in pre-trial negotiations, in court. etc.

In the last set of NYT/Sienna state polls, ALL were different from the average of polls and all were different in the same direction.

The reason is that to get a reasonable estimate of what people really want which is what would be the result if the election is now they need to weight the raw sample results to reflect that not all sampled people are equally likely to vote. The model to do that is more art than science or as they might phrase it heuristic. This is a case where to not adjust for likeliness to vote would produce inaccurate results, but it is very possible that because the dynamics of every election is different.

They are fighting the last war - correcting to reflect the dynamics of 2016. Yet, I doubt anyone here thinks the energy is distributed similarly now. Any complacency that existed in 2016 is long gone.

arguments for and against forms, legal cliches, spins, 'facts', 'laws', arguments in general, no few bounds. Repetition and loudness abound - just like the poll 'discussion' threads on DU.

Once the caucuses are over, none of our candidates should spend another second or dollar in the state.

IA is so inconsequential when you look at who’s ahead in most of the state primary polls. HINT: it isn’t sanders

Link to tweet

I posted this on a different thread, but the added info that Trump is doing better as well lends weight to this being relevant. is not intended to minimize Sanders, but to raise the issue that was raised when the same group put out a set of swing state polls.

The NYT daily podcast covered their polling and how they tried to learn from 2016. What they changed was the likelihood of voting model because in many swing states their explanation of why they "were wrong" was that they under represented the white non college educated white males. However, this year will have energy on both sides - so it may be that not only will more non college educates whites will vote, but more POC, young people etc will vote. (Consider that young people voted at the lowest rate - therefore they have the most potential to gain.) Think of it as fighting the last war.

I am not saying that Bernie is not gaining - many polls show that he is. However, this poll is much higher than the average of the others to this point. It could just be the first poll showing new gains or it could reflect the different model used to reflect who will actually vote.

In some ways, this may be the first test of their rebalancing that others are not doing. That will be important - not just because it is likely to show Bernie Sanders doing better, but it will mean that we need to be more concerned about the scary general election results.

Did you expect Iowa to flip to the Dems?

Nominate Sanders, and Trump gets to name RBGs replacement to the Supreme Count in all likelihood.

Bernie seems to outperform his primary poll!