When highly accurate internal polling doesn't match final primary results--should we be concerned?

[CoffeeCat]

Bernie has indicated that his internal polling in New York does not reflect the "public polls" as he categorized them.

Just exactly what is going on? I'm asking. I think this is something worth exploring. Is it possible that there are problems with much of our primary process--including some of the polling?

In Nevada, Bernie's internal polling indicated a slight win for Bernie. Then, he lost the NV caucuses. There were reports that caucus sites had been flooded with bodies that were counted (but they weren't registered voters, possibly undocumented workers). Then, the first NV caucus convention happens--and guess what? 2000 of Hillary's delegates didn't show up.

How is it possible to have 2000 no-shows? Were these phantom delegates? Did they ever exist? Were there counting errors?

Clark County--where this anomaly happened is the biggest NV County by far. This same dynamic happened in the biggest county in Iowa, Polk County.

In Iowa, at our Polk County Iowa Convention, 117 Hillary delegates did not show. Hillary had previously won Polk County in the Iowa Caucuses. Clinton originally winning Polk County by 7 percent. The first count at the Polk County Convention was Sanders 532, Clinton 519.

Let's back up a bit. Immediately after the Iowa Caucuses, Iowans were finding errors in the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) officially reported Iowa Caucus results. These Iowans compared their results--with the official IDP results that were showcased on the front page of the IDP party website--in a PDF document that listed all precinct results. The IDP publicly refused to audit the caucus results or fix the found errors. Then, the Des Moines Register wrote a scathing a editorial, "Something smells in the Iowa Democratic Caucuses" and a scandal ensued. After the bad publicity, the Iowa Democratic Party fixed a handful of found errors.

HOWEVER---after those errors were corrected, The PDF that showcased the IDP official precinct results--was removed from the IDP front page--just 5 days after the Iowa Caucuses. No longer could the IDP results be examined. No way to look at official caucus results, by individual precincts--and find errors. (Why was the PDF taken down? Can official results be examined in other ways?)

Then, just like in NV--Iowa has their first County Conventions. 117 Hillary delegates didn't show up for the Polk County Convention. Again, is it possible that there were more "reporting errors" in Clinton's favor and those delegates that were counted, never really existed? Could that be a reason for the no-shows?

Iowa results--Are there unfound errors that favored Clinton, just sitting in those official Iowa Caucus results?

[thereismore]

1. "highly accurate internal polling?" by what measure are they highly accurate? I wonder. Caucuses are

a mess too. They should be replaced with primaries where every 18-yo state resident can vote. We may dream.

[CoffeeCat]

3. Our Iowa caucuses ran as smooth as silk in 2008

and we had record attendance in 2008.

This year, attendance was down nearly 30 percent. Yet, this year--in 2016--there were unprecedented problems.

[EdwardBernays]

2. Well

All polls are constructed differently. If Bernie's internal polling is reaching a different conclusion it's because they're asking different people different questions.

In 2016 almost all standard polling has broken down and become pretty amazingly unreliable though. So. Who knows really.

[CoffeeCat]

7. Do you feel that polling in our primaries

that has been done by the decent pollsters (such as Quinnipiac, CBS Battleground, and others) has matched or not matched with the final results?

I hadn't noticed, as you said that "almost all standard polling has broken done and become pretty amazingly unreliable."

Would be interesting to compare polls with final results.

And of course, there is Michigan. What a glaring anomaly. Examining what happened with the polling/results in Michigan may provide some insight.

[ThePhilosopher04]

4. There's always reason for concern when the establishment prefers a candidate

and also controls who is allowed to vote and the machinery (both human & computer) which counts the votes. There's not much about this primary season that makes sense when you peel the onion. Hillary has historically low favorables, struggles to draw crowds anywhere in the country, and has to count on mega donors to raise money; meanwhile, Bernie has consistently high favorables, including states where he's "lost" to Hillary, has well over 3 million individual donors and 7 million donations, and can draw crowds in the thousands to tens of thousands, anywhere in the country, at last minute's notice. Something is rotten in Denmark if you ask me.

