2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton down 10 points in one week
Just days before she will take the stage in the first Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton's lead over rival Bernie Sanders has narrowed, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.
Clinton's support among Democratic voters fell 10 points within less than a week.
From October 4 to October 9, Clinton saw her support tumble from 51 percent of Democratic support to just 41 percent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/10/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0S32NZ20151010
Sliceo
(39 posts)Their phone polls are good. As opposed to that rolling online thing.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 10, 2015, 07:03 PM - Edit history (1)
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)It is there weekly write up of 1 5-day interval from their internet "poll".
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)624 people in an online poll? Where did you get the idea that this was an online poll?
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Reuters/Ipsos is an online always open tracker that they take a weekly five day snapshot of to write up.
In this case the range is Oct 4 to Oct 9 filtered to Democrats only, as they do every week.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Unlike almost all mainstream polls, the data is entirely collected via online surveys. Online surveys allow us to collect far more data and to be more flexible and fast-moving than phone research, and online is also where the future of polling lies.
Here they claim to be the most accurate:
Go HERE, click ABOUT
However, here is what Silver says about it's methodology (remember, it was the Reuters / Ipsos poll that had Romney thinking he'd win.)
Internet-based polls are very likely to be a part of pollings future, and my view is not necessarily that they should be dismissed out of hand. However, they need to be approached with caution.
The central challenge that Internet polls face is in collecting a random sample, which is the sine qua non of a scientific survey. There is no centralized database of e-mail addresses, nor any other method to ping someone at random to invite them to participate in an online poll. Many people have several e-mail addresses, while about 20 percent of Americans still do not go online at all.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/before-citing-a-poll-read-the-fine-print/
Defend the poll all you want. It will make primary day even funnier for us.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)We both know that 'online poll' means a 'fan-driven' beauty contest, whereas a poll that uses a scientifically-chosen group of people and surveys them via the internet is not an 'online poll'.
'Online poll' is shorthand for 'unscientific'.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)intersectionality
(106 posts)Erroneous #s were accurate. They are not.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Why, and even if they might be, what does that have to do with mischaracterizing their poll as an 'online poll'?
Sliceo
(39 posts)Reuters/Ipsos is an online poll. From their own website:
"Unlike almost all mainstream polls, the data is entirely collected via online surveys."
http://polling.reuters.com/#!
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)What part of 'online surveys' is not clear to you? The traditional method uses telephone surveys. That. Is. The. Only. Difference.
Sliceo
(39 posts)Are you OK?
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)You do understand the difference between an 'online poll', and a poll that uses each respondent's PC and the pollster's website to accumulate data, rather than using a telephone to do the same thing, don't you?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And then when informed that it wasn't a phone poll, you wrote "yes, it was."
As it turns out, you were wrong and this was not a phone poll.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)I was busy MIRT-ing and a thousand other things, and forgot to put 'same as' in the post. Thanks for pointing that out though.
Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #18)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Laser102
(816 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Sliceo
(39 posts)?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Nate Silver predicted no such thing.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)who predicted Sanders has "peaked?"
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But looking at the latest poll analysis, it's pretty clear Sanders has plateaued, or at least dramtically slowed in his increase in support. He seems to have settled into the mid-upper 20's. We'll see if the debate makes a difference.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)every 30 days, after a subpoena was issued. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251653290
BTW: Hillary isn't picking up, she's still declining, and what isn't going to Sanders is now lining up behind Biden. If Biden runs, it's a good sign that the Justice Department is going to proceed in some way to start prosecution of HRC and/or her immediate circle. She's already toast.
Well, Silver DOES have a staff there... He doesn't write everything.
As for what's hpening now.... Please see here. The race has stabilized for now. Of course, the debate is next week, so I expect to see some movement.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary#!mindate=2015-08-01&estimate=custom
Time_Lord
(60 posts)Biden is no longer a factor. Polls will be removing Biden shortly after the debates.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)As for Biden? His support will slowly fade, unless he decides to jump in. If he DOES stay out, I expect HRC's support to jump back over 50%. But this is Bernie's Big Chance (tm).
