Loras IA D: Hillary 62% Bernie 24%

[HillOfANight]

http://loras.edu/About-Loras/News-Events/News/2015/Clinton-Extends-Lead-over-Sanders,-Loras-College-P.aspx

Clinton 62 (57)
Sanders 24 (26)
O'Malley 3 (6)
Webb 1
Chafee 0
Undecided 10 (

Again, like the Monmouth poll, relatively tight screen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Holmes]

I guess this is Bernie's worst case scenario then, if he can't get out his vote. But Clinton should be feeling good to have a commanding lead over those who are known to get out and vote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Wow. I don't buy it, but it makes for a great narrative on the news circuit.

[weixiaobao]

The last 5 Iowa polls within the last half of October, post debate, without Biden.

Clinton (+7, +11, +3, +38, +41)

lol, I guess Web and Chafee's voters relocation really help out Clinton.

But boy, is this #s so varied.

[weixiaobao]

The last 5 Iowa polls within the last half of October, post debate, without Biden.

Clinton (+7, +11, +3, +38, +41)

lol, I guess Web and Chafee's voters relocation really help out Clinton.

But boy, is this #s so varied.

Also, I recalled there was an article that said Trump's supporters are irregular voters.   A large chunk of Sanders' supporters in Iowa seemed to be either just came to college in 2011 and later (aka current under grad college students).

And if they are college students, hell, they would care about the midterm election and or wasn't old enough to vote in 2012.  Not many young people care about midterm election.

[HillOfANight]

Seems like the biggest difference is that in polls that only ask registered Democrats, based off of voter lists, she dominates. In polls that ask independents, she barely leads.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I wish Biden would have said he endorses Clinton, but she is gonna build on his record. Go, Clinton.

[Ebsy]

Seems like the biggest difference is that in polls that only ask registered Democrats, based off of voter lists, she dominates. In polls that ask independents, she barely leads.

Independents cannot participate in the Iowa Caucuses.

[HillOfANight]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/upshot/why-an-iowa-poll-is-unfair-to-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[IceSpear]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/upshot/why-an-iowa-poll-is-unfair-to-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These polls are obviously way too favorable to Hillary, but it's amusing to see the same media that takes YouGov outliers at face value now scrambling to put results in context.

[Skye]

Perhaps we need another poll to judge. Numbers are a bit sketchy.

[Ebsy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/upshot/why-an-iowa-poll-is-unfair-to-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've been looking through the data(exit polls and , it seems like about 20% of caucus goers are independents that change their registration on caucus night.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

And I thought Iowa was #FeelingTheBern

[Eraserhead]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/upshot/why-an-iowa-poll-is-unfair-to-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've been looking through the data(exit polls and , it seems like about 20% of caucus goers are independents that change their registration on caucus night.

That's a lot.

[HillOfANight]

If that's true, that's smaller than I thought. Where is that data?

So if we allocate 80% as it is, Clinton is at 80%D*62% in this poll, 49.6%. Let's just guess she gets 20% of the 20% independents, that's another 4% for her, 53.6% total.

Sanders gets 80%D*24% in this poll, 19.2%, and 80% of the remaining 20% independents, 16%, 35% total.

[A Perez]

Perhaps we need another poll to judge. Numbers are a bit sketchy.

So two polls are not enough?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The last 5 Iowa polls within the last half of October, post debate, without Biden.

Clinton (+7, +11, +3, +38, +41)

lol, I guess Web and Chafee's voters relocation really help out Clinton.

But boy, is this #s so varied.

Selzer has an A+ rating from 538, and is the +7 poll, which has 2 polls 4 points on either side of it. Hillary is up somewhere around 7 points. Lets not bother with these joke polls.

[Craigo]

The last 5 Iowa polls within the last half of October, post debate, without Biden.

Clinton (+7, +11, +3, +38, +41)

lol, I guess Web and Chafee's voters relocation really help out Clinton.

But boy, is this #s so varied.

Selzer has an A+ rating from 538, and is the +7 poll, which has 2 polls 4 points on either side of it. Hillary is up somewhere around 7 points. Lets not bother with these joke polls.

Are 538 ratings based on primaries or generals, or both? Is it just the last cycle, or a rolling average? Are ratings set in stone, or do they ever change? Is it possible that final results could be affected by random error despite sound methodology?

Or is just easier to say "538 rating lollllz" than to do actual research, acquire in-depth knowledge of industry practices, and judge methodologies accordingly?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The last 5 Iowa polls within the last half of October, post debate, without Biden.

Clinton (+7, +11, +3, +38, +41)

lol, I guess Web and Chafee's voters relocation really help out Clinton.

But boy, is this #s so varied.

Selzer has an A+ rating from 538, and is the +7 poll, which has 2 polls 4 points on either side of it. Hillary is up somewhere around 7 points. Lets not bother with these joke polls.

