location where the image originates from.

[Bjorn Against]

43. All that means is that Powerline hosted a copy of the image on their server

It still originated with the AP.

[Capt. Obvious]

45. You're really going to die on that hill eh?

Poster hyperlinks to an image on powerline. The image could be found elsewhere but powerline uploaded their very own image - that's how it was spotted where it came from - rather than hyperlink the image themselves.

Poster uses the exact same headline as the piece on powerline.

I personally don't care that that was his source. I care about the lying about it - or is it spinning?

[Bjorn Against]

48. No it is not their own image

It is the AP's image, you are the one spinning not me. Hosting an image does not give them ownership of the image.

[Capt. Obvious]

51. such a weird stand you're taking

the person is using powerline.

yet you're arguing that no, he's using the AP since he didn't link to the AP piece but linked to powerline, and then used the exact same headline as powerline and not the headline of the AP piece.

that's some serious spinning.

[MADem]

50. And an ignominious death it is, too.

The double-down on a poll from a spurious source, by a polling company that is beat out in the "Accuracy Sweepstakes" by Fox and Washington Times and Newsmax and other, crap-tastic wingnut outlets, is ..... amusing.

It's funny as hell that the thread starter would post it, funnier still that he'd have Good Buddies working so hard to defend a garbage poll that was touted at a garbage website!! Mmmmmm hmmmm, smh!

[redstateblues]

130. The Sanders Enforcement Committee

[Agschmid]

56. The OP seems to have bailed, I only see one reply.

[zappaman]

58. Can ya blame him?

[Agschmid]

59. Nope.

Never heard of powerline until today... Yikes.

[MADem]

35. The OP took the image from Powerline. That is obvious from the edit history. nt

[sufrommich]

39. The headline too. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Yes ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/16/bernie-sanderss-limited-appeal-even-to-democrats/

For those, like me, that prefer the source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/07/15/National-Politics/Polling/question_15745.xml?uuid=sSxlBCreEeWWDyLEupgu1A

This is what "free fall" now looks like these days.

[moondust]

10. Ahh, the Bezos Billionaire's Gazette.

[L0oniX]

17. +1

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. Now, that you got your "Yup" on ... care to comment on the numbers ...

that seem to indicate anything BUT a free fall.

[moondust]

95. Sure.

I don't trust polls until the very end of the cycle. Pollsters need to get those right because that's what people tend to reference when judging a pollster's accuracy in retrospect. In the meantime, polls can be used to manipulate public opinion. You can commission polls that will return whatever results you want (for a price). What, for example, do you think the poll results would look like if you polled a few carefully chosen area codes in western Oklahoma or Texas for the approval rating of President Obama? Maybe 10%?

Disclaimer: I've never known anybody who worked deep inside a polling organization so I can't prove anything.

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. But you rec the posts about polls indicating that Bernie is surging? n/t

[moondust]

111. I don't remember doing that.

Although it's possible--if only to boost morale among downtrodden progressives not supporting the billionaires.

[randys1]

31. It does seem like a lot of anti Hillary stuff goes on here at DU....rightwingers do hate her.

[dirtydickcheney]

20. My Take on Hillary-

The more you see her - the less you like her.

There's nothing "warm and fuzzy" in her manner unlike her husband.

Definitely not a "let's fire up the base" speaker.

Add in her Big Money interests and what is the appeal, oh yeah - Big Money is interested in her winning.

That's all.

[L0oniX]

22. She won't be encouraging a reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.

[brooklynite]

33. Doesn't matter if people "like" her.....they want to "vote for" her.

[London Lover Man]

46. And the number if people wanting to vote for her are declining steadily.

Even you have to admit that is a problem.

Soft support is all Hillary's got, and once Bernie collects and converts those support to hard support, Clinton has virtually zero chance of securing the nomination.

But you knew that, right?

[brooklynite]

55. Actually no, I don't

Last edited Thu Jul 16, 2015, 04:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Her polling is about 20 points HIGHER than in 2008 when all that "baggage" folks here like to complain about first came out, and she's been pretty consistent for the past year. Meanwhile, Sanders, while enjoying an impressive bump from zero, seems to be balancing out at about 15-20%.

But you knew that, right?

[London Lover Man]

93. Go ahead and have Clinton raise billions

at the end, she will have to transfer her warchest to Bernie if she wants the D's to win after Bernie secures the nomination, which he will. You're still trumpeting polls that has really no impact at this point. Summer of Sanders continues, and with that, the Fall of the Millenials will be next.

I don't see much organizing activity on Clinton's side. I'm sure she's blowing through her 45 million already and putting herself in a debt trying to get the right strategy for her which has been a failure thus far.

[brooklynite]

97. A year of Clinton polling="no imact"; a month of Sanders ="dynamic change".

Once again, an assertion that Sanders will win, with no explanation as to how.

