User 463088
Banned
There are two sets of NBC News polls, one is done with Marist and the other, their national numbers, are done by Hart Research. Both use a landline/cell sample.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
There are two sets of NBC News polls, one is done with Marist and the other, their national numbers, are done by Hart Research. Both use a landline/cell sample.
Abinash117
Member
I wait a week before IW to be worried about anyone being doomed. It looks like she is actually doing a bit better in NH actually as previous polls had her losing much more. I say she'll win IW very slightly , and it'll be close in NH.
Indeed. Just as Fahrenheit 9/11 doomed Bush in 2004.
VendettaRed07
Member
Sanders in striking distance in Iowa
What type of world are we living in if Sanders wins Iowa and NH? That's changes the conversation doesn't it?
What type of world are we living in if Sanders wins Iowa and NH? That's changes the conversation doesn't it?
Black Republican
Member
The fact some GOP are willing to settle with Trump over Cruz for nomination is amazing to me. 6 months ago that line of thinking woulda got you laughed at, no matter how liberal/conservative you are.
One is lilly white and the other is considered home field advantage (and is also super white). A game changer would be South Carolina, which would prove he can win African-american support.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sanders is never winning South Carolina, that's much too high a bar. It's one of Clinton's best states, if she loses it she may as well call it quits there and then. If (and I still don't think it's necessarily that likely) Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, then Nevada will be the early bellwether for whether he really has wheels.
He's still going to need to prove that he can start winning African-american support away from Hillary if he's going to win the whole thing even if he does win Nevada. He needs to be able to put a dent in that block and win parts over.
User 463088
Banned
The three states Sanders has always been most likely to win are Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa (in that order). So, no, it wouldn't change anything. A win in NV or SC would mean something.
Lv99 Slacker
Member
Has a thread been created for the Iowa Brown & Black Democratic Presidential Forum, presented by Fusion? Streams on YouTube on 01/11 @ 8pm ET.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jTrmHCRUKw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jTrmHCRUKw
people are going to be eating crow in those IA and NH OT primary threads.
She has to win IA or the narrative coming out of there is going to be horrible. She's likely to win it so no worries there. Sanders has to win NH if he fails to capture IA or the narrative out of there for him is that the race is effectively over.
She has to win IA or the narrative coming out of there is going to be horrible. She's likely to win it so no worries there. Sanders has to win NH if he fails to capture IA or the narrative out of there for him is that the race is effectively over.
I don't really agree with this. Sanders winning Iowa and NH would be a huge deal and gamechanger even though they're relatively good states for him. Suddenly he's the frontrunner if that happens -- yes, he won't lead in the polls, but he'll be leading in delegates and every paper will say so. If that happened it would absolutely shift later primaries and throw the whole thing up in the air.
I don't really think Hillary will lose Iowa. Iowa's white, sure, but the Democrats in Iowa aren't the same as the GOP there, and organization counts for a lot. NH I could see going either way, but Iowa is territory Hillary should control or she'll be in trouble.
Abinash117
Member
It was assumed that he would win both, but do badly and/or lose in many other places. Many people are thinking that if he wins those two then he will get many voters to notice and end up voting for him in the other states.
User 463088
Banned
He would not be leading in delegates by any significant margin, assuming he got a victory in both. It's all proportional representation. Hillary's people (this time) know how to make sure she gets every delegate out of every contest. In 2008, Obama beat Hillary in Iowa by 8 points and netted one delegate more than she did. Hillary won NH by 3 and still they tied in the number of delegates they got. (They each got 9).
Hillary still has her 500 or so pledged Super Delegates lead, and the very probable number of delegates she would net from a "tie" in either state.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
He needs to dent it (i.e., do better in South Carolina than expected), but he doesn't need to overcome that deficit entirely. South Carolina is demographically Clinton's third strongest state - it has the fourth highest proportion of minorities in the Dem caucus, but has enough older people to put it over Texas. If Clinton were to lose South Carolina, the race is over that day and everyone would know, literally no questions asked. She'd probably even concede the day after.
