IA-Gravis Marketing: Trump/Cruz close, Clinton at 53%

[HillOfANight]

http://www.oann.com/polliowa/
Trump 31
Cruz 27
Rubio 13
Carson 7
Bush 6
Kasich 4
Christie 3
Fiorina 3
Paul 2
Huckabee 2
Santorum 1

Clinton 53
Sanders 42
O'Malley 5

[Mehmentum]

I guess that means Sanders wins it then.

[Holmes]

I guess that means Sanders wins it then.

That's ARG.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hillary seems to have the big mo'. Larger than expected victory is my guess. Possibly enough to make NH competitive and put the Bernbots to rest.

[Broken System]

Rubio +8
Bush +2
Paul +1
Santorum +1
Huckabee --
Kasich --
Cruz -1
Carson -2
Christie -2
Fiorina -2
Trump -3

[Lief 🗽]

Hillary seems to have the big mo'. Larger than expected victory is my guess. Possibly enough to make NH competitive and put the Bernbots to rest.

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised by a 55-45 victory here. Similar to the Gore-Bradley caucus.

[RI]

Rubio +8
Bush +2
Paul +1
Santorum +1
Huckabee --
Kasich --
Cruz -1
Carson -2
Christie -2
Fiorina -2
Trump -3

Their last Iowa poll was really funky. I mean, Rubio at 5% was never realistic.

[RI]

Hillary seems to have the big mo'. Larger than expected victory is my guess. Possibly enough to make NH competitive and put the Bernbots to rest.

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised by a 55-45 victory here. Similar to the Gore-Bradley caucus.

Gore-Bradley was much closer to 65-35 than 55-45.

[IceSpear]

Hillary seems to have the big mo'. Larger than expected victory is my guess. Possibly enough to make NH competitive and put the Bernbots to rest.

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised by a 55-45 victory here. Similar to the Gore-Bradley caucus.

Hopefully, but I have a feeling Selzer is going to show a MoE race. And I'd take one Selzer poll over 10 other polls (learned my lesson from 2014.)

[/]

...

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

...but I have a feeling Selzer is going to show a MoE race. And I'd take one Selzer poll over 10 other polls (learned my lesson from 2014.)

Same here. There's just too much variation between the others. 4/13 since last Monday (I chose this date because there was a six day gap before Monday the 18th) have favored Bernie and 9/13 have favored Hillary. Selzer is not among the 13. The 13 polls range from +29 for Hillary to +8 for Bernie. That's a 37 point range, which is ridiculous. Selzer's last poll (1/7-1/10) had Hillary ahead by 2% with a whopping 14% still undecided.

Between the somewhat random polling, the way that votes are reported (by delegates, not straw poll vote), O'Malley's continued existence at about 4-5%, and the general closeness, it'll be close and that's what I'm predicting Selzer to show tomorrow.

I'd agree with your MoE guess. I'm still predicting a narrow Sanders win, but we'll see come Monday evening. A lot will depend on who turns out to vote and the quirks of the caucus sytem itself.

[Sorenroy]

I would remind everyone that the last Gravis poll in Iowa (conducted over a two day period from 1/11/2016-1/12/2016) showed Clinton at 57% to Sanders's 36% (O'Malley at 7%). This poll was off of the general trendline by 10.1% for Clinton and 7.6% for Sanders. It has a "C" rating at 538 and is in general awful. I would agree that Clinton is probably leading, but don't say that Gravis proves anything. It's a dumb outlier that shows almost nothing. In fact if it is off the margin it was last time (assuming the other polls are correct), Sanders would be at 49.6% beating Clinton's 42.9%.



(I took out the Gravis polls so they weren't affecting the trend.)

[Ebsy]

I would remind everyone that the last Gravis poll in Iowa (conducted over a two day period from 1/11/2016-1/12/2016) showed Clinton at 57% to Sanders's 36% (O'Malley at 7%). This poll was off of the general trendline by 10.1% for Clinton and 7.6% for Sanders. It has a "C" rating at 538 and is in general awful. I would agree that Clinton is probably leading, but don't say that Gravis proves anything. It's a dumb outlier that shows almost nothing. In fact if it is off the margin it was last time (assuming the other polls are correct), Sanders would be at 49.6% beating Clinton's 42.9%.



(I took out the Gravis polls so they weren't affecting the trend.)

I thought we didn't unskew polls here.

[This account no longer in use.]

Hillary seems to have the big mo'. Larger than expected victory is my guess. Possibly enough to make NH competitive and put the Bernbots to rest.

> Gravis

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I would remind everyone that the last Gravis poll in Iowa (conducted over a two day period from 1/11/2016-1/12/2016) showed Clinton at 57% to Sanders's 36% (O'Malley at 7%). This poll was off of the general trendline by 10.1% for Clinton and 7.6% for Sanders. It has a "C" rating at 538 and is in general awful. I would agree that Clinton is probably leading, but don't say that Gravis proves anything. It's a dumb outlier that shows almost nothing. In fact if it is off the margin it was last time (assuming the other polls are correct), Sanders would be at 49.6% beating Clinton's 42.9%.



(I took out the Gravis polls so they weren't affecting the trend.)

Never try to unskew Gravis, they're not even self-consistent. There was that crazy national poll with Webb at 12% and Chafee at 8%.

[Sorenroy]

I would remind everyone that the last Gravis poll in Iowa (conducted over a two day period from 1/11/2016-1/12/2016) showed Clinton at 57% to Sanders's 36% (O'Malley at 7%). This poll was off of the general trendline by 10.1% for Clinton and 7.6% for Sanders. It has a "C" rating at 538 and is in general awful. I would agree that Clinton is probably leading, but don't say that Gravis proves anything. It's a dumb outlier that shows almost nothing. In fact if it is off the margin it was last time (assuming the other polls are correct), Sanders would be at 49.6% beating Clinton's 42.9%.



(I took out the Gravis polls so they weren't affecting the trend.)

Never try to unskew Gravis, they're not even self-consistent. There was that crazy national poll with Webb at 12% and Chafee at 8%.

Sorry, my point wasn't to say that the polls were actually 49.6-42.9 Sanders, my point was to show how absurd their polls are to the people that were saying that this shows that New Hampshire will become competitive. If I was trying to unskew them, I would look at the breakdown of their polls for odd sample sizes, not just throw a flat rate from one candidate to another.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Does anyone here even take Gravis seriously anymore?

[Eraserhead]

Clinton -4
Sanders +6

Huge mo' for Hillary.

[Progressive]

I don't buy Paul at 2%

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I'm a Mets fan and an astute analyzer of political processes and demographics.  And when DMR comes out tomorrow with Sanders and Clinton neck-and-neck yous are gonna poop ya pants!

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Hillary fanatics are in desperation mode. Yes Iowa will be close...I'm not putting faith in a gravis poll.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Hillary fanatics are in desperation mode. Yes Iowa will be close...I'm not putting faith in a gravis poll.

WISE WORDS!  Definitely more wise than this gaggle of conservative cucks that pine for Wall St. to continue their reign through Queen Hillary. 

[Holmes]

literally lol @ people knocking this poll and then going to the Overtime thread to celebrate.

[DrScholl]

This is not all that far from what PPP shows. Gravis can be in line with the median at times and this is not exactly unbelievable.

Besides, the popular vote doesn't really matter and the totals are not posted. It's the delegate count that matters and Clinton has the better ground operation in the rural areas.

[Gass3268]

Crappy polling firm, but not good for Sanders.