[Capt. Obvious]

23. You do know we can see your edits right?

[sufrommich]

26. +1. nt

[MADem]

40. He was hoping otherwise, I'd imagine....!!

I think it's good to know who goes to POWERLINEBLOG for their anti-Clinton screeds.

It allows me, anyway, to put anything else they have to say in its proper context!

Who even READS Powerline here, except to point and mock on the odd occasion, after being led there by, say, WONKETTE or The Advocate or some other site that makes it their business to read/fact check/make fun of the GOP....

Who goes there for "news?" Ewww.

[zappaman]

49. Right?

[JaneyVee]

28. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

That polling company is DEAD LAST in accuracy: http://legacy.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/topstories_2590.asp

[ismnotwasm]

44. Heh!

Well well...any port in a storm and all that

[MADem]

47. Not at all surprising, if places like POWERLINE tout them!!!

Did they have Romney in a walk, too?

MY GAWD....even FOX, WASHINGTON TIMES, and NEWSMAX beats them!!!!
How ... HUMILIATING....

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

What a list!!

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6908

[K lib]

57. The top two polls are Reuters and YouGov

Which are the polls in which Bernie Sanders is doing the best with him getting between 20 to 24 percent of the vote. Second I am not sure I would trust something from a Jesuit University. Nate Silver ranks GFK poll as A-. There a lot of conflicting polls right now and it is still early on so lets wait and see later in the campaigning season to see how things are going.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

[MADem]

61. You do realize that Jesuits are some of the most intellectually rigorous people on this earth?

It's why elements of the Roman Catholic church despise them. You don't have to like Catholics, but if a Jesuit told me something was FACT I would be inclined to believe him.

The issue in this thread isn't how "well" Sanders is doing--and his ceiling to this point seems to be around twenty--the issue is how poorly the OP wants to suggest CLINTON is doing....using the shittiest poll on that list I pasted, and a polling company that NATE SILVER DOESN'T EVEN MENTION in that link you provided.

This spurious information is coming out of AP-GfK...I don't see that at your Nate Silver link AT ALL. Which means they must really, REALLY suck!! No wonder POWERLINE is using them....!!!!

[K lib]

66. Look under GFK Group nt

[MADem]

70. GfK Group is NOT AP-GfK. GfK Group is the parent agency.

They provide services to other agencies (Pew, Harvard University, Expedia, etc), but they don't control the poll construct when they are hired to perform said services. They simply provide their "Knowledge Panel" which is an internet-based set of random respondents.

AP-GfK is a very specific subsidiary, and they perform poorly when it comes to polling. I would guess this is because they (and by they, I mean AP) frame their questions poorly.

If he meant AP-GfK, which is a very specific association, he would have said so.

See--here's an example of GfK group working with Harvard University on a youth polling initiative: http://www.iop.harvard.edu/april-29-2015-no-front-runner-among-prospective-republican-candidates-hillary-clinton-control

Here they are pairing w/the American Jewish Committee: http://www.jewishdatabank.org/studies/details.cfm?StudyID=755

A poll is only as good as the questions asked. I'm betting AP tends to push-poll...that's what Karl Rove did, and that's why he thought Romney had Ohio in the bag.

[K lib]

100. Perhaps I made a mistake

Although in 2008 ap/gfk was one of the better polls

Silver’s analysis showed that Zogby, AP-GFK and Insider Advantage were the most accurate of all polling firms, although the percentages separating them were small. Comparing polling firms can be misleading, he said, because pollsters such as Rasmussen Reports include states like Alaska, whereas Zogby sticks to so-called battleground states.

http://legacy.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/archives/archive_1453.asp

From the article posted about the 2012 election

For all the derision directed toward pre-election polling, the final poll estimates were not far off from the actual nationwide voteshares for the two candidates. On average, pre-election polls from 28 public polling organizations projected a Democratic advantage of 1.07 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 1.13 percentage points away from the current estimate of a 2.2-point Obama margin in the national popular vote (Obama 50.3% versus Romney 48.1%).

Following the procedures proposed by Martin, Traugott and Kennedy (see Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall 2006, pp. 342-369) to assess predictive accuracy, Panagopoulos analyzes poll estimates from 28 polling organizations. Most (22) polls overestimated Romney support, while six (6) overestimated Obama strength (indicated with a * below), but none of the 28 national preelection polls he examined had a significant partisan bias.

Both articles mention that percentage separating them were small.

[MADem]

118. WAPO and Boston Globe used to be a lot better than they are, now.

New York Times, pre-Judith Miller and some of their other ghastly missteps (the front page McCain Is Screwing Around On His Wife story, e.g.) used to be the Paper of Record, too.

Can't trust anyone anymore, but you can trust some less than others...

[Capt. Obvious]

67. From his link

GfK Group
●
●
18 Polls analyzed
3.5
-1.2
-0.8
-0.5
A- Grade
R+0.0 Bias

[MADem]

80. Look upthread--GfK Group is NOT AP-GfK.

GfK group is a company that is global, with HQ in Germany. They create polling constructs, and recruit people on the internet into things they call "Knowledge Panels." They provide the FRAMEWORK to poll--they aren't in charge of the polling questions or slant. They have worked with Harvard, with Pew, with tons of agencies--to include AP. But when they work with AP, their "product" sucks.

