ABC national poll: Clinton's decline and Sanders' rise continue

[Karmadillo]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-hits-wall-gop-critics-back-convention-fight/story?id=37474752

[Renew Deal]

1. Hillary is winning the popular vote 60-39

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

[Logical]

2. Lol, she was annointed and it is not going as planned!

[Renew Deal]

4. Right. She's winning the popular vote, the delegates, and the super-delegates

Was she planning to lose?

[Hiraeth]

10. images in your rearview mirror are larger than they appear.

[dchill]

20. +1,000,000

[Renew Deal]

54. Larger, but not closer

And falling further behind almost daily.

[Hiraeth]

61. gaining ground DAILY as evidenced by the absentee ballots which, are normally cast early

therefore reflecting (as it should) that HRC was widely known and had the NAME RECOGNITION at the time those ballots were cast.

We've come a long way baby from those ballots.

FEEL THE BERN. YOU ARE SO CLOSE TO THE FLAME !!!

[Renew Deal]

67. You guys are in for a hard crash

[Demsrule86]

91. Sen. Sanders will lose Michigan

I see no path forward for him.

[Logical]

14. She was planning to have no one challange her. And an unknown is winning states. Nt

[Renew Deal]

51. How do you know this?

Guessing? Fantasy?

Everyone knew O'Malley was running and someone else was likely.

[Gore1FL]

76. She clearly was unprepared for a race.

Either that or she and her staff are wildly incompetent.

I am giving her the benefit of the doubt.

[George II]

44. With each round of primaries Clinton's lead grows. Now up to 200, will be ~230 tonight....

....and by next Tuesday night it'll be more than 425.

And that's not including the ~450 delegate lead she has among superdelegates.

After next Tuesday, Sanders will have to win about 70% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. There are no more states remaining to vote like Vermont.

[Gore1FL]

79. Superdelegates are only endorsements at this point

They will not sway the nomination. If they ever did, the PArty would explode on national television.

[Plucketeer]

50. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

So it's the CONVENTION you're focused on - NOT the White House! Yeah, she's a "winner" for sure!

[Renew Deal]

53. The thread is about the primary

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511442400

[Plucketeer]

70. I know

Forgive me for being forward thinking.

[angrychair]

8. Totally different concepts

The OP poll is a national polling average of all likely voter (meant to be representative of millions of voters in a GE nationwide) while your chart is actual vote total in a primary that is about 12% of, almost exclusively, Democratic Party voters. Huge difference and about as a apples and oranges comparison as you can get.

[Bubzer]

16. You're citing a fly-by-night? Post a mainstream source if you want to be taken seriously on this.

[Renew Deal]

65. Green Papers isn't mainstream?

Just because you don't know them doesn't make them out of the mainstream. They are probably the most credible site on primary procedures and delegate allocations. They were recently cited by MSNBC.

[Bubzer]

80. It's a roll up blog... of course it's a fly-by-nite. Anyone can make a roll-up blog...

and pretend it's credible. No, it's not mainstream. Being cited one upon a time doesn't make them mainstream by any stretch.

[Renew Deal]

83. You don't know anything about them

There's nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend.

[Bubzer]

84. It's a fly-by-night. Your deflection is laughable

[Renew Deal]

85. Define fly by night? When was the first time you visited them?

[Bubzer]

86. The when of my visitation of their site is irrelevent to them being a fly-by-night.

No matter how much you'd like it to be otherwise, they're simply not a mainstream blog.

[Renew Deal]

87. Your first visit is related to your lack of knowledge.

And it's OK to not know. Here is some information that might help improve your understanding.

The Dallas Observer calls The Green Papers "venerable"

Definition of Venerable:

adjective
1.
commanding respect because of great age or impressive dignity; worthy of veneration or reverence, as because of high office or noble character:
a venerable member of Congress.

2.
a title for someone proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church to have attained the first degree of sanctity or of an Anglican archdeacon.

3.
(of places, buildings, etc.) hallowed by religious, historic, or other lofty associations:
the venerable halls of the abbey.

