Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:22 AM Mar 2016

The disparities between the polling numbers and the actual numbers

is simple. Polling sampling was done with "Democratic voters." That's Hillary's base. Bernie's base is MUCH wider so Independents and Republicans didn't get polled and, since Michigan was an open primary state, those elements, in my opinion, were the difference. Well, that and Hillary's bald-face lies about Bernie voting "no" on the auto bailout and her word salad about fracking. Bernie absolutely nailed her on that one.

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The disparities between the polling numbers and the actual numbers (Original Post) Le Taz Hot Mar 2016 OP
I'm shocked your simplistic explanation for the polling failure went ignored by the polling firms. LonePirate Mar 2016 #1
For the very same reasons the poll numbers were not predictive She can also not win Dragonfli Mar 2016 #2

LonePirate

(13,408 posts)
1. I'm shocked your simplistic explanation for the polling failure went ignored by the polling firms.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:30 AM
Mar 2016

Obviously they knew MI was an open primary. They almost assuredly factored that into their methodology. They simply didn't consider how strong an effect it would have. Not only that but it n the HuffPo/538 blog, Nate mentioned that all major polling was completed before the debate in Flint. Almost two days of late deciders and a huge event were completely missed by all of the polling firms.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
2. For the very same reasons the poll numbers were not predictive She can also not win
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:11 AM
Mar 2016

a General Election. But Sanders may well and truly be able to.

What we know so far is that Republicans hate her with a now generational burning passion (deserved or not) that will bring them out in record numbers just for the satisfaction of sticking it to her by voting against her, even (if you will excuse the cliche), she ran against a ham sandwich.

We also know that the largest voting block, the Independents, do not like her very much and that over 2/3 of them consider her a dishonest liar, whereas they appear to like Sanders a great deal, and even among her ONLY favorable voting block, the Democrats, she is at best split evenly with Sanders.

It is very obvious to any paying attention that what I have just written is true, yet the establishment and MSM appear hell bent on her running as the Democratic primary candidate and are pushing a very demonstrably false meme that she is more electable.

This implies to my mind that the establishment as well as the MSM don't care much if a Republican wins, as long as Sanders does not, it also implies that she would do in a pinch to the moneyed interests and the Conservatives in both parties (as well as the moneyed interests that drive the MSM) she would be as acceptable as any Republican would in their eyes, if by some fluke or natural disaster she did manage to win the GE.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The disparities between t...