I'd not be surprised if NONE of those eighteen polls were GfK paired with AP.

[NCTraveler]

62. I would love this kind of freefall in my personal life. Dear Lord.

Republicans are even having a hard time spinning it, as is obvious from the graph the op used.

[riversedge]

63. AP/GfK polling is at the bottom of list for accuracy...

AP/GfK polling is at the bottom of list for accuracy...

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

[pa28]

65. Not sure how you win a general election starting with unfavorables that high.

If she's this vulnerable already what's going to happen to those negatives under the onslaught of billions of dollars in super-pac funded character attacks?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

91. Fortunately, Bernie will be our nominee and is a true progressive whom we can all unite behind.

[Ed Suspicious]

69. I'm torn, because while I love feeling the Bern, and I will complain about Hillary here in our home,

but I don't air her dirty laundry to the world, and if for some reason Bernie is not able to win the nomination over her, I don't want to poison her and wind up with Jeb Walker for pres. I think if Bernie wins the nomination he sails to the White House. If she wins it's going to be knock down drag out fight that she could lose especially after a tough primary.

[Chemisse]

75. 7 points in 3 months doesn't seem like a freefall,

particularly with a 3.4 % margin of error.

Now if she lost another 7 by this fall, I would agree.

[Dawgs]

77. Wow. There is a lot of stupidity (or maybe just ignorance) in this thread.

I feel sorry for America.

[HassleCat]

79. Free fall?

I would hardly call it that, but it is nice that voters recognize Sanders as fundamentally more devoted to principles, less inclined to do the "weather vane" thing, less reliant on polls and focus groups to tell him what to think and what to say. Maybe it's time for a progressive president.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

89. Maybe? It's Bernie's time...it's gonna happen...count on it!

[HassleCat]

92. It's time to try

I have been a democratic socialist and a progressive for a long time, and it's been very lonely out here in the wilderness. I do know we have to nominate a progressive if we ever expect to elect one president. We have to quit wringing our hands and worrying that a progressive can't win, that our candidate needs to be more like the Republicans to win for the Democrats, blah, blah, blah...

[senz]

122. Yes, it is VERY nice that people are beginning to wake up

to the damage that has been done to us over the past 30 years. The working class/middle class has lost so much ground, I don't know how we can regain it. But when I see what our youth are facing, I KNOW that we need a president who holds the same concerns and goals as Bernie Sanders. We must fight back; we must regain our once-liveable country.

[Lunabell]

99. Hmm, she is feeling the Bern.

[url=http://postimg.org/image/s9xgemdh9/][img][/img][/url]

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

108. She's feelin the Bern alright. Hillary's doing her best to channel Bernie, but it doesn't come of as authentic. People can see right through her phony progressive schtick.

[L0oniX]

142. +1

[Lil Missy]

103. Wishful thinking does not make it true. n/t

[senz]

125. Nevermind, I see that it is in fact the same. Sorry, will delete my redundant comment.

[DCBob]

123. I think its simply the Bernie supporters skewing the numbers.

It would have been interesting to see Bernie's numbers. Its curious why he was left out.

[senz]

127. He wasn't "left out." Read the link.

And furthermore, it's highly unlikely that Bernie Sanders would do anything so dishonest.

[DCBob]

131. So what were Bernie's numbers?

[FiveGoodMen]

124. Another thread I read just this morning said her fav. numbers had just jumped up

What's the deal?

[DCBob]

132. This appears to be a garbage poll.

[LittleBlue]

126. Her biggest problem is that she's boring

Look at the low "inspiring" number. Of those 37%, how many are actually inspired by her actions and not name recognition?

Bernie is kinda boring himself but at least some of his ideas and anti-establishment stances are exciting. Hillary's opinions and personality comes across robotically, like some artificial intelligence created from thousands of focus groups.

[Mike Nelson]

129. Send this to Frank Luntz...

...he can appreciate it more!

[DCBob]

133. This is a garbage poll..

Look at these numbers.. they make no sense.



http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/AP-GfK_Poll_July_2015-Topline_Clinton.pdf

[MADem]

136. HA! This vaunted pollster couldn't even BOTHER TO INCLUDE Bernie!!!!

Guess he's not "feeling that Bern?"

He included Carly Frickin FIORINA... and JOHN KASICH.... AND Barack (not running again) Obama....but couldn't find a spot to suss out Sanders' 'favorability' in the same context?

And everyone is "loved" except Trump, Obama and Clinton....yeah, right!



Very Garbage-ish, indeed!

[thevoiceofreason]

141. Hoe did AP=GfK polling compare in 2012?

Oh yeah - it was last. 28th out of 28 ranked.

Poor sampling cited most often.