[Else You Are Mad]

5. Bingo. nt.

[Duval]

9. Exactly!

[CoffeeCat]

10. I also find it interesting that Bernie is doing better in caucuses

Yes, many of these states are more Bernie-friendly. However, it is more difficult to steal a caucus, unless you have State Party apparatus that will "assist" you.

Voting machines can be easily rigged without any proof.

And yes, it also bothers me that she is unable to draw a crowd of 1,000 in New York when Bernie has 28,000 people at his rallies. She has half of the individual contributions that Bernie does. Those are glaring differences in support and enthusiasm.

How can a candidate literally be failing in so many visible areas, but winning at the polls?

It could be the demographics. Her supporters are older and may not attend rallies. But the donation discrepancy is odd.

I think these questions are worth exploring. Something just does not add up.

And what I witnessed personally in my own state clearly demonstrates that something is very, very off.

Maybe Michigan happened because the usual devices/shenanigans were not able to be pulled off.

[ThePhilosopher04]

11. Exactly. You can do some behind the scenes maneuvering to swing a delegate or two

but for the most part, it's hard to rig a caucus when 2/3 of a room is for one candidate and only a 1/3 for the other. Closed primaries are the easiest to rig. Oversight is almost nil and challenges are difficult to mount for logistical reasons. I have no doubt (my opinion) if the true will of the people is accurately measured, Bernie would prevail. We live in a sham democracy unfortunately. Just keep fighting.

[restorefreedom]

6. the msm polls are totally cooked

they were starting to tighten, and then the word must have gone out that there can't be the perception of a real race in ny, so all,the recent polls have shown a strong hillry lead. this is being done imo to depress turnout. either that or the polling companies really suck at what they do. but i think its intentional.

also, they are hoping that with padded polls, people will be less,likely to complain about the vote day shenanigans that are sure to happen.

they are setting us all up.

[LiberalArkie]

8. This is just the party machine in operation. It has been this way most of my life I believe.

Sometimes the will of the people accidentally overrule the machine like when Ohio surprised Rove that night. The fix was in, but it did not take. Back in the paper ballot days, sometimes the real ballot box made it to the county clerk instead of the fake one. Sometimes the machine agrees with the people sometimes it doesn't.

But in the end it is who counts the votes that matters.

[FlatBaroque]

12. One only needs to think about what is at stake for the entire, corrupt Dem establishment

if Her loses in NY. Right at this minute there is so much nefarious shit going on it would boggle the mind if we knew. Some of the Clinton camp's tactics will come to light, some will not. There is only one thing for certain, the true extent of support for Bernie will never be measured through the ballot box. For him to win NY, he will need to win by 12-15 points.

[lostnfound]

13. Plausible deniability when election is stolen

1) Central tabulators and 2) corrupted registration databases
Just my opinion

[Turn CO Blue]

14. Reminder from 2008: Some precincts in Harlem reported ZERO votes for Obama...until audited.

WE ARE UP AGAINST A POLITICAL MACHINE.

80 New York districts reported ZERO votes for Obama. Once the numbers were "corrected", Obama had WON some of those precincts/districts.

WE ARE UP A POLITICAL MACHINE, IN A TURF WHERE HER STAFF LIVES/WORKS.

We have our work cut out for us to get enough observers, but we sure could use them in every precinct.


//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Democratic_primary,_2008

Vote discrepancies


After the votes were initially counted on election night, certain districts near New York City were found to be missing their vote tallies for Obama. The New York Times conducted a review of the unofficial results from the primary. They found that, among New York City's 6,106 election districts participating, 80 districts did not record a single vote for Obama, including heavily black districts like Harlem, as well as districts next to others where Obama had very favorable results. City election officials reviewed the vote tallies and found several inaccuracies. For example, in Harlem where Clinton led Obama 141 to 0, the recounted vote was counted as 261 to 136, Clinton. In Brooklyn the primary night vote was 118 to 0, Clinton, whereas the recounted vote went 118 to 116, Clinton.

Democratic leaders blamed the discrepancies on "human error" due to weary election officials on primary day. According to ABC News, however, other candidates such as John Edwards did not have this problem; it seemed to be almost exclusive to Obama.

[eridani]

15. In NV, people who submitted surrogate forms and/or caucused on paid time for Clinton--

--are obviously not going to show up at the next level.