Demographically speaking, the bellwether primary states for the Democrats are Michigan and Florida (which was why they wanted to push forward in '08, famously). Heck, even winning Nevada would be a massive blow to Clinton, it's her 14th most favourable state demographically - hence why Sanders wouldn't even need to win there and still be considered threatening (although I think he can because Nevada doesn't actually match its demographics very well, it's surprisingly liberal and high-information).
A "genuinely threatening" Sanders looks something like this:
a) win Iowa (even narrowly)
b) double-digit win in New Hampshire
c) push Clinton very close in Nevada - not necessarily a win, but keep the margin below 6%
d) keep the gap in South Carolina inside 12% or so.
He'd be behind after Super Tuesday because generally speaking those states are more favourable than the average to Clinton, but not so far behind given those numbers. It would be competitive. If he actually swept Iowa-NH-Nevada, he'd be the mild favourite at that point, IMO.
Obviously very unlikely, I'm just saying what it would look like.
Superdelegates is irrelevant. If Sanders won the ordinary delegates, I cannot see the superdelegates possibly overruling it. That'd destroy the party, you'd have a mass sit-out come the presidential.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I wrote an article arguing that nativists should support action on climate change:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...k-between-climate-change-and-immigration.html
... I think this strategy might work for conservatives to care about climate change, but I'm not sure :/
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...k-between-climate-change-and-immigration.html
... I think this strategy might work for conservatives to care about climate change, but I'm not sure :/
disastermouse
Banned
And people have been calling me crazy for saying this. Recently.
disastermouse
Banned
I dunno. Trump doesn't usually use any truth in his strategy and although it's irrelevant that she doesn't have a penis, it IS true.
I would advise all not to do that thing where we focus on one poll instead of looking at the broader aggregate.
I also don't think it's a surprise that Sanders is polling better than Clinton in the general at this point, because he's not really campaigning hard outside of Iowa and New Hampshire and he's still not as wildly known as Hillary is to the broader electorate. It's quite possible that he's just GenericDem to many people, and that his numbers would inevitably come down if he were to the nominee.
I mean, those delegates aren't actually pledged until the moment they vote at the convention. If the political winds started shifting towards Sanders, hypothetically, you'd see a pretty huge mass exodus away from Hillary ala 2008.
I also don't think it's a surprise that Sanders is polling better than Clinton in the general at this point, because he's not really campaigning hard outside of Iowa and New Hampshire and he's still not as wildly known as Hillary is to the broader electorate. It's quite possible that he's just GenericDem to many people, and that his numbers would inevitably come down if he were to the nominee.
I mean, those delegates aren't actually pledged until the moment they vote at the convention. If the political winds started shifting towards Sanders, hypothetically, you'd see a pretty huge mass exodus away from Hillary ala 2008.
Superdelegates aren't meaningful until the convention. If Sanders starts winning a bunch of primaries, for the purposes of the narrative, he'll be in the lead, and in that circumstances the superdelegates are going to start repledging awfully fast.
Again, I'm not anticipating Hillary losing, because she's too strong, but if she did start losing the superdelegates won't save her.
Jack Remington
Banned
RCP and Huffpost tell completely different stories on Clinton vs the Republican field.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Sanders polls better against Trump, there's no conclusive data to say he polls better in GE matchups overall. Primarily because pollster don't ask the question.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Laffer REALLY thinks that Donald "35% tariffs" Trump and Ted "gold standard" Cruz would be terrific candidates? Really?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
We literally just had them do the others. Admittedly only for Iowa, but Iowa is not a particularly unrepresentative state sans whiteness, and minorities are unlikely to vote GOP so that's not hugely important in terms of judging accuracy.
One of the reasons why it might not be the best idea to use general election polls this far out is because the general electorate is not necessarily voting in primaries. Over 35 million people voted in the 2008 Democratic primary. Over 20 million people voted in the 2008 Republican primary. Ultimately, 129 million people voted in the actual election.