4.
impressive or interesting because of age, antique appearance, etc.:
a venerable oak tree.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/venerable?s=t

The founder is cited in many books and other media. https://www.google.com/#q=Richard+E.+Berg-Andersson

[Bubzer]

93. Alright. Lets break this down.

First: You're citing a city's local paper as proof of mainstream status? Are we talking mainstream on the microscopic level? If you're talking on that level, I'll give it to you without dispute. But, no, this isn't even remotely a quantifiable piece of support for your claim of being mainsteream, especially since this paper even defines itself within the confines of the city it serves:

Over the past eighteen years, the Dallas Observer has grown from a small weekly to a major force in this city, where the paper is known for its hard-edged investigative stories about government, politics and business, as well as its pointed, provocative coverage of sports, music and the arts.

Trotting out a definition of the word venerable only proves you're able to research the word venerable, and not much else. Sorry, that doesn't support your claim either.

Citing RICHARD E. BERG-ANDERSSON as being in multiple books and other media doesn't make the green papers mainstream either... this is a classic fallacy known as: it doesn't follow... or more commonly known as a non sequitur... which is defined as a conclusion that could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion... as is the case here.

Add to that, if it were so very mainstream, a google search for the green papers should turn up numerous results from all the people looking it up and all the net traffic going to the site, yes? Well, not so much. To google's credit, the first result returns true, and we can get right to the green papers. However, due to very little traffic to the blog, there's not much more than the single entry
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+green+papers

Lastly, thanks to the marvels of the modern internet, we can actually get a look at the traffic that goes to the site in a number of way. One of the most basic is provided by the site itself through it's webtracker - visitor counter. It shows 2,210,873 visitors... a not insignificant number...at least until you put it into context. that 2.2 million visitors has been over the span of 17 years. Broken down further, that's about 130k per year or almost 11 thousand per month. Now, I'm not saying that's a terrible amount of people, but let's compare versus a known mainstream blog such as DailyKos.

DailyKos brings in over 3 million people each month... that's about 273 times what the green papers brings in (and more in a month than the entire lifetime of the green papers).
http://www.dailykos.com/special/advertising

I can fully respect that you like the green papers... and will even go so far as to say they might even have the occasional worthwhile article... but they just do not rate a mainstream site. They are a low-level blog-roll site... and are nowhere near mainstream.

[Lizzie Poppet]

17. Apple, meet orange.

A national poll isn't the same thing as winning the popular vote so far in (mostly closed) Democratic primaries. Completely different sample base...

[jeff47]

22. It's very handy to skip the caucus states that don't release popular vote totals. (nt)

[Gene Debs]

26. You're not thinking big enough. Why not make it Clinton 100%, Sanders 0%?

[Attorney in Texas]

29. Are you deliberately misleading or do you honestly not understand the numbers you linked to?

[Renew Deal]

60. Please proceed

I want to hear about the part where Bernie has received more real votes.

[Attorney in Texas]

62. What do you think the number you posted means? Literally, what do you think that number represents?

[Attorney in Texas]

88. Can you tell me what you intended to convey with the numbers you posted? What do you think those

numbers represent?

[chervilant]

71. What?!?

You know, Bernie's big crowds, GINORMOUS contributions, and burgeoning support belie your disingenuous assertion.

And, whence comes the data posted on the obscure site you linked herein above? Seems like desperate measures to me (pun intended).

(No response necessary, since you're going on my IL.)

[Renew Deal]

72. You forgot online Poland

I mean polls

[snagglepuss]

78. She wins the popular vote in states that will vote Rethug in the GE so that is meaningless.

[Human101948]

3. Could it be she has the wrong message for the times?

In the general election, this might not matter as much. Every Republican -- except Donald Trump, the self-funding billionaire -- is enmeshed in the same pursuit of big money. But in the primary, as Clinton protests angrily that she is a true progressive reformer, her words lack conviction not because of Sanders' mild criticisms but because she has unilaterally disarmed her own credibility.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/21/panic-grips-clinton-campaign-real-question-whats-wrong-hillary

[RichGirl]

27. Democrats are not all alike.

She has the right message for the bulk of democrats...not the far left progressives. Although Bernie has forced her to move further left which is a good thing.

[Svafa]

47. Why? She'll just swing back to the right as soon as it's time to debate a Republican.

[pdsimdars]

5. It's been going in this direction for a long time as you can see

from the graph.
In the beginning no one had heard of Bernie and everyone had heard of Clinton. Now that people are getting to know Bernie and getting re-acquainted with Hillary, you can easily see what is happening.
The Democratic establishment seems to want to ignore this, but it will be the reason they will lose if they have Hillary as their nominee.
It doesn't matter what they think or what the Hillary supporters wish, this is what the public has been telling them for a while now and they refuse to listen.
If they want to win, they need to have Bernie as their nominee and promote him instead of the media blackout they are enforcing now.

