2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJUST RELEASED IOWA POLL!!! - Clinton 51% Sanders 43% O'Malley 4%
Sanders 51% to 43%.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_0f8be4ffea6949a298ba44d6eba0a6da.pdf
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-iowa-presidential-democratic-caucus
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)SansACause
(520 posts)All the latest polls seem to agree that she has a 7-8% win.
Madmiddle
(459 posts)The real poll is Bernie at 57% Hillary 43%. Bernie will win in a landslide.
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)That's fucking laughable. Good luck with that!
TekGryphon
(430 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)No need to insult me, sir or madame. That being said , I will be the larger person, rise above the fray, and not respond in kind.
With all due respect,
DemocratSinceBirth
bvf
(6,604 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)and embarrassing in its ignorance. Keep going. You have nothing left to lose.
/TTAR
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)and embarrassing in its ignorance. Keep going. You have nothing left to lose.
/TTAR
Sir or madame, the need for you to use the anonymity of the internet to insult me reveals more about you than it can ever reveal about me. But I will continue to rise above the fray, be the bigger person, and not respond in kind.
With all due respect,
DemocratSinceBirth
Gman
(24,780 posts)about this time tomorrow.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)BTW, I wish the gentleman who attacked me did so in any other fora.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)...and presume to lecture others about using "the anonymity of the internet"?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is in no way an embarrassment, ignorant or threadbare act.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I wish my reluctance to trade insults on an anonymous message board was a function of my temperament and good character and not because if I respond in kind, due to the vagaries of the jury system, I will have my post hidden and not be able to participate in a thread I started.
But I can take solace in the fact that I can look myself in the mirror and tell myself I am not the type of person that has to hide behind anything.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)DSB posted a legit poll, which may or may not be accurate. Its not his fault either way.
Lighten up a bit, life will go on after tonight in any event.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Mon Feb 1, 2016, 05:05 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Your whole act has become threadbare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1108793
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is a needless and completely unprovoked personal attack. As nasty as it is unnecessary
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 1, 2016, 05:11 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attack
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Normally, it is rude enough to hide. But...GDP has sunk so low, it is difficult to even muster a care about this. Mosh pit away, kids.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Thanks.
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)Mad·ame
məˈdäm,-ˈdam/
noun
a title or form of address used of or to a French-speaking woman
Myself? If you are going to mix languages or just not make sense during your condescension, can you please make it Senoras or Senioritas?
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Without them there would be no U.S.A.!
The War of Independence plays such an important part in American popular ideology that references to it are especially prone to exaggeration and oversimplification. And two uncomfortable truths about it - the fact that it was a civil war (perhaps 100,000 loyalists fled abroad at its end), and that it was also a world war (the Americans could scarcely have won without French help) - are often forgotten.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/rebels_redcoats_01.shtml
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)I do not hate the French and with an advanced degree in History I am aware of their contributions.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Most Americans are ignorant of that fact. I am a guide at a National Park location that has Revolutionary War significance. You would be shocked at how many don't rem ember what happened in 1776!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)məˈdäm,-ˈdam/
noun
a title or form of address used of or to a French-speaking woman
Myself? If you are going to mix languages or just not make sense during your condescension, can you please make it Senoras or Senioritas ?
Dear sir or madame:
"Dear sir or madam(e)" has always been a perfectly acceptable salutation, in English, when you don't know the identify of whom you are speaking to, since time immemorial.
With all due respect,
DemocratSinceBirth
bvf
(6,604 posts)Do yourself a favor and keep to words of two syllables or fewer, the better not to hurt yourself. As it stands, you're coming across like Irwin Corey, minus the comedy.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Do yourself a favor and keep to words of two syllables or fewer, the better not to hurt yourself. As it stands, you're coming across like Irwin Corey, minus the comedy.
-bvf
As I have said, ad nauseam and ad infinitum, I will be the bigger man, rise above the fray, and not respond to your puerile epithets in kind, here.