Many people do not pay attention to the primary and thus do not care. Once the candidates are actually chosen, that's when you get the laser focus on everything they've ever said in their entire lives and people actually start to pay attention.
That's not to say I'm encourage by the NBC poll on Hillary's GE numbers. I'm not. It's concerning. But it's also not an aggregate (where she still leads all of her challengers in a national match up) and it's still so early that I would caution any concern or elation about this.
I still don't know what it takes for RCP to exclude polls from their aggregate??
Many people do not pay attention to the primary and thus do not care. Once the candidates are actually chosen, that's when you get the laser focus on everything they've ever said in their entire lives and people actually start to pay attention.
That's not to say I'm encourage by the NBC poll on Hillary's GE numbers. I'm not. It's concerning. But it's also not an aggregate (where she still leads all of her challengers in a national match up) and it's still so early that I would caution any concern or elation about this.
I still don't know what it takes for RCP to exclude polls from their aggregate??
We do this every cycle. Won't stop people from panicking. Trust me. We'll have people in this very thread panicking over Trump if he's the nominee in the fall.
I also think it's quite possible that if Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire (Iowa being a BIG if), it's quite possible he could be competitive in Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas, Maine...
He really needed early states to be Midwestern states and western states in order to remain competitive. If he can't improve his numbers with African-Americans, the SEC primary will kill him.
He really needed early states to be Midwestern states and western states in order to remain competitive. If he can't improve his numbers with African-Americans, the SEC primary will kill him.
User 463088
Banned
I agree that should Hillary start to lose she would lose support from Super Delegates.
My point is neither of them is going to net many delegates over the other in the early states. Depending on the margins in SC, Hillary may win a large handful more than Sanders there, but that's it.
Neither is going to win Iowa or New Hampshire by double digits, in my opinion.
My point is neither of them is going to net many delegates over the other in the early states. Depending on the margins in SC, Hillary may win a large handful more than Sanders there, but that's it.
Neither is going to win Iowa or New Hampshire by double digits, in my opinion.
Well yeah. Narrative is everything coming out of IA and NH. Its why Bradley deflated quickly after NH. He probably could have won some later states if he had won NH. NJ was not until June.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
You're talking about a couple state polls when there's barely any state polling right now to begin with. What about national polling? What about the state polling that doesn't show Sanders doing better like PPP?
It's a real stretch to come to any conclusion on the matter.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
If Sanders wins Iowa, he will win New Hampshire by double digits, IMO. Minimum +8.
Again, if Sanders wins Iowa (still more unlikely than not at this stage), Nevada is the one we'll be wanting to watch closely. NH and SC probably won't tell us too much.
What level of stupid does one need to deeducate (I maded a word) themselves into that would make supply-side economists plausible, let alone reasonable?
These people are totally unprepared for reality.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Both Clinton and Trump have the same problem if they under perform Iowa and New Hampshire. Trump built a lot of his campaign on his general success, and Clinton built hers on inevitability.
Any unexpected losses poke holes in those narratives, and gives momentum to their opponents. I believe this is a big reason Obama was able to win the nomination.
Any unexpected losses poke holes in those narratives, and gives momentum to their opponents. I believe this is a big reason Obama was able to win the nomination.
User 463088
Banned
Hillary out performed her polling average in NH in 2008 by nearly 10 points. Part of that was NH being NH and loving to be contrary to Iowa (kidding, not really). I believe Bernie will win NH. I've always said that. For me to think he has a better than average chance of winning Iowa, I'd want to see at least one poll with him tied or leading. There hasn't been a single one of those since September, when we were dealing with Biden's Schrodinger's Candidacy.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I disagree with the first part because Sanders is essentially a home candidate in NH; but I agree with the second part. I still think Clinton is more likely than not to win Iowa. Still, here's hoping! ;D
User 463088
Banned
The reasons I believe he won't win by anything other than high single digits is because of Hillary's advantage with registered Democrats and women. The most interesting this is if Hillary wins Iowa (and I agree, I think she will), will some of Bernie's softer Independent voters jump ship to vote in the more exciting GOP primary?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Sanders is more vulnerable in NH than people think.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Clinton's advantage with both will diminish as a result of Sanders (hypothetically) winning Iowa. Clinton's favorability is split about half and half between "very favourable" and "favourable". Some of the favorables will be there because they perceive her as more electable or inevitable; both of which loose some traction if Sanders wins Iowa. Obviously the dedicated and loyal voters like yourself won't shift, but I'm fairly sure you'd see, say, a 4% movement from Hillary to Sanders (which obviously represents an 8% increase in Sanders' lead over Hillary).
