Those circulating the "Sanders is doing better than Obama at this point" meme should keep in mind...

[brooklynite]

...that Clinton is doing better than Clinton at this point.

In 2007-2008, Obama didn't win by peeling votes away from Clinton. Clinton Voters know all her "issues" and have decided to stick with her. The difference is that, in 2007-2008, she never was higher than 45%, so there were always a majority of Democratic votes available for Obama to pick up:



This time around, Clinton Voters also know her "issues", and are sticking with her; however with the exception of one month (Aug-Sept) when Clinton wasn't campaigning actively, she's been consistently been at 55-60%.



So unless Sanders can find a NEW compelling reason for Clinton Voters to switch their allegiance, he's going to be hitting a ceiling of about 45%.

(nb - this is when someone will tell me about all the NEW voters Sanders will attract, that aren't reflected in polling. You might want to pass that news on to Sen. Sanders, who's said he'd lose if voting was occurring now).

[AgingAmerican]

1. What I want to know

Is when will 80% of Hillary supporters discover the internet? Are they stuck in landline land? They sure have a knack for finding their way to corporate sponsored landline polls.

I believe that Clinton supporters are simply jealous of Sanders and his simple message, which garners wide appeal across all demographics. He doesn't have to do massive polling, focus groups and expensive 'listening tours' to make decisions on simple matters of right and wrong.

[brooklynite]

2. And by "do this" you mean point out polling data that Sanders isn't disputing?

[RandySF]

4. Do what? State facts?

I remember all the talk about landlines vs cell phones in 2004 and it didn't pan out.

[AgingAmerican]

8. Over a decade ago?

Well, that explains a lot.

[RandySF]

9. I think we're still exaggerating the cell phone effect.

[AgingAmerican]

15. Then explain this, beginning in 2004...

[Juicy_Bellows]

21. I find 50% to be unbelievable.

No one I know, including my 70yr old mother has a land line.

The trend is undeniable.

[RandySF]

27. "Everyone I know voted for McGovern"

[Juicy_Bellows]

30. Clever - Let me ask you a question.

What would you guess would be the cell phone to land line ratio in US households? What do you think the land line ratio is for people living in apartments and new home owners?

[AgingAmerican]

68. "When painted into a corner, change the subject"

[trueblue2007]

61. ~~~~> I HAVE A LAND LINE AND I LOVE IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Most credible pollsters poll landline and cell phone users.

Most credible pollsters poll landline and cell phone users.

[Juicy_Bellows]

32. If they do that they must dial manually.

I've looked for methodology but a lot of times it's not clear that they are including cell phones. They would have to dial manually and that is cost prohibitive. I've never been polled on my cell phone, anecdotal to be sure, but I don't think it's as common as it should be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html?_r=0

"Election polling is in near crisis, and we pollsters know. Two trends are driving the increasing unreliability of election and other polling in the United States: the growth of cellphones and the decline in people willing to answer surveys. Coupled, they have made high-quality research much more expensive to do, so there is less of it. This has opened the door for less scientifically based, less well-tested techniques. To top it off, a perennial election polling problem, how to identify “likely voters,” has become even thornier."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. ABC-WAPO , CNN, FOX, NBC-WSJ, CBS-NYT all do landline/cell phone polls.

Quinnipiac and Monmouth University too...

[AgingAmerican]

69. You posted a debate poll a week or two ago wherein over half of the respondents

didn't even know a debate had occurred. You were bragging that the poll was taken 'right after the debate' but only something like 20% had actually watched. The rest either didn't watch it or had 'heard about it' on corporate cable news. It was a name recognition poll.

[MineralMan]

5. Which group do you think is not using the Internet?

Hell, even my 87 year old mother-in-law is on the Internet. So, I'm not sure which demographic group you think isn't using it.

I have a landline. There are also three cellphones and 4 tablets in my house. I'm 70 years old.

So, which group are you talking about, I wonder?

[AgingAmerican]

6. Hillary supporters

nt

[MineralMan]

10. That's just silly, I think.

Everyone is using the Internet. Perhaps not in the same way you and I use it, but everyone's online.

If you're talking about voting in Internet polls, that's another matter, really. I don't bother with such polls. They're useless. I've been polled on the phone three times so far in this primary season, though. Twice on my landline and once on my cellphone. My wife has been polled twice, both times on her cellphone.

Neither of us has voted in any online poll, but we both vote in every election and have always done so. We'll both be at our precinct caucus on March 1, too. We're really, really reliable voters. We're both members of the Minnesota DFL Party and the national Democratic Party. We get too much mail and too many requests for donations, too.