Are 538 ratings based on primaries or generals, or both? Is it just the last cycle, or a rolling average? Are ratings set in stone, or do they ever change? Is it possible that final results could be affected by random error despite sound methodology?

Or is just easier to say "538 rating lollllz" than to do actual research, acquire in-depth knowledge of industry practices, and judge methodologies accordingly?

Look, Selzer is obviously the gold standard of Iowa. They know the Iowa caucus. Some of these bozo pollsters probably think they're polling some sort of non-caucus primary.

[Tender Branson]

That's the Katy Perry bump, which is responsible for lifting Hillary's numbers by 20%.

[Mr. Morden]

Selzer's definitely the gold standard for Iowa caucus polling.  Though last minute momentum in primaries or caucuses is often strong enough that whoever is in the field last ends up being most accurate in the end.  In the 2012 caucuses, ARG (!) ended up being about as accurate with their last poll as Selzer was, simply because ARG's poll came closer to caucus day.

[Tender Branson]

Selzer's definitely the gold standard for Iowa caucus polling.  Though last minute momentum in primaries or caucuses is often strong enough that whoever is in the field last ends up being most accurate in the end.  In the 2012 caucuses, ARG (!) ended up being about as accurate with their last poll as Selzer was, simply because ARG's poll came closer to caucus day.

ARG only copied Selzer's results and posted them on their website.

ARG is a fraud.

[Craigo]

The last 5 Iowa polls within the last half of October, post debate, without Biden.

Clinton (+7, +11, +3, +38, +41)

lol, I guess Web and Chafee's voters relocation really help out Clinton.

But boy, is this #s so varied.

Selzer has an A+ rating from 538, and is the +7 poll, which has 2 polls 4 points on either side of it. Hillary is up somewhere around 7 points. Lets not bother with these joke polls.

Are 538 ratings based on primaries or generals, or both? Is it just the last cycle, or a rolling average? Are ratings set in stone, or do they ever change? Is it possible that final results could be affected by random error despite sound methodology?

Or is just easier to say "538 rating lollllz" than to do actual research, acquire in-depth knowledge of industry practices, and judge methodologies accordingly?

Look, Selzer is obviously the gold standard of Iowa. They know the Iowa caucus. Some of these bozo pollsters probably think they're polling some sort of non-caucus primary.

Gallup was once the gold standard nationally. Zogby was once an excellent pollster. Scott Rasmussen was once highly respected in the industry. Who cares? It's no guarantee of future performance. Selzer bombed the last Iowa caucus they polled, despite good results in 2008. They could be close this year, or not so close. But win or lose, it will have little to nothing to do with what they've done previously.

Too often (and I see this everywhere, not just here) people look at polls as "This seems right to me, so it's a good poll." Or "This pollster has done well before, so this poll must be accurate." Or "This is a partisan pollster, so none of their results can be trusted." This is the dilettante's substitution for critical analysis: Hyper-focus on individual polls and houses, and judge them on sh**t that doesn't matter.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The last 5 Iowa polls within the last half of October, post debate, without Biden.

Clinton (+7, +11, +3, +38, +41)

lol, I guess Web and Chafee's voters relocation really help out Clinton.

But boy, is this #s so varied.

Selzer has an A+ rating from 538, and is the +7 poll, which has 2 polls 4 points on either side of it. Hillary is up somewhere around 7 points. Lets not bother with these joke polls.

Are 538 ratings based on primaries or generals, or both? Is it just the last cycle, or a rolling average? Are ratings set in stone, or do they ever change? Is it possible that final results could be affected by random error despite sound methodology?

Or is just easier to say "538 rating lollllz" than to do actual research, acquire in-depth knowledge of industry practices, and judge methodologies accordingly?

Look, Selzer is obviously the gold standard of Iowa. They know the Iowa caucus. Some of these bozo pollsters probably think they're polling some sort of non-caucus primary.

Gallup was once the gold standard nationally. Zogby was once an excellent pollster. Scott Rasmussen was once highly respected in the industry. Who cares? It's no guarantee of future performance. Selzer bombed the last Iowa caucus they polled, despite good results in 2008. They could be close this year, or not so close. But win or lose, it will have little to nothing to do with what they've done previously.

Too often (and I see this everywhere, not just here) people look at polls as "This seems right to me, so it's a good poll." Or "This pollster has done well before, so this poll must be accurate." Or "This is a partisan pollster, so none of their results can be trusted." This is the dilettante's substitution for critical analysis: Hyper-focus on individual polls and houses, and judge them on sh**t that doesn't matter.

Of the last 7 polls in Iowa, 5 have Hillary up 3-11 points. The other 2 have her up 38 or 41 points. They're all from different polling firms. Are you going to go with the 5 or the 2?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The point being that Gold Standards are such until they're not. Like that last (ugh I forget) poll out of Florida that had Romney up six and everyone went "they're the FL gold standard, I guess Florida is gone". But the issue is, both polls out today are ridiculous, I'd love Hillary to be up this much in IA, but like the other one. Lol, no.