With all due respect,
DemocratSinceBirth
bvf
(6,604 posts)Again, stick to English. There'll still be plenty of time for you to mangle Latin in your wretched attempts to sound educated.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Again, stick to English. There'll still be plenty of time for you to mangle Latin in your wretched attempts to sound educated.
-bvf
Ad nauseam= to the point of nausea
Ad infinty = to infinty
to no end
Dear sir or madame, as I have ad nauseam and ad inifity, I couldn't care less what you think my level of education is. The fact that you would use an anonymous message board to disrespect me reveals more about you than it can ever reveal about me.
With all due respect,
DemocratSinceBirth
bvf
(6,604 posts)How better to explain your expression of umbrage when called upon your constant misuse of language, native or otherwise?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I think you care *a great deal* about others' perceptions.How better to explain your expression of umbrage when called upon your constant misuse of language, native or otherwise?
-bvf
Do you insult random strangers in real life?
And if you do how does it work out for you?
Thank you in advance.
With all due respect,
DemocratSinceBirth
bvf
(6,604 posts)for those who pretend to know English, and especially for those who've not only failed to do so, but who also crap on foreign tongues in pathetic reaches for a patina of erudition.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Sir or madame, I have the gift of divining what my interlocutors are like and look like in real life and that gift allows me to divine that you are most definitely not the person to have the intestinal fortitude to disrespect anybody in real life. I am sure a smart lad like yourself will make the right inference from what I wrote.
With all due respect,
DemocratSinceBirth
bvf
(6,604 posts)I know plenty of people similarly gifted.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I take that as my assessment was correct. It's okay. Some folks need an anonymous medium to spew their venom. Spewing one's venom in real life is fraught with danger.
bvf
(6,604 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Sir or madame, I would literally wager my life my initial assessment was correct.
ˈlidərəlē,ˈlitrəlē/
adverb
in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
"the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle"
synonyms: exactly, precisely, actually, really, truly; More
informal
used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
"I have received literally thousands of letters"
bvf
(6,604 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)It took a while but we now know what we think of each other.
Worse things to be than a pedant, even an arrant or failed one, much worse things.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 2, 2016, 02:01 AM - Edit history (1)
But it's amusing to see you belabor the point in so pretentious a manner.
ETA: You missed a few.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)If I have to go to my grave as a failed or arrant pedant there are much worse things I could have taken to the afterlife with me, much worse things.
bvf
(6,604 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)X is at worst a failed or arrant pedant who jocularly "crap(s) on foreign tongues in pathetic reaches for a patina of
erudition ", ergo:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1112387
Y is a person who uses anonymous mediums to insult and disrespect people he or she would never have the intestinal fortitude to insult or disrespect in real life.
I am content to let the readers of this thread decide who X and Y are in our little tete-a-tete and whom they really would rather be.
bvf
(6,604 posts)
I am content to let the readers of this thread decide who X and Y are in our little tete-a-tete and whom they really would rather be.
What a break for them. I'll bet they're grateful for your magnanimity.
You may want to edit your post. That word doesn't mean what you apparently think it does (and no, I'm not going to tell you which one--it's time you learned to pull your own weight).
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I would rather be the funny, facetious, and humorous guy than the guy who uses anonymous mediums to denigrate, disrespect, and dehumanize others, you?
bvf
(6,604 posts)You completely missed it, btw, but that was to be expected.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Sir or madame, rather than exchange cryptic comments, please confine yourself to the discipline I imposed, and answer my straightforward question:
Would you rather be the funny, facetious, and humorous guy or the guy who uses anonymous mediums to denigrate, disrespect, and dehumanize others ?
Thank you in advance.
With all due respect,
DemocratSinceBirth
P.S. I would rather be the former.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Your imposition carries no weight whatsoever. Funny that you think it might, though.
Would you rather have a candy bar or a mild case of gout? How about a bag of nickels vs. scabies?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Sir or madame, if someone asked me if I would rather be a comedian or a bully and a pusillanimous one at that, who searches for anonymous mediums where he or she could disrespect, dehumanize, and denigrate people, I would readily say I would rather be the former. Why would I demur from answering such a straightforward question?