Time_Lord
(60 posts)He went from 5% to around 25-30% (depending on who you see) without any televised ads, on a shoe-string budget, and raised over 40 million in two quarters with the capability to tap at his supporters for more as the primaries are underway. I'm just not seeing anything that makes me think Clinton would be a winner anywhere. Not even one single bumper sticker or yard signs. I know it may be early, but I'm seeing bumper stickers for Bernie. More grows every day. Even my neighborhood already has a watch party booked full, and just about full on a second watch party. People are interested in what Bernie is saying, not what Clinton is trying to sell them.
Bernie is a leader, Clinton is a follower.
Leader leads, followers follow leaders.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Lots of folks here are casually forgetting what happens in the real world. Unless he can really grab attention at the debates, I think he's at, or near, his support ceiling. I could be wrong, but that's my prediction.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Doesn't mean it will stay that way. But you can cherry pick data if you like... No skin off my nose.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Nate Silver made no such prediction.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)her numbers would be even lower. A majority of Americans do not use landlines anymore.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)So the overall change is probably half that or less from where she was before that uptick. But still, it keeps the trend moving in the right direction.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)"The October 9 survey includes 624 respondents and has a credibility interval of 4.5 percent."
Did you know thst Gallup has abandoned the multi-day "rolling average polling" for anything as they deemed it inaccurate and unreliable? And they pioneered the method!
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and I just wasted half an hour skimming through a bunch of stuff "explaining" it. I still have zero idea what a credibility interval represents. And zero idea what "posterior probability distribution" means.
Now I have a headache. Until I find something that 'splains it to me like I'm 8 years old, I think I'll just stick to confidence intervals and moe.
I will, though, trust that if it shows her numbers going down, then they're probably going down.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But ten points in a week? Bloody unlikely. What we have here is a vlassic case of tolerance stacking. The last survey was likely too high, and this one likely too low. She probably hovered arounf 45-46 precent the entire time. The Dem nomination race has been fairly stable for the last 4-5 weeks. And nothing happened to cause such a sufden movement, especially when compared to other polls.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)I used to think all liberals loved science and understood statistical science like other science, and not tea leaf reading, but just another thing I am wrong about!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Is it that the 'scientific' pollsters are working for the Parties, testing which corporate funded candidate might be the best to beat any 'upstart' who is not corporate funded?
I would love to hear why non candidates are included in Primary Candidate polls. I used to think Liberals were interested in what people had to say, not willing to be led around by Corporations.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)"I like your Bernie. I do not like your Bernie supporters. Your Bernie supporters are so unlike Bernie."
artislife
(9,497 posts)You are so alike.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)going all the way back to mid-September. This poll doesn't really suggest a decline as much as it suggest that this poll is now showing what earlier polls showed.
Looked at in that way, it's possible to argue that Clinton's celebrated 'decline' seems, at least for a few weeks, to have not really further declined.
IMO the primary campaigns are moving into the real heavy work of the middle-game. Where a lot of effort must be made to move (or hold onto) 6%-8% of support that is going to make the ultimate difference in the contest for the nomination.
In that respect, the first debate is well timed to give Bernie and O'M an important and needed opportunity to step up, and the drip drip of news about the second server and suspected mishandling of information isn't such good news for H>.
George II
(67,782 posts)Interesting that even though it was less than one point, not a peep about the fact that Sanders dropped, too.
The implication is that she dropped precipitously, but there also was no mention that their last poll had her higher than any other poll NOR is there a mention that at the beginning of September (only a month ago) the same Reuters/Ipsos poll had her at 42% and in mid-September she was only at 40%!
So what Reuters essentially is saying is that from the beginning of September to now her number is basically the same.
I'm inclined to agree with some here, it's not a very accurate poll.
From Huffington Pollster, which gathers all the poll figures and lists them, here are the last several Reuters/Ipsos polls going back to mid-August (they seem to put one out every few days!) - they seem to be all over the place.
