If people have already made up their minds about Hillary, then why her changing poll numbers?

[NoodleyAppendage]

Having cemented personal opinion about Hillary, which is what we are told (and I suspect), then what's behind the increase in her poll numbers? Shouldn't her numbers be relatively static over time?

Hmmm...who owns the major polling outfits again?

J

[acmavm]

1. Millions haven't made up their minds about anything. The election

is 15 months away. I know that I'm still watching and waiting.

[redqueen]

2. Heh...

you just reminded me of the "undecided voters" bit from Family Guy. Good stuff.

[Junkdrawer]

3. Look, they might have spent untold billions taking over the media...

but "they" would NEVER touch the political polls. That would be....dishonest.

[Robbien]

4. Since GOPers want Clinton so bad, what is to say

they are not trying to game the system by bumping up her numbers.

[Perry Logan]

11. Use logic: If they really wanted her, they wouldn't be SAYING they wanted her!

These are Republicans we're talking about, after all.

[JVS]

14. See Princess Bride poison sequence

[CTyankee]

13. But this poll didn't include Republicans. The article said it was a poll of Dems and

Independents who lean Democratic.

What we have to wait for is a poll inclusive of all parties and those who self identify as likely voters. Those are the poll numbers to watch, altho it is interesting that she polls so well among Independents, albeit ones who lean Dem.

[emilyg]

15. Silly thinking.

[DURHAM D]

5. As someone said -

Hillary Clinton (going into the campaign) is the most well known figure yet unknown person in the country.

Perhaps she is becoming less of a figure and more of a person - and not at all what people thought she was.

Last Friday night I had dinner with friends and when the subject of the primary came up they were shy about it but told me that after watching the debates they had changed their ideas about Hillary and were now supporting her for the Presidency. When I said I was not surprised they were relieved as they thought I would argue with them. I believe that this change is happening a lot.

[William769]

6. Just when I thought I couldn't laugh at any more of the absurd here.

:rofl: Keep them comming!

THANKS!

[TwilightGardener]

7. I will always be suspicious of the poll numbers, because I just personally

don't know anyone who likes her or plans to vote for her, besides my mom--who was a lifelong Republican until Chimpy.

[CTyankee]

12. No, polls are now more scientifically accurate and the larger the sampling

the smaller is the Margin of Error. It's a common mistake to say so and so can't become President because I don't know anyone who wants her. When I was working for a liberal organization back in the 80s, I didn't know anyone who was going to vote for Reagan. So I was shocked when he won by such a landslide. One's own narrow perspective is deceiving.

[TwilightGardener]

16. I'm not saying that I know more than pollsters or that my experience

is an accurate reflection of the race--it's just that I read the polls and shrug. Apparently a lot of folks other than the people in my circle really like Hillary--I can accept that when my brain is in "rational" mode. But when it's in "conspiracy" mode (which happens more than I'm willing to admit, to my embarrassment), I start to think, what happens if a news or polling organization just makes this shit up? If Hillary starts eating kittens on live TV, and her poll numbers still go up, then I guess I'll be on to something there, but for now, it's just paranoia--which isn't helped by reading about her Murdoch connections.

[CTyankee]

19. I can see your point. I guess that I have had an education from my son in law, a political

consultant who only works with Dems. His specialty is focus groups. He worked on the Kerry campaign and when Bush "won" all those precincts where the exit polling showed a wide Margin of Error, he was astonished. Turns out, the MOE is the MOE, it just is, like the Law of Gravity. If the MOE is way out of proportion with the number of those polled, it means something is seriously wrong with your data. And in those precincts, we pretty much know now that the data was "manipulated" by repub. operatives.

So I guess you've earned your paranoia honestly!

[emilyg]

17. Well - now you do

I support Senator Clinton

[TwilightGardener]

18. I support her as well--she's my second choice, after Obama.

I think she's a good, solid candidate. I'm not saying that it's crazy to think that anyone supports her. It's just that I don't see that support--anywhere. Not in my mostly-Dem family, firends, or acquaintances. My husband, who is a very reasonable-minded, middle-of-the-road Independent, doesn't like her (he doesn't want a return to the Clinton 90's, and she reminds him of a nagging wife--could that be MY fault, LOL?), but he has a grudging respect for her. I'm willing to bet that is the sentiment that accounts for her success so far, and might lead her to victory, because I sure don't see the excitement.

[havocmom]

8. Seems possible poll numbers with vary according to who gets polled

:shrug:

[Bitwit1234]

9. If Obama is so so popular how come his poll numbers are dropping.

[rinsd]

10. So polling showing cemented opinions = ok, polling showing change 6 months before voting = suspect?

[NoodleyAppendage]

20. I'm not making up the numbers. One of the polls is incorrect, I guess.

My point was there shouldn't be huge surges in polling if a complimentary poll shows cemented opinions. Unless, of course, people are voting from pragmatics and less from passion.

J