Both my wife and I were writing about the Internet for major computer magazines even before it really was well known, and my wife's still writing about it. I stopped writing about such things and am now writing small business websites and blogs for business people. I've been in the computer users category since 1963, when I took my first FORTRAN programming class, and have been online since 1984, when I started my own BBS to support my little software company.

Everyone's on the Internet. Truly.

[AgingAmerican]

13. Well then why

If Hillary has three times the supporters Sanders does, does she lose EVERY online poll in existence by eight fold?

Nobody buys the, 'Hillary supporters don't click on online polls' nonsense. Do you? Thus it goes to reason that they either:

A: Don't exist
or
B: Haven't discovered the internet yet

Which is it?

[Juicy_Bellows]

22. I haven't seen anyone answer your question yet.

It is one of the main reasons I have contention with the official polling - it's a circle that I can't square.

[AgingAmerican]

23. I have been asking it for quite a while now

And I get crickets from her supporters/apologists every time I ask it.

[Juicy_Bellows]

24. Keep at it, it's a great question.

No one buys that en masse Hillary supporters refuse to click on online polls - that's just horseshit.

[AgingAmerican]

70. Oh, I will

And you are fully correct. It's pompous horseshit.

[artislife]

33. Yup nt

[redstateblues]

41. I was obsessed with online polls

When Kerry lost. I realized it didn't matter. It still doesn't. It makes you feel like you are making a difference when you're not.

[Juicy_Bellows]

46. You and I are in the same boat as far as online polling is concerned.

It still doesn't answer Aging American's question though.

[tritsofme]

34. I don't understand why you think this is particularly significant.

Ron Paul was famous for dominating online polls in his presidential runs, but it never translated to support in the real world.

It shows there is definitely a core of passionate supporters determined to run up the score in these polls, but says very little about the state of the race.

[AgingAmerican]

36. Because it shows

A vast disconnect between corporate sponsored polling, and live humans. All focus groups show the same gap too.

I suspect her supporters will have a huge wake up call once the votes start getting cast. Real humans cast votes, not corporate sponsored entities. Corporations are not people, my friend.

The Rand Paul talking point was debunked months ago.

[tritsofme]

53. You apparently have no idea how incredibly silly this sounds.

It looks even worse than the Republican "unskewed" conspiracy back in 2012, at least that was largely an argument over weighting, this alleges conspiracy among all polling firms, presumably even the ones hired by the Sanders campaign, and holds up unscientific clickbait polls as truth.

Also I'm not quite sure how the Ron Paul comparison could be "debunked." He dominated online polls, while never having more than 5-10% in the real polls, let alone real world support. Sanders is over-performing Paul in his race to a significant degree, and it is not surprising that his higher level of support could have a similarly outsize effect on the clickbait polls.

I have no doubt these results are indicative of strong intensity and passion among supporters, little else. When it comes to election day, they will only get to vote once.

[AgingAmerican]

55. list the corporations that want Sanders to get the nomination

Thanks in advance

[tritsofme]

64. Are you accusing every single polling company of conspiracy?

If they don't supply the result you want to see?

Take a step back and observe how ridiculous this looks.

[AgingAmerican]

66. It's not the polling companies

It's the entities that hire them. It is very easy to skew polls.

Poll results can be skewed by everything from who is being surveyed (are they "likely" voters or just "registered&quot to how many cell phone users (who are generally younger and from more diverse backgrounds) are contacted to how the questions are worded. If these are what the corporate entities that are paying for the polling want, it's what they get.

If they want to filter out cell phone users it's as simple as doing the polling with robocalls. Without written permission, robocalls to cell phones are illegal.

They can skew polls by using or omitting certain keywords, using poll tested words, and having long confusing questions. There is no human being other than 'Rain Man' who could read back to you 500 words you just said to him, and then make an educated decision about it.

It ain't science, it's alchemy and polling companies do the polling the way the customer (corporation) wants.

Last week Hillary supporters were posting a poll from the last debate that, when the data was looked at, almost of half the respondents DIDN'T EVEN KNOW A DEBATE HAD OCCURRED. Thus the respondents replied based on NAME RECOGNITION. Her supporters were bragging that the poll was released within an hour of the debate ending, and of course she won handily ACCORDING TO THE POLL. It's all corporate crap.

Not a whole lotta integrity in CORPORATE SPONSORED polls in this election.

[dsc]

40. because on line polls are useless voodoo

and therefore most people who aren't besotted by their candidates don't bother with them. Also losing by 8 fold means that one is losing 88,8 to 11.1 which isn't true BTW.

[AgingAmerican]

42. That's the excuse we get every time

"Her supporters don't bother" but we know it isn't true. She just does not garner enough support in real human (not corporate) land.

So you are saying she 'only' loses in real human land by 6 or 7 fold? Thanks for the correction!!

[dsc]

43. actually online polls are often programmed votes

and repeat votes.

[AgingAmerican]

49. Every online poll in existence?

[hack89]

50. I don't do internet polls

what's the point?

[AgingAmerican]

56. funny, every one of her supporters says the same thing

But we don't believe them

[hack89]

62. So we are all liars? Got it.

People like you are going to make Bernie's defeat even more satisfying. Promise you will stick around after Super Tuesday.

[AgingAmerican]

67. I don't believe them

Period. They keep claiming that 'Hillary supporters don't bother clicking on online polls'. It's about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. As if her supporters are of some superior genetic stock or something. It's arrogant and dishonest puke material.

Promise you will stick around after super Tuesday? Hillary supporters are in for a SHOCK. She will react the same way she did when Obama passed her up. Go ugly and negative, which completely sunk her campaign in the end.

[bravenak]

72. .

[treestar]

75. I don't do them ever, for anything

I was in a group for a TV show and the others kept going on about voting in this internet poll for one of the actors, with the result they would "win" it. It was irritating.

[AgingAmerican]

78. That's what all her supporters say

As if they are somehow magically, genetically predisposed to not clicking on Democratic debate polls even though their candidate is a participant. It's so ridiculous. It's the only explanation they can muster and nobody believes it.

Besides their 'genetic predisposition to not clicking them' claim there are only two other possibilities.

A: Her supporters have yet to discover the internet
or
B: They don't exist in numbers large enough to sway those polls, which we all know they feverishly click over and over.

[treestar]

85. I haven't even seen one to click on

No one has ever asked me to go and click on one and if they did, I wouldn't go.

Which brings up the question of where are these polls? Bernie sites?

[riversedge]

54. I do not click on online polls. They are nonsence.

[AgingAmerican]

57. lol

Suuuurrrreee ya dont!

[mythology]

65. Using the Internet isn't being an Internet native

Also as the "underdog" candidate, it makes sense that supporters of the Sanders campaign would be more highly motivated to vote.

Take for example the old msmbc.com poll that showed something like 80 percent of people wanted Bush impeached in 2006. There was never 85% to impeach Bush. But those who disliked Bush were more motivated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=110x9869

[Nitram]

37. Aging, everybody uses the internet, even my 92-year-old father.

However, he doesn't use a smartphone, although I know many octogenarians who do.

[AgingAmerican]

71. Then the answer is A

nt

[treestar]

76. so true

though it is difficult to get them to answer a call to their cell phones. They can't find it for a while and then hit the wrong buttons. Hilarious.

[AgingAmerican]

79. Then that settles it

If they HAVE discovered the internet, the only plausible explaination is they don't exist in large enough numbers to sway those polls. Focus groups show about the same percentages as the online polls.

Clickitty click click as they may, not enough of them to swing it.

[treestar]

84. I know I generalize but old people on the internet

there are many of them in my life. They usually send emails with some amazing thing you just have to see, usually photos of nature, warnings about safety (my Dad is big on that as he is sure there are tons of criminals out there after me), and those screeds about how they survived so well in the old days even though their mothers drank and smoke.

[MineralMan]

3. Those two curves in your lower chart

are pretty telling. With less than 10% in the undecided column and the more or less parallel curves for Hillary and Sanders, there doesn't seem to be room for a takeover surge. 90% of the voters are already charted, if the polling is correct. There's too much distance between the two curves for that to make the difference.

Also, Sanders' curve is flattening slightly, while Clinton's is steepening a bit. That means that the separation is growing greater, not less. In order to beat Clinton, Sanders will have to convert a good number of Clinton's current supporters in the polling. I"m not sure when that's supposed to happen or why it might happen.

Looks to me like, given current charting, Sanders will have quite a reach to hit 40% before March 1, when things will become pretty clear for next year's primary elections and caucuses.

[Juicy_Bellows]

7. Help me out here, how are 90% of voters already charted?

Honest question.

[JaneyVee]

11. 56.6 +31.7

[Juicy_Bellows]

18. Thank you - I got that part.

However, I do not think that 90% of the populace is charted though - I really don't. I believe that the traditional polling machinations are outdated now.

Thank you for the reply.

[MineralMan]

14. Add up the percentages in the current aggregates polling results.

Comes to almost exactly 90%.

56 + 31 + 3 = 90

Math is easy.

Now, if you're going to tell me that polls don't accurately reflect the voters, that's an argument you can make. I disagree, though. Polling aggregates are pretty good predictors of how people will vote en masse.

[Juicy_Bellows]

16. Thank you.

I got that part but yes I would argue that the polls don't accurately reflect the populace - I guess we will see!

[MineralMan]

17. We will see indeed.

Waiting is hard.

[MFrohike]

12. Another thing

Everybody should keep in mind that polling is a lot more unreliable than it was 8 years ago. I wouldn't trust anybody's numbers worth a damn. Given the ever-increasing number of wrong polls over the last few years, the race could be 80-10 Clinton or they could be tied. The samples are clearly not representative anymore, but there's little or no recognition of that. Personally, I think it's awesome, but it's something to take into account.

[MineralMan]

19. You know, I don't think your statement is actually true.

It sounds more like your opinion that polling is less reliable than before. If you have some evidence for that, I'd like to see it.

One thing's certain: We'll find out how accurate the polls are after the election, as always.

[MFrohike]

28. You clearly have access to the internet

I'd suggest starting with last year's races. Take note of the sample sizes, which were markedly small last year and are even smaller this year. It's starting to look like the Literary Digest poll come again.

[dsc]

45. the issue with the literary digest wasn't sample size

but sample selection. The sample sizes of polls haven't been getting appreciably smaller over the years. Sorry, but you don't have a right to make facts up.

[MFrohike]

48. You're right

It's not the sample size, but the population. That has shrunk. I was thinking of one thing and said another. Thanks for catching that. Thanks for not being obnoxious about it, either.

Since that might not be clear, the available pool for selecting a sample has shrunk. It dropped quite a bit last year and it looks even smaller this year. That's what I meant by population. I'm clearly not having a good word day.

[dsc]

51. I think I get what you are saying now

but it still has no real bearing. Until the population becomes small enough that the sample is more than 10 percent of the population the shrinkage of the population is irrelevant. The one and only possible issue with the polls is the lack of cell phone users in them which is a) not true of most polls now and b) mitigated by finding land line users who mimic the cell phone users that aren't in the poll. Polls have, over time, been more, not less accurate. The Literacy Mag poll's problem was surveying using phones in an era where very few people had phones and the population of people who had phones was significantly different that the population of those who didn't have phones. That lead to a very skewed result.

[MFrohike]

52. Actually, no

The issue of shrinking population is a big issue. Don't take my word for it. Nate Silver surveyed the major pollsters last year during the election and they found it to be quite important regarding accuracy. The issue isn't land lines vs cell phones, but of total respondents. That's the population issue.

The parallel to Literary Digest is the inaccuracy due to an unrepresentative population. The issue for Literary Digest was the method of selection, not the method of contact (which was a mailed sample ballot, not a phone call). In this case, the population is becoming unrepresentative via self-selection, not necessarily due to errors by the polling company. It's not that the same mistakes are being made, it's that the same problem of inaccuracy is arising due to the same fundamental problem of population. The difference is how the population is selected, not the result.

[Juicy_Bellows]

20. I agree.

I replied up-thread that I think the current polling systems are antiquated.

[BainsBane]

26. I find it ironic that the same people who speak so negatively about Obama as a President

Last edited Sun Nov 29, 2015, 11:50 PM - Edit history (1)

evoke him as an example for the ever-impending, just-around-the-corner Bernie surge.
Some seem to them there is something inherent to Clinton that means she will beaten, and that Obama is interchangeable with Sanders in that regard. There is no evidence to suggest that. Bernie needs to expand his support to stand a chance at winning the nomination, whereas a number of his supporters are dedicated to narrowing his support. When the response to anyone who doesn't automatically "feel the Bern" is to tell them what is wrong with them--whether the explanation is that they are "corporate" stooges or suffering from Stockholm Syndrome--they foreclose any possibility of attracting new supporters.

[AgingAmerican]

80. A political campaign is not governing

Though somes idea of 'governing' is in reality a nonstop political campaign (GW Bush).

[RandySF]

29. What will be the excuse

When Hillary mops the floor with him in NV, SC and Super Tuesday?

[Bread and Circus]

31. I think the OP makes a good point. I think it's sad Hillary supporters don't have much else to say..

other than "she is likely to win" and post polls all day.

However, 2015/2016 is not 2007/2008 for the simple reason Sanders is not black.

[Nitram]

38. Circus, we have lot to say, and we have.

Polling data is one significant measure of what is actually happening right now.

[Bread and Circus]

44. It's huge and I have to concede Clinton's lead and coalition is nearly insurmountable.

But you guys have to admit you all avoid A LOT of threads that discuss issues and other important character related concerns regarding Clinton.

I see thread after thread where there are seriously mounted charges that deserve comment it's just crickets at that point.

Yet, post after post, thread after thread, OP after OP of recitation of polls..over and over..and over again.

We get it, snuff out the competition before we even had a real race.

However, it makes for a worse DU.

[Nitram]

58. I've given up reading the obviously anti-Clinton pro-Sanders comments because...

...they are more often than not just click bait for a dog pile by Bernistas on Clinton supporters. As the Bernistas there readily admit. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=852517

[Bread and Circus]

63. I wasn't privy to that. To me it just looks like there are many issues that are indefensible.

And the dog piling goes both ways.

[NanceGreggs]

73. You're right.

I know that as an HRC supporter, I do not engage in DU discussions about "issues" with BS supporters. The reason for that is because it is pointless.

The discussion usually goes like this:

HRCer: Have you seen her proposals on early education and the need for --

BSer: Sure, she says that now! Once elected, she won't follow through!

HRCer: Her foreign policy with regards to --

BSer: She's a warmonger! She has blood on her hands!!!!

HRCer: I believe her idea of building on the ACA and furthering --

BSer: She's a liar!!!! She doesn't care about people's needs! She's an elitist who only cares about the 1%!!!

And on it goes. Real discussion of the issues is impossible.

I don't see why a recitation of the polls is now taboo. Look back at how many BS supporters were posting poll after poll when BS was on the rise and gaining support. Apparently it was okay then - just like the same polls that were golden all summer suddenly became "skewed" and inaccurate the minute Bernie's numbers started to stagnate.

In addition, a lot of the "issues and other important character related concerns regarding Clinton" are regurgitated RW talking points, lifted directly from RW sites - which are now considered unimpeachable news sources by many BSers. And the fact that many of those talking points are based on "facts" that have been debunked repeatedly doesn't deter certain people from re-posting them over and over.

"We get it, snuff out the competition before we even had a real race." I'm not sure what that is even supposed to mean. Hillary is ahead in the polls - how does recognizing that fact "snuff out the competition"? Posting of polls that are positive for Hillary doesn't stop anyone from working to get Bernie elected. In fact, such posts can inspire BS supporters to redouble their efforts to support his campaign.

What Bernie supporters don't seem to want to recognize is that the majority of Democrats want HER to be the nominee. That's just the way it is. From the outset, it was always going to come down to ONE candidate being the Dem nominee - and all the sour grapes in the world aren't going to change that simple fact. In the end, there can be only one. And last time I checked, majority rule is still part of the democratic process.

[Starry Messenger]

39. But, online polls!!11

[workinclasszero]

47. Everyone knows online polls are bunk

I never bother with them because they are a joke.

Now if I was worried because my candidate is never winning legit scientific polls then I might get a program for online polls that spams thousands of votes an hour on the same PC to make it look like the loser I'm backing is doing well.

I imagine many Bernie backers are doing that even as we speak lol.

[Thinkingabout]

59. Agree, in for the fact one can vote in online polls over and over does not

Produce an accurate poll as it does on phone calls whether to cell phones or landlines.

[AgingAmerican]

81. You only say that because she consistantly loses in them by wide margins

And she loses focus groups by the SAME MARGINS as the online polls. Coincidence?

[trueblue2007]

60. "Sanders is doing better than Obama at this point" HUH??? IN WHAT ALTERNATE UNIVERSE??

THIS SUBJECT IS PURE CRAP. Conjecture and LIES. Just made up stuff!!

Why is everyone making Sanders GOD? He is an awesome man, so what????
Knock of the juvenile MY DAD IS BETTER THAN YOUR MOM stuff. Geesh get a grip people. Stop the snarking.

[Bluenorthwest]

77. In 08, Republicans and the Clinton camp liked to say Obama was treated like a messiah or god or

even just 'a celebrity'. So ironically your comment demonstrates the commonality between the form and content of attacks on both candidates, Obama and Sanders.
I could link to places like World Net Daily that trafficked in that trope, but I hate to muck up DU with any more of that right wing crap considering it is now being created in-house.

[Crystalite]

83. They are both VERY good.

It's just that they are very good at VERY different things.

[Crystalite]

82. Problem: Hillary Clinton has amassed far more baggage than she had in 2007.

Like it or not, believe it or not, whether it's all real or not, it's true.

While her term as SOS give her stronger international experience than she had before, her questionable activities during that time do more harm than good, IMHO.

And the appearance of quid pro quo related to serving as SOS and all of the Clinton Foundation activities is all that much additional baggage. And the crazy speaking fees, and the bankster connections.

So, to the average voter, is that extra experience able to balance against her baggage and lack of trustworthiness?

It's a fair question, I don't think the sum effect is good for her, especially in the general election.