44 27
46 25
40 30
46 25
42 28
48 22
47 23
I don't recall seeing anything said when Sanders lost 1/6th of his support, "plunging" from 30 to 25 a few weeks ago.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)I expect to see her numbers go down even more.
Bernie is resonating in this country, in a big way. Give it time. Still a year to go.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)but in 40 years of being glued to politics I've NEVER seen a freefall like this. A 10-point loss in ONE WEEK. Part of that is the email stuff (rightly or wrongly, it's being obsessed over by the MSM) AND her "reversal" on the TPP which pretty much EVERYONE knows is complete bullshit.
And this is BEFORE the first debate. I think she'll get a little kick up after the debate but Bernie's will be MUCH higher. MUCH.
Normally, at this point, people would start bailing on the campaign but they'll stay knowing that the Party Machine is 100% behind her and all those juicy super delegates just eager to ignore the will of the people and vote as they've been ordered to vote.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)She still has the party machine and those super delegates in her pockets that are eager to thwart the will of the people. But they'll do it at their own peril because it will spell the demise not only of the Clintons but of the Democratic Party. The stakes are as high as they come.
Time_Lord
(60 posts)After the the first two debates, the machine will be dead. Clinton political machine is so 90s and we do need to move forward to something else that isn't entrenched in status quo for the past 35 years.
DLnyc
(2,479 posts)Absent any great event explaining the swing, I am assuming it's just a movement from one end of the margin of error (which is 4 or 5% in this case) to the other.
I do believe there is a very good chance Bernie is going to eventually win the nomination. But this "10 points in one week" just says to me these polls have a big margin of error.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)*no one knows what that means.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)was ahead by 90 points in the polls, the HRC wing of the party would still control the primaries and the convention. Even if Sanders wins a majority of the primaries, and is supported by the majority of democrats, he may not get the nomination, because the Democratic Party isn't very democratic. This is nothing new. That kind of insider fix goes back to at least 1944, and the vice presidential nomination of Harry Truman over Henry Wallace.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)I'm sure you also sincerely believe that HRC is a beacon of virtue who opposes the TTP and was genuinely mislead in her support of the Iraq War.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Regardless of the person you believe Clinton to be, 'progressives' have a history of blaming nefarious outside sources for their losses. I didn't expect the conspiracy card to be played until the Super Tuesday results rolled in.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)to support my argument, which was that those who control political parties are not above making things come out the way they want them to. Simple dismissiveness of that fact by way of the conspiracy canard is a bad combination of denial and credulity.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)In your reference to 1944, you neglect to reveal even a basic understanding of how an organized political party works. But that's another weakness of the progressive movement.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Why don't you enlighten me about how 'an organized political party works.'
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)... then you have a fundamental problem with how organized political parties work.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)and that's exactly why I wouldn't put it past the 'organized political party' to perform the same service for Hillary it did for Truman, and for the same basic reasons: The leadership knew Roosevelt would not likely live out his term, and they decided that Wallace was too liberal and too pro-labor. That act of brilliance by the 'organized political party' may well have made the Cold War inevitable and directed the course of history for the last half of the 20th century. HRC is Truman with a pedigree.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Truth is, he didn't. Just as he was dumped by FDR, he was also put into that role by FDR over protests by the Party.
Time magazine called him one of the nation's worst VPs ever and he was immensely unpopular within the party and the party rank and file.
I understand you have an Oliver Stone-inspired theory as to what Wallace MAY have done had he remained on the ticket, other have a very different view - like making too many concessions to Stalin.
What you're actually doing now is preparing your excuses for when the Democrat beats the non-Democrat in the primary elections.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)The anointed one is not Sanders. Time Magazine? Did it print that the same month it put Truman on its cover? Time's allegation of Wallace's unpopularity with the rank and file is not borne out by the facts.
What might have been with a President Wallace is not 'an Oliver Stone inspired theory' even though Stone may be right and is most certainly not wrong because he is Oliver Stone. I do wish you Clinton people could see fit to steer away from ad homimen fallacies.