I mean, if Sanders *doesn't* win Iowa, the reverse is true - I think Clinton would stand a very strong chance of taking NH if she wins Iowa by 5% or more; that'd knock the wind out of Sanders supporters.
Poodlestrike
Banned
See, while I agree with you that supply-side economics is bunk, clearly these people are prepared for reality, as evidenced by quite a few of them being super-rich. It's the sort of thing that works very very well for an individual but is pretty shit for society as a whole.
User 463088
Banned
I disagree with your first assertion because, poll after poll, has shown that Hillary's support is more firm than Bernie's. Registered Democrats are not ignorant to who Bernie Sanders is. Electability is a problem for him, as even his own supporters usually say Hillary has a better chance in the GE. (That's from several different polls showing her out performing her top line numbers as to who has the best chance of winning in the GE).
I'm not saying a Bernie win in Iowa wouldn't mean an increased margin in NH, but I do not believe it would be enough to swing the election into a double digit win for him.
Anyway, Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband are going to endorse Hillary as is Obama's Transportation Secretary Foxx.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I agree that Clinton's supporters are (mostly) firm, but they're not so firm you're not going to see a single shifter. Suppose that Sanders is +4 up in New Hampshire right now, with the race at 52-48 if it came to an actual vote. If even 3 percentage points of Clinton voters moved to support him after an Iowa win, he's now +10 up in New Hampshire - i.e., double digits - because 3 from Clinton to him means he relatively gained 6 (because it is now 55-45). In order for Sanders not to win by double digits in NH, you have to suppose either a) he's doing less well than +4 in NH, or b) that Clinton supporters are something like 94% secure in their choice (i.e., less than 3 from 48 are willing to move). I think Clinton supporters are secure, but not 94% secure.
QuiteWhittle
Member
There's always 2020! Thom Tillis is very unpopular.
JesseEwiak
Member
Not to get into the argument whether Ted Cruz is going to win 40 or 45 states against Hillary, but...
Yeah, this is one of the arguments that "race realists" (ie. the racists who go "I don't hate non-white people, the science just says they're less intelligent and more violent than white people") use to try to convince people to be against immigration - "look, we wouldn't need to waste all these resources on new housing, etc. if we had less people moving here!"
It's almost like one site has an agenda and the other one simply averaging polls.
Yeah, this is one of the arguments that "race realists" (ie. the racists who go "I don't hate non-white people, the science just says they're less intelligent and more violent than white people") use to try to convince people to be against immigration - "look, we wouldn't need to waste all these resources on new housing, etc. if we had less people moving here!"
It's almost like one site has an agenda and the other one simply averaging polls.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The article is trying to get racists on board with stopping climate change (which I hate doing, but fuck, Trump and Cruz are leading the polls), but I don't think I used any racial language (please tell me if I did and where) and didn't argue that immigration is bad. I just think people shouldn't be essentially forced to emigrate away from their nation.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I think it's a solid argument. You need to address these people in terms of issues, language, and problems that they understand. "You should care about climate change because it's an important environmental issue" has clearly gotten nowhere with a huge segment of the populace. Neither have the doomsday scenarios, because people just block that shit out. Changing it into an economic and, yes, kinda racial argument has the potential to gain traction with groups who have previously proved resistant.
It's bloody minded, but workable.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked