Brand Spanking New Ipsos Reuters Likely Democratic Voter Poll-HRC 77% SBS 17% MOM 3%

[DemocratSinceBirth]

http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR131/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20150808-20160125/type/smallest


Among registered Democratic voters

HRC 57% SBS 29% MOM 5%


http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR131/filters/PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20150808-20160125/type/smallest

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Bernie is collapsing. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. ...

[NurseJackie]

8. OOf!

[workinclasszero]

57. BOOM!

[PotatoChip]

106. It's interesting how much difference those filters make.

That and the dates. My results showed the most recent poll, (very recent-- from today apparently). What's strange about this newest poll is that it doesn't show up with the filters on. At least not any of the filters I tried...

This is the result I got (below) when I removed the filters. Apparently, this allows for all voters, but it does not say how many of the R's and I's were in this sample. Maybe, the 28% who say they "wouldn't vote" are most of the R's?

Additionally, I'm curious as to why both your result (111 respondents) and mine (113 respondents) had such a small sample. Hopefully, someone who has more statistical polling knowledge than I will see this post and answer these questions for me.


December 01, 2015
113 RESPONDENTS
Ver. Sen. Bernie Sanders 34.0%
Former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton 32.0%
Wouldn’t vote 28.0%
Mar. Gov. Martin O’Malley 6.0%


http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR131/dates/20150808-20160125/type/smallest


Confusing or not, it's still kind of fun to play around with. Thanks DSB!

[anti partisan]

137. Look at the date cutoff, it's different. Reuters didn't poll some of the days on the weekend.

So a 5 day moving average from December 1 really means a 5 day window of polling is counted. This could be Nov 27-30 + Dec 1, , or Nov 26-30 (I don't really know how they did it)

But using Nov 26-30 because it's easier to comprehend, being all in the same month:
Dec 1 results: ~100 sample size (Nov 26-30, but only Nov 26 was polled)
Nov 30 results: ~200 sample size (Nov 25-29, Nov 25-26 polled)
Nov 29 results: ~300 sample size (Nov 24-28, Nov 24-26 polled)

Since roughly 100 were polled per day you see the poll size increasing incrementally as you move back because the 5 day window keeps gaining an extra day of polling

When using the Likely Voter filter, I believe that it doesn't list the Dec 1 only results, because the sample size is under an arbitrary number (100). So you end up with an earlier timeframe of Nov 28 results, which would include 4 days of polling (the window of Nov 23-27 counts but only Nov 27 is not polled).

So the Likely Voter measure includes 3 extra days of the past and only includes "Likely Voters" who may count as those who voted in the primaries 4 years ago, taking out a bunch of youngsters. A pretty disingenuous poll if you ask me.

HOPEFULLY that makes sense, but if it doesn't I can try to explain better, and I'm not even sure I'm completely correct. It is just a best guess interpretation.

[anti partisan]

138. Low sample size and cherry picking. Can also put Bernie ahead w/cherry pick (see below posts)

[NurseJackie]

4. I like it! ... I like it! ... I like it!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Whoomp there it is

[hill2016]

5. wow

congrats Clinton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Ain't No Stopping Us Now

[msrizzo]

7. Wow that's crazy, lol

Hillary's lead is huge with likely voters. Even I am surprised by that.

[GusBob]

9. Spanking lol

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Gonna Fly Now

[taught_me_patience]

10. Bernie's message is wearing thin and he's fading

His constant negativity and anger does not resonate well with the majority of Democrats. As he fades, I expect MOM to get a significant bump. I've been expecting him to surge past Bernie in Iowa for a while now. We'll start seeing it soon.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Not Fade Away

[comradebillyboy]

31. That clip brings back memories

of high school in the mid 60s. I bought my first Stones album in 1964,

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Came of age in the 70s and 80s...

I still remember Jagger telling People magazine he couldn't see himself performing Satisfaction at 35.

[NurseJackie]

16. Yes, I think the ANGER has a lot to do with it. It never seemed like a very desirable quality to me.

And from the looks of things, it's something that has very limited appeal.

It could be that the REAL "horse race" is between O'Malley and Sanders!!

Will O'Malley overtake Sanders?! We can only hope! Now THAT would be something to see!!

[upaloopa]

22. If MOM passes Bernie in IA it isn't going to

be very pretty around here.

[Blue_Adept]

37. No, it won't be pretty

IT'LL BE FREAKIN' HILARIOUS

And I say that as someone who wouldn't have a problem at all with any of them in the White House.

But I'd love to watch the fallout here because of the way social aspects play out.

[R B Garr]

60. +1000. Great post.

Hating billionaires is not a policy proposal. His debate performances diminished him considerably.

The bloom is off the rose.

The train is leaving the station.

All signs point to no.

[bunnies]

13. Not nearly as fun with the filters cleared, is it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Happy

[brooklynite]

17. Holiday outliers

point to each dot and you'll see how much the daily sample drops off.

[HerbChestnut]

42. Not trying to be partisan or snarky, but...

...The poll in the OP has 111 responses. Clear away all the filters, which shows Bernie winning, and there's 113 responses.

[Duval]

92. Watch him surge!

[NurseJackie]

19. "Active Filters: Likely Democratic Primary Voter"

That seems to be a rather meaningful one.

But, if the Sanders fans want to tweak and massage the results themselves, I'm sure they may be able to come up with some obscure and politically meaningless filter that would produce visually appealing results.

[bunnies]

20. Yes. Lets exclude all first time voters.

Go with that!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Don't Worry Be Happy

[bunnies]

24. Im not worried DSB!

I live in NH!

[riversedge]

69. ah, NH---where Clinton is also ahead....+4.3 RCP averages

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

[bunnies]

70. Your landline polls dont scare me.

NH is for Bernie!

[NurseJackie]

25. Okay. I'll trust that professional polling organizations know what they're doing.

[bunnies]

28. Fantastic. So Hillary will get more than 70% in every primary?

[NurseJackie]

34. I'm not a pollster. You'll need to ask them.

But it's easy for me to see that things REALLY look a bit bleak for Bernie.

Don't get too upset. I'm sure that any moment now, someone will come along and post a HAPPY & OPTIMISTIC Facebook Poll that shows Bernie with a 50-state landslide.

Or, if you don't like the "Likely Primary Voters" filter (and believe that professional polling organizations have never once realized that every election includes first-time voters) then you can tweak the results yourself and find something that will make you happy.

[bunnies]

44. As I told DSB...

Im not worried at all. I live in NH. Its all Bernie country up here.

[NurseJackie]

48. Okayyyy

... um ... that's nice. Lucky you?

[bunnies]

49. Indeed.

Im exceptionally lucky to be able to help Bernie gain momentum out of the early states. It tends to change polls a bit.

[NurseJackie]

52. I've never underestimated that,

... but looking at how Bernie is struggling, I think many are overestimating it.

[bunnies]

53. Time will tell.

And it never hurts to be hopeful.

[NurseJackie]

56. I have nothing against hope or optimism. I encourage it.

[bunnies]

59. Then it appears we've found common ground.

If only everything were so easy!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Make Me Smile

[Renew Deal]

35. You're right. Hillary is up by somewhere between 28 and 40 points.

[bunnies]

45. Not in my state.

[LonePirate]

51. Many polls of states outside of IA and NH have shown large Hillary leads.

There is not much that is newsworthy in this poll except for what seems to be Clinton's lead is growing on a national level.

[HerbChestnut]

18. Or you know...

Among Democrats and Independents it's 45% for Hillary and 30% for Bernie.

[JoePhilly]

21. Yea yea ... but I saw this word cloud ...

I'm not sure what it means though.

[Alfresco]

74. LOL

[SunSeeker]

75. LOL

[mcar]

132. ...

[Vinca]

26. Makes me nervous since I don't necessarily think Hillary can win the general.

We should start hoping for the GOP to piss off Trump so he runs as an Independent and splits the vote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I'm Still Standing

[Alfresco]

27. 60 points ahead. Holy Sh*t

[Renew Deal]

30. I wonder if that's the shock poll Scabs and Goddard are referring to

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7400495

[Blue_Adept]

39. I really figured that one would be a GOP based one

We're expecting a realignment there with who's on top (it's time to start cycling the next flavor of the month) and I really wasn't expecting it to be this.

[Renew Deal]

46. I agree

[DCBob]

36. I was expecting something like this eventually.

Many are giving up on Bernie and jumping on the Hillary bandwagon.

[Renew Deal]

38. Bernie seems to have a hard 30% ceiling nationally

[Fawke Em]

121. If that's true, then they're stupid.

She's going to get CREAMED in the general - if she's not indicted first.

[DCBob]

127. Careful.. your bias is showing.

[MaggieD]

40. That seems overly optimistic

But I still have no doubt she is going to beat him handily.

[brooklynite]

41. As a Clinton supporter, I'm setting this poll aside as presented...

Clinton has not been in the 60-70 range in any other polling samples.

Pollster is clearly filtering the sample differently, because their Reuters polls have Clinton in the mid-high 50s.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Those filters are directly from Reuters...

Those filters are directly from Reuters. You can see by the urls...There is a veritable potpourri of filters to choose from...

[Bjorn Against]

47. When you apply the likely Democratic primary voter filter you remove virtually all young people

Try applying both the 18-29 filter and the likely Democratic voter and you will see that less than 1% of the poll respondents are in both categories. If you remove the likely Democratic voter filter and just have the 18-29 filter on you will see that 18-29 year olds made up 20% of the overall sample and they prefer Bernie by a double digit margin. See why the "likely Democratic voter" figure might be problematic when it excludes virtually all the young people who were sampled?

If you really want to have fun with filters apply the "Tea Party affiliated" filter and you will see this poll shows that Hillary has 43% support among Tea Party affiliated voters. I admit that I don't find that number believable, but it does show the strange results you can get when you apply filters.

[saturnsring]

86. not a lot of young people vote

[Bjorn Against]

90. The numbers presented in the OP show less that 1% of the sample was 18-29 years old

While young people may not have the best turnout numbers they certainly make up far more than 1% of the electorate.

[workinclasszero]

50. Wow! Bernies 30% bubble done blowed up...

...real good!

[riversedge]

125. PUFFFFFFFFFFFFF

[Agnosticsherbet]

54. Interesting.

[lunamagica]

55. Me gusta, me gusta, me gusta!

[restorefreedom]

58. "registered dem voters"

many many people are not registered dems, they are indys or even republicans who will vote in an open primary. this means they may be bernie or OM supporters who are not being represented. the days of party affiliated voters deciding elections are over.

celebrate if you like, but i wouldn't take this to the bank.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. "... celebrate if you like, but i wouldn't take this to the bank."

I already did

[restorefreedom]

63. always love seeing the great one..

but i do hope you got a receipt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. That is one of his more iconic photos as is this one

[restorefreedom]

66. very cool! nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. And this one:

[restorefreedom]

68. 68 ....feels like a hundred years ago.

i watch boxing and kickboxing and occasional ufc, but the fighters today are different..
the grandeur, the passion, i suppose....seems to be missing...its seems like just a sport to them or even worse, a job.

the exception, not surprisingly, was his daughter, who seemed to love it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. His daughter was a conventional boxer, albeit a female one...

Not a big MMA or UFC fan. I can barely describe it.

[restorefreedom]

76. yeah, the traditional stuff is better imo

i guess i am a bit of a purist...boxing is ok, martial arts is ok, when they start getting mixed up, it just looks like two people fighting it out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. Boxing is violent enough for me.

I wince when some man or woman is on the mat and getting punched in the face.

[restorefreedom]

80. yup. i take it in small doses, and take long breaks too. someday will stop completely. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. Small does for me as well...

The last boxer to really excite me was Sugar Ray Leonard...My uncle , a professional boxer, suffered a detached retina at a time when the surgery to correct it wasn't developed, and consequently lost his sight in that eye...Ironically, my dad, an amateur boxer, was blinded in one eye by shrapnel in WWll.

[restorefreedom]

122. yikes. as much as i remind myself that people do it willingly,

when i hear about such injuries its a turn off. and of course, your dad's injury reminds us all about the risks of war to our servicepeople and its lasting effects, something i always try and think about when i hear the repubs prattle on about more troops here or there. its like they think they are moving plastic toy soldiers around and not dealing with real people.

ahhh, here i went and took a perfectly good boxing conversation and sullied it with politics..apologies...

[NurseJackie]

62. The filter I saw was "Likely Democratic Primary Voters"

I definitely take your point (and I honestly doubt that this exciting poll is actually THIS good) but I'd imagine that professional pollsters know enough about their business to take into consideration the people who are able to "cross-lines" and vote in open primaries ... and if the "line-crosser" has indicated a desire to vote in the Democratic primary, then the pollsters have likely weighted the results appropriately.

I personally don't know all the how/what/wheres of the calculations and considerations, but it seems unlikely that they'd just ignore that fact (and first-timers) entirely.

I'll whoop it up for now, but as always, we'll see how things shake-out in a few days (or more).

Hope you're well! ~ Jackie

[restorefreedom]

65. i generally don't put a lot of stock in polls

and rarely reply to posts about them. i think pollsters probably do have experience reading the crowd so to speak, but i also think this year is going to confound a lot of traditional polling practices. the antiestablishment vibe is high and the lines have moved...some repubs and dems are on the same page (anti tpp, war) and many will be crossing over either to vote for trump or bernie.

its gonna be a scene, man...


i am well,,hope you are also!

[Gamecock Lefty]

72. Bernie supporters are right about one thing . . .

Filter away the support for Hillary and Bernie wins!!! It's magic!

Stay sane, Bernibots. Hillary will catch you when you fall!

[NurseJackie]

73. LOL!!!

[Bjorn Against]

83. It was the OP that first presented us with filtered numbers

The only filtered numbers that I gave were presented as a way of showing why the original filter produced a misleading result.

[Ed Suspicious]

85. Stay classy Hillpeople.

[JaneyVee]

78. WOW.

[tritsofme]

79. Looks like he's all berned out!

[SunSeeker]

81. K & R

[jfern]

82. Quit trolling, the registered Democratic numbers are the real numbers

And it was a Thanksgiving poll, not the most reliable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. WHY SO SERIOUS

[Historic NY]

84. Word out is staggering new polls out in the morning from Quinnipiac....

that is all!!

[Alfresco]

88. Anticipation

Singing it like Carly.

[NurseJackie]

96. That song always reminds me of the ketchup commercial...

... this isn't it, but it's funny anyway:

[Alfresco]

140. LOL

[NurseJackie]

89. Tease!!

[workinclasszero]

97. Even more great news on the way for Hillary?

Be still my heart!

#feeltheburnout

[Number23]

87. K&R The needless antagonizing of the AA community by some here has me K&R more pro-Hillary

threads than I normally would.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. With just white likely Democratic primary voters it's 68% -22%

http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR131/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:1,SC_RACE:1/dates/20150808-20160125/type/smallest


Maybe they need to cast a wider net for people to be upset with.

[Number23]

107. Nope. Wayyyyyy easier to just keep kicking Negroes, women and gays

Gotta find a way to keep those all important recs a'coming, you know.

All while claiming your "undying and never ending support" for the minority communities you've just shit on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. With any luck all this unpleasantness will be over sooner than later.

EOM

[SidDithers]

113. "all important recs"? Nailed it...

Sid

[PotatoChip]

112. See, there again is what I was talking about up-thread. (Post #106)

Those statistics with filters applied only go to Nov 27th. When no filters are used, it shows the newest poll. I don't understand why that is. Can someone please explain it to me?

Try clearing all filters and you will see what I mean. It jumps to the Dec 1rst poll. With filters however, this most recent poll does not show up.

It's kind of a bummer, because I would like to see this newest poll with the filters, in order to figure out where Bernie's sudden surge is coming from. I suspect it is probably Indy support, but I'd still like to see all the other demographics.

[MeNMyVolt]

116. + FN 1 n/t

[Fearless]

93. I agree with Bernie's plan.

[calguy]

98. Feeling the "BURN"?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. Bern baby bern...

[NurseJackie]

100. I just wanted the 100th post to be a K&R.

[Cha]

101. Thank you for the latest on Hillary's status with American voters, DSB.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. You are welcome

[enid602]

102. supporters

I just can't help but wonder if Bernie's precipitous (yet, not totally unexpected) decline can't be explained in part by the first degree assholism exhibited by some of his supporters.

[NurseJackie]

105. It's easy to come to that conclusion based on what goes on inside the walls of this fortress.

But in the same way that I believe that the prolific "Bernie-or-Bust" percentages we observe here do not represent reality in the real world ... I also believe that Bernie's supporters in the real world aren't as aggressive.

I think his real world supporters share the same frustrations and anger, but I think they're likely to be more cordial and respectful in face-to-face interactions with real human beings.

Bernie's decline is due to Bernie himself, and the limited scope of his message. Polls will waver up and down, but for the most part he's maxed out and leveled-off.

He's too far behind, and Hillary is too strong, and the obstacles are too great for him to overcome.

[workinclasszero]

110. I think Paris hurt Bernie

really bad.

He proved to many people that he was not up to the task of being president of the United States when he evaded the subject and launched his standard pie in the sky freebies for all stump speech

[enid602]

114. agreed

He'll always have Paris.

[workinclasszero]

119. He'll always have Paris.

Well played

[leftofcool]

109. Great news for Team Hillary!

[ismnotwasm]

111. Love it!

[moobu2]

115. Bernie should concede now.

[workinclasszero]

117. I'm sure his money will dry up now

Who wants to throw their money away on an obvious lost cause like Bernie Sanders for President?

[Quixote1818]

118. Nate Silver suggests Nationwide polling is pretty much worthless right now

Only about 10% of the electorate is tuned in so name recognition is the bulk of the results. What will be most revealing are the first four or five primary states.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

120. Nate Silver of 538.com

Nate Silver gives Hillary Clinton 93% odds of beating Bernie Sanders

Nate Silver, the polling analyst of FiveThirtyEight fame who correctly and definitively called the 2012 election at at time when most other pollsters thought it was too close to call, is speaking up on the 2106 election – and specifically the democratic party primary nomination race. Even as much of the media attempts to paint Hillary Clinton as being in trouble and Bernie Sanders as having momentum, Silver says the polls tell him just the opposite. In fact he’s assigning Clinton a 93% or better chance of defeating Sanders in the primary race.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/stop-comparing-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders/

[Quixote1818]

123. Thats his opinion on outcome based on an educated guess but the polling is still meaningless

on a national level right now as he pointed out in an article the other day so lets see how things start panning out when the primaries roll around. Trump is killing everyone in the polls right now and Nate says he expects Trump to collapse so you can't have it both ways. Sure Nat's hunch is probably right but anything can happen including Sanders winning Iowa then NH and then getting a major second look from every Democrat in the country. The Hill makes a good point about which voters are motivated and how that plays out in the two first states could be pivotal. I remember when Kerry won the first couple of states then ran away with it when everyone was expecting Dean to win.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. Trump is at 35% in aggregate nat'l polling, Hillary is at 57% in aggregate nat'l polling

Trump is at 35% in aggregate nat'l polling:


http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary


Hillary is at 57% in aggregate nat'l polling:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary


Trump is at 23% at the predictions markets:


http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016RepNomination

Hillary is at 93% at the predictions markets:

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination

Trump is a 3-1 underdog at the betting markets;


http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/republican-candidate



Hillary is a 1-15 favorite at the betting markets:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/democrat-candidate


They are on totally different tracks .

P.S. Howard Dean was in the 20% -25% range at this point in the 2004 cycle:


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Hillary Clinton is at 57% at this point:



http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

[moobu2]

129. polling is meaningless

unless it shows Berne ahead then it's the law of the land...Facebook polls especially.

[upaloopa]

130. Nationwide polling for the general may be

Useless right now because only two people will run in the general.
Weeks out from the first primary this poll looks good. Bernie can't catch up in a couple of months.

[brooklynite]

133. National polling tells you nothing about how the State races will turn out...

...but they DO give you a sense of scale, especially when the polling is in the 55-60% range.

[riversedge]

126. love Hillary she's my Captain America!".............

"I love Hillary she's my Captain America!"

Hundreds of people are signing up!

#Hillary2016 #HillaryForFlorida
Sandy Ducane, Adam Parkhomenko, Lynette Long and 3 others

:large

[workinclasszero]

134. Hundreds of people are signing up!

Hillary needs Florida. Raise Hill down there!

[Lil Missy]

128. On Du, that means Bernie is clearly the frontrunner. n/t

[mcar]

131. K&R

[workinclasszero]

135. K&R

Posting on a legendary thread

[Samantha]

136. If you go down towards the bottom of the page and hit clear all filters

December 1st shows as the date at the top, and the numbers are

Sanders 34%; Clinton 32%; Wouldn't vote 28%; O'Malley 6.0% with only 113 respondents.

Sam

[treestar]

139. interesting how Bernie and MOM voters

are less likely to vote.