Should be fascinating watching the actual vote totals as they come in.

Unless they change their sampling and it's too late to do that intelligently.

Clinton still gets some name recognition support from people who don't care enough to turn out and vote for her.

Bernie's supporters know who both the candidates are and have chosen him.

Clinton consistently polls higher than the results turn out to be. Yes, The bean counters are missing something. The enthusiasm gap.

To suppress Bernie's turnout. Most polling firms are owned by the wealthy oligarchs and 1 percenters on Wall Street.

Which is why he, like so many Clinton shills (Albright, Steinem, DWS, Lewis), has egg on his face now.

I don't think they've been as far off in Bernie's favor as they have been in Clinton's anywhere, but still.

Where have they been off in Bernie's favor?

I know I saw a post here somewhere last night that summarized the poll results thus far, along with election results. In some cases, Sanders was projected to get more of the vote than he ended up getting-- same with Clinton, and vice/versa.

But now that you mention it, I don't think any of them projected him to win something that he didn't end up winning, as has happened with Clinton-- it was only a question of margins. Can't seem to find that post now, either.

has always been off in Hillary's favor (unless I am mistaken).

Make a post about it. Look at it in some detail. Come to a conclusion.

Done!

Pollsters who become campaign adjuncts eventually lose all value.

and inaccurate.

nm

Of course that's because they don't actually understand what they are talking about. It's no different than the unskewthepolls.com guys or people who claim a cold day means there is no global warming.

It reflects a lack of knowledge on the subject.

I'm reminded of the studies that have found people with a conviction often only become more convinced when confronted with rigorous evidence they are wrong.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=2

There's a good chance the polling is off in other open primary states.

Ohio and Illinois will tell us a lot.

So it might not kick start so easily this time......

She's been one of the leading proponents of outsourcing for decades. Hell, she even outsources her own government email, lol.

I'm not sure what they'll do about their projections for the March 15 primaries. I started getting a bit unsure after Minnesota's surprise. Apparently the open primaries, which usually haven't generated a lot of independent votes in the past, are seeing a much higher turnout of people who aren't being accurately polled.

However, looking at it another way, Michigan didn't really affect the delegate count lead at all, since it was very close and the delegate allocation wasn't that much different for the two candidates. In fact, Hillary increased her lead in the overall count, despite the small delegation from Mississippi.

What that means is that even if, say, Illinois and Ohio end up being close, our proportional delegate allocation won't affect the delegate margin all that much. If you look at the target figures for each candidate, you'll see that they don't reflect a large lead, either. All told, Florida will really be the determinant on March 15. If Clinton wins big in Florida, she'll still increase her pledged delegate lead, even if other states end up being very close.

The real lesson here is, I think, that only watching the actual delegate count makes sense. Wins and losses are less important if the races end up close. After March 15, though, that situation will change a bit. There will be some large states with high delegate numbers, but they're less likely to produce large margins of victory for either candidate.

Like all primary races, this one will continue to be very interesting, indeed.

It would be interesting to see how they break down - are they lefty progressives? center-left labor that equate Clinton with NAFTA? Those "fuck the establishment" loons that would be equally happy with Trump OR Sanders over any of the establishment pols? You can bet that both the polling firms, and the poll analyst types will be studying this primary for quite some time.

You're right. I'm sure the pollsters, etc. are trying to figure out how to be more accurate.

is the simple fact that the more people learn about Bernie, the better they like him, and the more likely they are to vote for him. Equally, the more Hillary lies, the more she obfuscates, the more she shifts her positions at every turn, they more people dislike her and are not inclined to vote for her.

Anyone who thinks that this country will elect someone that the majority of voters mistrust is at best naive. There are stronger words that come to mind, but I needn't post them.

Another thing that the polling and the Hillary supporters still don't get is that this early in the primary season a lot of voters still aren't paying very much attention to the election. Which means Bernie still doesn't have as much name recognition as Hillary at this point. But every day that name recognition grows. And it grows because they listen to what he says, they hear her lies, and they make up their own minds.

I don't have as strong negative feelings about Hillary as you do, but I think that because she is much better known, she starts out with a lot of default support. In other words, people often say to pollsters that they are supporting her because they don't know much about the other candidates and she is the one they are most familiar with. As people get to know Bernie, they like him and many switch. We saw a similar dynamic with Obama in 2008. Hillary started out leading the polls in a lot of states she ended up winning.

She still has a certain edge there, but it's diminishing slowly but steadily.

As for your last sentence, do you mean

Actually, I meant to say that she started out leading in the polls in a lot of states that Obama ended up winning, but same idea.