I've already stated that real democrat will not win the nomination. He will not win because the Democratic Party is merely a somewhat kinder and gentler corporatist front. No excuses are necessary for stating that obvious fact.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Sure. Wallace managed to get exactly ZERO electoral votes in the '48 election. The argument over his popularity with rank and file Democrats was settled then.
Certainly no ad homimen fallacy. Your conjecture is shared by Oliver Stone. I see no reason to believe you thought of it first or independent of him.
Sanders is not a 'real Democrat.' And he has stated as such.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)at the '44 convention. That was when the big shots stepped in to take control. Wallace ran as a third party candidate in '48 and did about as well as most such candidates. You must have just forgot to mention those things.
I was raised on ILWU unionism and the Democratic Party. Henry Wallace was an icon in my home. Who knows when Oliver Stone first thought of Henry Wallace? Why would you even suggest that I'm an Oliver Stone parrot if not to be personally offensive?
Is there some definition of 'a real democrat' I missed? I don't see why Sanders can't be a socialist and democrat if HRC can be a corporate tool and a democrat? Can you? Personally, I don't believe that HRC amounts to a pimple on a real democrats ass, but that's just my opinion, and opinions don't mean much, mine or yours. Try not to keep confusing yours with fact.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Argument of his popularity settled.
Lots of left wing revisionism regarding Wallace these day among the netroots. Never sources. Truthiness.
Other than being a religious zealot of sorts, both FDR and Eleanor thought Wallace to be horrible presidential material and bumped him from the ticket. Good thing, too. His '48 platform included disarmament, an end to the Marshall Plan and no assistance to European countries facing Soviet threats.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)And leftists? It's OK to disagree with them, but you sound like that asshole Rahm Emanuel. No wonder Sanders is so popular. This has been a most enlightening discussion. I am now absolutely convinced that the Third Way Democratic Party has been weighed in the scales and found to be nothing but light weight republican. You guys keep moving right and you'll loose the damn election.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)But Roosevelt made the correct call.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)in my mouth. Mockery is not a rebuttal. If you have an argument with supporting evidence that the fix is never in, let's hear it. Otherwise, spare me.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)because the big money in the party decided Obama could win. They threw her the Secretary of State bone and told her to wait until '16.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)That she should have been the rightful nominee and it was given to Obama?
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)She lost the nomination because the big donors decided to back Obama, and the money decides the vote.
mythology
(9,527 posts)The number of delegates needed to win the nomination is known. The number of delegates awarded in each primary and caucus along with the number of super delegates is known.
The delegates awarded in each primary or caucus are sent from the candidate. So unless the Clinton campaign stuck moles in the Sanders campaign who secretly vote for Clinton at the convention, you are pushing a conspiracy theory without even the slightest proof.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)You can change the rules with a voice vote rather than a recorded vote that disqualifies a candidates delegates at the state level. You can keep a candidates delegates out of the convention by challenging their credentials or making it otherwise onerous for them to attend the convention. Finally, the party can move to decertify the candidate regardless of the number of delegates he has. The party can even move to decertify the primaries altogether or change dates and times to discomfit one candidate or the other. The party leadership can do pretty much whatever it wants. Does that help?
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)We have the biggest ship, and you still have the lead, damnit, increase the throttles. Full power! Give the passengers a real thrill . . . what was that noise? Oooops.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)despite Hillary's desperate attempts to appear more liberal than she is.
An excellent trend. For the good of the country, may it continue.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Is it the 'unabashed centrist' Hillary, or the 'what Beernie said' Hillary? Maybe it was the war-mongering Hillary? Or is it the Goldwater Girl Hillary? Perhaps several Hillarys should be included in the poll....that would help her point her red weathervane arrow.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Was it the Hillary before all her flip flopping,
or the "new and improved" Hillary
after all the flip flopping she did
to make her appear to be a "Bernie-clone"?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)patches for Microsoft Outlook.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Bernie fans run with it of course LOLZ
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I think its not reliable.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)That's anything the Clinton fans don't like?