[closeupready]

23. +1. But the DNC would rather lose than nominate Bernie and see him win the GE.

So these numbers and charts, while fun and interesting, will not be successful in persuading for a change in direction (though I'd like to be wrong on that).

[RichGirl]

28. That's ridiculous.

What is it with democrats taking on the right wing unproven conspiracy theories!

I thought we were the smart party.

[Waiting For Everyman]

37. No, it's obvious. nt

[6chars]

43. Voters are deciding, not the DNC

[Svafa]

58. Yeah, because the DNC, with their ridiculous debate schedule

and front-loading of Clinton-supporting states in the primaries have absolutely no influence whatsoever.

[6chars]

81. all is fair

[Svafa]

82. ...in corrupt politics.

And therein lies the problem.

[vintx]

6. Same thing happened vs. Obama.

People start finding out about the smears and her actual positions (vs. her primary persona), start getting around the media 'inevitability' meme, and it's game on.

[sufrommich]

7. Furthermore, either Democratic candidate is broadly acceptable within their party

"Furthermore, either Democratic candidate is broadly acceptable within their party: 74 percent of leaned Democrats say they’d be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee, and 72 percent would be satisfied with Sanders. "



Hmmmm,look like those dire predictions of a mass exodus from the Democratic party if Hillary wins are a lot of hot air.

[grossproffit]

12. Except here.

[BlueMTexpat]

15. Those who are most strident

about "leaving" were likely never Dems in the first place.

Any "Dem" who would NOT vote FOR the alternative to any one of the Klown Kar Kandidates is a DINO.

[A Simple Game]

31. Oops, you made a common mistake.

Any "Dem" who would NOT vote FOR an alternative to any one of the Klown Kar Kandidates is a DINO.

There, I fixed it for you.

Signed,
A DINO from the Left.

[BlueMTexpat]

34. Nice try. That's OK

for the primaries.

But if you are talking about the GE, there is only ONE viable alternative to any of the GOPers. That alternative is the Dem nominee.

My statement is correct in that context.

I presume that you either did vote or would have voted for Nader in 2000. That worked out so well.

[A Simple Game]

39. You presume wrong, I never voted for Nader nor do I blame him for Gore losing for one simple reason.

Gore won, everyone should know that by now. If Nader stole the election from Gore then he is a poor thief. He ended up with nothing, best for those blaming Nader to look around and see who benefited from that fiasco. Blaming Nader at this point in history only makes the accuser look foolish.

[BlueMTexpat]

45. You can think that all you

want. It will not change my POV that Nader and his supporters contributed to the 2000 debacle. That is not a foolish view at all.

[A Simple Game]

95. I don't have to "think that all I want" because it's a fact that Gore won.

Try looking it up some time.

So I will ask you the same thing I ask all Nader blamers; what would you do to prevent it from happening again?
Would you ban all third party candidates? Make it illegal to vote for third party candidates? Why not make the Republican party illegal?

Or you could do yourself a favor and move to a country that doesn't believe in democracy, that seems to be the direction you are leaning.

[BlueMTexpat]

96. Was Gore sworn in as President?

I must have missed that.

[A Simple Game]

98. Yes you seem to miss a lot of things don't you? n/t

[BlueMTexpat]

99. I won't miss you

and it's off to "Ignore" with you. Buh-bye.

[grossproffit]

9. New NBC national poll shows the opposite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511442339

It's hard to know which is reality.

[Dem2]

25. Both?

One show +7, one shows +17, Huffpo average is +14 - so reality is somewhere in-between those two polls.

[Mufaddal]

75. NBC has two different polls

Here's the NBC/WSJ poll:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-nine-over-sanders-nationally-new-nbc-news-wsj-poll-n533911?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=de9cfb07473e3ffbff1fb67914a3e426

Hillary Clinton holds a nine-point national lead over Bernie Sanders ahead of Tuesday's primaries in Mississippi and Michigan, according to results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Clinton gets the support of 53 percent of Democratic primary voters, while Sanders gets 44 percent. Clinton's lead is down slightly from her 53-percent-to-42 percent advantage in last month's NBC/WSJ poll, though the change is well within the survey's margin of error.

[DCBob]

11. This is among registered Democrats.

The primary contests are better polled among likely voters.. often a much different subset.

[book_worm]

13. And yet most other national polls show HRC expanding her lead

so this may very well be an outliar.

[spooky3]

56. There are only about 300 respondents in the subsample.

See the methodology description at the link. The total sample is 1000--with about a third in each group: Reps, Dems, and Independents. Large margin of error.

[PatrynXX]

18. that and after getting yet another post hidden by the HRC ******

maybe they've banned enough people they can't get back This is happening. Won't listen to facts (in this case its the main reason most republicans I know won't vote for him because he's more Pro ***** than HRC that part is fact , is he more Pro **** than she is. I honestly can't say and I'm not talking about but I guess I can't even mention his name now sigh. it was a split decision though... so now Donald is not Voldemort Thou Shalt not speak his name X_X hey didn't anyone learn from the movies??? lol

[JimDandy]

24. What? n/t

[sufrommich]

35. I've read your post three times now and

it still doesn't make sense.

[greiner3]

40. I'd say a lot of rants are in this category

The poster said he was just banned from the Hillary group and doesn't see how these posters and moderators can be trusted again. I agree a lot with at least the tone of his post

[SidDithers]

59. Earn more sessions by sleaving...nt

Sid

[Dr Hobbitstein]

63. Excuse me, waiter.

I prefer a raspberry vinaigrette in my word salad.

[JRLeft]

19. National polls don't mean shit. Bernie is in trouble.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

77. Based on what, specifically?

I'm less than thrilled that he's not polling as well as I'd like in several specific states, but on what are you basing your statement?

[dchill]

21. K&R!

[blackspade]

30. Ouch.

But at Camp Weathervane this won't count....for some reason.

[demwing]

32. As critical mass approaches

we need to keep Bernie well funded

Time and money folks, that's all we'll need.

[George II]

52. Unfortunately for him, time and money are running out.

[stevenleser]

33. Yep, and by the middle of her second term, Bernie might catch her.

[NurseJackie]

64. Ha!! :-D

[Beartracks]

36. What are "registered leaned Democrats"?

I think someone templated from an old chart, and forgot to double-check their edits.

===============

[zentrum]

38. K&R

[Waiting For Everyman]

41. Well now, isn't that interesting?

Looks like Ms. Inevitable is falling off her perch.

[George II]

42. Maybe ABC should take a look at this:

[Buzz Clik]

49. +1

[WillyT]

46. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[amborin]

48. K&R

[MFM008]

55. we shall see

today.

[downeastdaniel]

57. Many Millions are feeling the Bern! Like 3 outta 4 states this weekend.

[NurseJackie]

66. HONEST QUESTION: How many STATES does it take to win the Democratic nomination?

[Chicago1980]

68. And yet Michigan and Mississippi will be going into the Clinton column this evening.

The media certainly knows how to divide.

It'll be up to us if we allow them to conquer.

[Pauldg47]

69. I assume these numbers already include the south's populational survey..

...therefore, the remainder of the nation favors Bernie....I'm estimating a safe 42-48% in Bernie's favor....what do you all think? Oh....p.s.; the number will be growing!!!???

[Trust Buster]

73. Sanders is a fringe candidate. He will continue to lose. Next Tuesday will end this nonsense.

[rtracey]

74. Biden/Warren 2016

Biden/Warren 2016

[Attorney in Texas]

89. You typed that backwards

[Attorney in Texas]

90. This poll is consistent with the trend among all of the other reliable polls.

If you graph ALL of the polls (even including a bunch of polls that have a proven pro-Hillary house effect) that use a live cell/landline polling method, they show a very tight single digit race:



If you then focus even tighter on only the likely voter polls (the registered voter and all adult polls are known to be less predictive), you see the race is even tighter:



If you increase the smoothing (more smoothing better captures the trends and less smoothing better captures the individual ups and down among the polls), you see the trend is down to a 5% margin for both of these two types of polls:





There is a lot of garbage polling out there. The polls that use a more reliable methodology consistently show this as a very tight race. Importantly, the race is tightening as it goes forward.

Keep fighting!

[Lucinda]

92. So this is just lean Dem and not likely voters?

Interesting.

[amborin]

94. Voters appreciate Bernie's honesty & intergrity

[Katashi_itto]

97. K&R