Respectfully,
DemocratSinceBirth
bvf
(6,604 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I don't think so, sir or madame, but your refusal to answer my question is quite revealing... Too close to home???
Respectfully,
DemocratSinceBirth
bvf
(6,604 posts)Why refuse to answer such a simple question?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)The former in both instances, sir or madame. See how easy it was.
What your obscurantism fails to hide is I built a factual foundation before I asked my question.
Respectfully,
DemocratSinceBirth
bvf
(6,604 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)But you would have worked as hard as I did to establish a foundation for your question as I did mine.
Respectfully,
DemocratSinceBirth
bvf
(6,604 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)educated. Wouldn't you?
But that said, why are you doing this? Did your turtle run away and you're afraid your dog will bite you?
bvf
(6,604 posts)Now, let's see that transcript.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)but I sense a certain defensiveness on your part regarding a particular, uh, interlocutor.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)They are way out of tune.
bvf
(6,604 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)for one's health.
bvf
(6,604 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)But I can easily distinguish friendly advice from what reads like a thinly veiled threat.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Sir or madame, it is my fair and unbiased opinion that it isn't.
bvf
(6,604 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Sir or madame, I am not too big a man to not give credit where credit is due. In my entire life I have never met a person as diligent as you in searching for picayune errors of grammar and word usage.
You have elevated it into an art, even finding misspellings and malapropisms even where they don't exist.
I feel as if I am "talking" to Professor Higgins.
Kudos!
Respectfully,
DemocratSincebirth
bvf
(6,604 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Sir or madame, if you believing reading is synonymous with searching for picayune errors on the internet where they don't even exist, to patronize and insult strangers on an anonymous message board there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.
With all due respect,
DemocratSinceBirth
bvf
(6,604 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I will probably have a response later. Don't leave your computer.
bvf
(6,604 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)-bvf
That's what people like you are for.
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #158)
Post removed
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Too bad for you, but entertaining for everyone else who delights in seeing your ever-growing trail of incompetence at what is assumed to be your native language.
Someone else here wondered if you work in education. I myself find that possibility alarming.
-bvf
If following me around this site searching for picayune errors so you can disrespect me boosts your self esteem I feel as if I am doing a service. In any other fora I would tell you what I think of you and your condescending attitude. Failing that I will take solace in the fact that you lack the intestinal fortitude to disrespect anybody away from the anonymity of an internet connection, especially me.
I am certain a lad as smart as you think you are can make the right inference.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Don't flatter yourself. Nobody's following you around, but if they were, it would be for the grins you unfailingly provide, sir or macadam.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I stand by everything I said and I welcome anybody to do a search. They will invariably discover you responding to my posts and trying to provoke me. I would literally wager my life that you could never muster the intestinal fortitude to disrespect me in any other fora. The fact that you persist reveals more about your pusillanimity than it can ever reveal anything about me.
bvf
(6,604 posts)How about that? And from the anonymity of a fake handle, no less.
Astounding.
Respectively,
Something put in bold in order to indicate something or other, probably. Not really sure, but why not? Ergo ad infinity. With stadium muster.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)View profile
How about that? And from the anonymity of a fake handle, no less.
Astounding.
Respectively,
Something put in bold in order to indicate something or other, probably. Not really sure, but why not? Ergo ad infinity. With stadium muster.
-bvf
You continue to use this forum to belittle me. Pick another forum where we can speak freely and I will be more than happy to reveal my true identity. I never had to use the cloak of anonymity to insult anyone. That's not how I roll.
bvf
(6,604 posts)I just point it once in a while.
You can't speak freely here? Hmm. Shame, that.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)You belittle yourself.
I just point it once in a while.
You can't speak freely here? Hmm. Shame, that.
-bvf
If I respond in kind to your puerile insults I will surely have my post hidden as so many of my friends here have. You can send me a private message. At that point I will give you my e-mail address and we can tell each other what we really think of each other. That would be the chivalrous thing to do. Unlike others here I will not reveal the contents of our private conversations nor will I forward them to the administrator. Again, that's not how I roll...
Also, the board doesn't have to be bored why you display your antipathy for me, from the anonymity of your computer.
The ball is in your court.
bvf
(6,604 posts)I've been pretty much saying what I think all along.
That you can't do likewise says plenty, all by itself.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)What a silly offer.
I've been pretty much saying what I think all along.
-bvf
That you can't do likewise says plenty, all by itself.
Because if I said what I truly felt about your verbal bullying of me my post would be hidden.
Why do you insist on using the anonymity this message board provides, boring the rest of the members of this board displaying your antipathy for me, and wasting the Administrator's bandwidth when I have provided you with a venue to spew your venom for me?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)She was Madam Secretary while heading the State Department and she doesn't seem French.
bvf
(6,604 posts)It doesn't seem so.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)You were the one casting aspersions on the French. Quel dommage!
bvf
(6,604 posts)Pauvre petit!
thomservo
(147 posts)New quinnipiac poll with sanders up 3.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)That's fucking laughable. Good luck with that! "
No need to patronize me, sir or madame. That being said , I will be the larger person, rise above the fray, and not respond in kind.
With all due respect,
DemocratSinceBirth
P.S. For those interested in civil discourse here is a link to 538 which gives Hillary Clinton a 75% chance of winning the Iowa caucus:
?w=800&h
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/#polls-only
Flying Phoenix
(114 posts)Have a nice evening, Clinton supporters. Have a lot of tissues ready.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Have a wonderful life.
Respectfully,
DemocratSinceBirth
thomservo
(147 posts)a new quinnipiac poll that shows Sanders up 3 with a much larger sample size.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)riversedge
(70,281 posts)Did something big happen in the last 12 hours?
riversedge
(70,281 posts)WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)While this poll was in the last three days.
bvf
(6,604 posts)dropping random letters from their names. You must have missed the memo.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)how many people actually show up to caucus is the only poll that matters.
its a toss up at this point.
liberal N proud
(60,339 posts)oasis
(49,400 posts)operation he has ever seen.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)riversedge
(70,281 posts)The Qinnipiac poll that is being touted on gd-p started on Jan 25--through Jan31 -That is LONNNGGG time ago.
The Emerison poll in the OP is newer. --much better as things change so fast
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-iowa-presidential-democratic-caucus
Pollster Dates Pop. Clinton Sanders O'Malley Biden Chafee Lessig Webb Undecided
Emerson College Polling Society NEW! 1/29 - 1/31 300 LV 51 43 4 - - - - 3
Quinnipiac NEW! 1/25 - 1/31 919 LV 46 49 3 - - - - 2
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...but wasn't yesterday Jan. 31? How is that a LONNNGGG time ago?
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)that put Bernie ahead and Clinton behind. If that means using old data to support their meme that Clinton will lose so be it.
Thanks for the reality checks riversedge!
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
DrBulldog
(841 posts)And it's run by polling amateurs.
riversedge
(70,281 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)The poll was conducted 1/29-1/31
http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_0f8be4ffea6949a298ba44d6eba0a6da.pdf
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
Nanjeanne
(4,974 posts)those are the numbers reported.
Among Independents voting in the DEMOCRATIC primary the poll numbers are a 12 point spread 56-44 in favor of Sanders.
So the headline could have been Sanders ahead by 12 points.
Details details.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Don't take that away from him. It would break his heart.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Thank you in advance.
bvf
(6,604 posts)/TTAR
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)those are the numbers reported.
Among Independents voting in the DEMOCRATIC primary the poll numbers are a 12 point spread 56-44 in favor of Sanders.
So the headline could have been Sanders ahead by 12 points.
Details details.
Dear sir or madame, the top line results include all who will participate in the caucus:
Sanders 51% to 43%
That is why the results are reported as Clinton 51 Sanders 43% 0' Malley 4% here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html
here:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-iowa-presidential-democratic-caucus
and here:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/#polls-only
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)Thanks for posting the poll results and refuting the skewed-polls crowd
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)BTW, those are links to aggregate polls (all polls) if you are interested.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)http://www.fairvote.org/primaries#presidential_primary_or_caucus_type_by_state
Any way I addressed the poster's larger point here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1108803
LS_Editor
(893 posts)Said the zen master.
Jarqui
(10,130 posts)- but pretty close
The Emerson poll - haven't got a clue how they arrived at their numbers - they don't provide much
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Depaysement
(1,835 posts)What exactly do you do for a living?
I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious. My guess would be education.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)GO HILLARY!!!
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)The sooner Bernie goes away the better
I'd rather have him in the Senate doing nothing than in the white house doing nothing
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)It's pantsuits time in
Iowa
Gothmog
(145,487 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)You know they're getting nervous.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I gotta feeling that tonight's gonna be a good night
That tonight's gonna be a good night
That tonight's gonna be a good, good night!
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)in the Democratic caucus, or if they can. If they can, than this poll is severely flawed.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Bernie's in the lead!!!!
XD
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Hanlon's Razor-never attribute to malice that which can best can be attributed to incompetence.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)But I would need to know more about the person who wrote the synopsis to believe he or she is part of that group. I have seen Democrats make that mistake.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)in polls conducted according to every other accepted methodology.
Here is the aggregation of all robo-call polls (including today's):
Looks like Clinton has an 8% lead.
Here is an aggregation of all the accepted methodology polls where data is gathered by live landline and cell phone polling (e.g., Quinnipiac, Des Moines Register/Bloomberg/Selzer, NBC/WSJ/Marist, Monmouth University, ARG, Iowa State/WHO-HD, FOX, CNN, Loras College, Mason-Dixon/AARP, NBC/Marist, Suffolk/USA Today, Suffolk):
Looks like a dead heat with Sanders coming into the caucus with a lot of momentum.
I'm not a huge fan of internet-based polling because it is not as reliable or as well accepted as live landline and cell phone polling, but it is much more reliable than robo-call polling. Here is an aggregation of the internet based polls (e.g., CBS/YouGov, Morning Consult):
This internet polling confirms the live landline and cell phone polling and refutes the robo-call polling.
Don't be confused by the junk polls out there, the Iowa caucuses are tied.
Also, bear in mind that attempting to poll a primary is much harder than polling a general election, and attempting to poll a caucus is much harder than polling a primary.
The aggregate of polling in Iowa in 2008 understated Obama's support by 7% and understated Edwards support by 4% (but pretty much nailed the ceiling for third-place Clinton's support).
This is the sprint to the finish. Let's finish strong!
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I got lectured endlessly by Bernie fans yesterday for that.
pandr32
(11,605 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)the race issue properly, I am actually rooting for him to lose BIG TIME!!
cali
(114,904 posts)kcjohn1
(751 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Hillary was surging right before the election!
riversedge
(70,281 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)or both? LOL
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Response to Live and Learn (Reply #117)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)-Live and Learn
I don't know. Do you think it tastes something like this?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/new-hampshire-primary-2016/index.html
Thank you in advance.
With all due respect,
DemocratSinceBirth
Number23
(24,544 posts)Oh my God! A poll said that Hillary would get 51% and she only got 50%!
SERIOUSLY
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)..for the delicious Schadenfreude.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Oh, caucuses happened.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Hillary by 9%!
For the 1%!
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...does that make me a bad person?
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)and it was conduducted Jan 29 through 31, so right down to the wire.
Okay, it's hard to tell precisely since actual individual votes are not reported, but there should be some reasonable correlation (or all the polls would have been worthless), and this one was pretty far off.
The same poll gave Iowa to Trump on the Republican side, and way underestimated Carson.
One can argue about whether it was a good day or a bad day for Hillary, but I think most can agree, it was a bad day for Emerson College!
reformist2
(9,841 posts)If they mess up NH as well (off by 6 points or more), they should be considered unreliable.