What the hell happened in Michigan?

[Wiz in Wis]

An interesting analysis on why the polls were so off in MI. Key Quote:

Philip Bump has a possible explanation: turnout models in this year’s polls were based on 2008. However, 2008 was an anomalous election because Michigan had been disqualified from sending delegates to the national convention. Consequently, turnout in 2008 was extremely low and skewed toward older voters. In contrast, yesterday’s voting was evenly distributed across major age groups. In other words, older voters were overcounted and younger voters were undercounted.

In other words, Michigan pollsters are morons.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/03/09/how-surprising-was-the-sanders-win-in-michigan/

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

What a joke!

Yes, you are.

Are you seriously trying to deny that the Washington Post ran 16 negative Sanders stories in sixteen hours? Because there's proof right here.

Oh no! Our candidate is being covered like any other candidate would be! #conspiracy #Illuminati

Give me an example of the Washington Post running 16 negative stories on another candidate, or for that matter, anybody else in as many hours.

well DOnald Trump for one, lol.

Basically most journalists neither have the motivation nor brains to carry out a concerted attack on an individual candidate. for ideological reasons - it's not in their nature (the exception is the British press, but the American press tends to lack that sort of obsessiveness that British tabloids have, mostly because most American newspapers are  either relatively highbrow or milquetoast sh**te like USA TODAY).

The only thing that drives journos is driving a story - which is why they will happily swing en masse against and then for the "HILLARY THE MONOLITHIC" story. "Women easily wins" is a terrible story that will get them no credit, while magicking up stories about her coming death of an incurable cough will. So they wree quite happy to chug along painting Sanders as more af a force of nature than an actual candidate - and that force represented the longstanding gripes journos have with the CLinton family. Of course, once that got tiresome they all turned at once on Bernie scurrying to be the hack with the award-winning TAKEDOWN of loval hero Berine Sanders (helped, of course, by the fact that clickbait about Sanders is $$$$$, as I'm sure the moneypeople have said). And you have an unusual spurt (actually not that unusual, you could probably collect 24hr periods of time when other candidates are swept up with a gish gallop of negative press - remember the point where Carson began to implode?) of a mixture of genuine hit jobs (about a quarter of the articles listed), "recontextaisations" and bland neutral pieces that have been packaged as anti-Sanders to pad out the OUTRAGE by whoever wanted to cojure up the EVUL WAPO yarn.

[This account no longer in use.]

Fair enough. But in my opinion, their "response" only makes it worse.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

We'd better be careful with the Florida polls too then, because it's the same story for that state in 2008 as well. Obama didn't even campaign there.

[Wiz in Wis]

We'd better be careful with the Florida polls too then, because it's the same story for that state in 2008 as well. Obama didn't even campaign there.

True, though Florida did have Obama on the ballot. Difference would have been less severe.

[Maxwell]

Michigan pollsters are also horrendous.

[IceSpear]

WaPo thinks they figured it and and apparently it is all Howard Dean's fault...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/why-were-the-polls-in-michigan-so-far-off/


Basically the likely voter screens of pollsters were using models based on the weird 2008 race and were underestimating the number of men and young voters.  So in theory MI is an anomolie because of their issues with the 2008 election, which shouldn't apply to polling in other states like OH.

Lets see, the newspaper that recently ran 16 hit pieces against Bernie in just 16 hours is trying to convince people that some election 8 years ago screwed up all the polls in Michigan, and none of the other 49 states could be used as models? What a joke!

How many negative stories do you think they've run on Hillary Clinton? Probably like a thousand based on the email faux scandal alone!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

WaPo thinks they figured it and and apparently it is all Howard Dean's fault...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/why-were-the-polls-in-michigan-so-far-off/


Basically the likely voter screens of pollsters were using models based on the weird 2008 race and were underestimating the number of men and young voters.  So in theory MI is an anomolie because of their issues with the 2008 election, which shouldn't apply to polling in other states like OH.

Lets see, the newspaper that recently ran 16 hit pieces against Bernie in just 16 hours is trying to convince people that some election 8 years ago screwed up all the polls in Michigan, and none of the other 49 states could be used as models? What a joke!

How many negative stories do you think they've run on Hillary Clinton? Probably like a thousand based on the email faux scandal alone!

I really doubt anywhere close to 16 in 16 hours.

[King of Kensington]

Here's how metro Detroit voted:

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20160309/BLOG020/160309826/how-did-metro-detroit-vote-in-tuesdays-primary

[King of Kensington]

^ OK I tried to access the article again and it's behind a paywall.  I recall reading that Hillary got about 70% of the vote in Detroit and 62% of the vote in wealthy West Bloomfield Township.

[RaphaelDLG]

WaPo thinks they figured it and and apparently it is all Howard Dean's fault...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/why-were-the-polls-in-michigan-so-far-off/


Basically the likely voter screens of pollsters were using models based on the weird 2008 race and were underestimating the number of men and young voters.  So in theory MI is an anomolie because of their issues with the 2008 election, which shouldn't apply to polling in other states like OH.

Lets see, the newspaper that recently ran 16 hit pieces against Bernie in just 16 hours is trying to convince people that some election 8 years ago screwed up all the polls in Michigan, and none of the other 49 states could be used as models? What a joke!

How many negative stories do you think they've run on Hillary Clinton? Probably like a thousand based on the email faux scandal alone!

You're thinking of the New York Times and their phony Clinton scandal stories.

In general, both Clinton and Sanders get hit a lot harder by the media then Repubs as MM esp cable news are just completely terrified to go after Republicans nowadays ("liberal media" my ass).

However, I definitely believe that, speaking very, very broadly, Clinton clearly gets more favorable or at least far, far less dismissive coverage than Sanders.

[Landslide Lyndon]

WaPo thinks they figured it and and apparently it is all Howard Dean's fault...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/why-were-the-polls-in-michigan-so-far-off/


Basically the likely voter screens of pollsters were using models based on the weird 2008 race and were underestimating the number of men and young voters.  So in theory MI is an anomolie because of their issues with the 2008 election, which shouldn't apply to polling in other states like OH.

Lets see, the newspaper that recently ran 16 hit pieces against Bernie in just 16 hours is trying to convince people that some election 8 years ago screwed up all the polls in Michigan, and none of the other 49 states could be used as models? What a joke!

How many negative stories do you think they've run on Hillary Clinton? Probably like a thousand based on the email faux scandal alone!

You're thinking of the New York Times and their phony Clinton scandal stories.

In general, both Clinton and Sanders get hit a lot harder by the media then Repubs as MM esp cable news are just completely terrified to go after Republicans nowadays ("liberal media" my ass).

However, I definitely believe that, speaking very, very broadly, Clinton clearly gets more favorable or at least far, far less dismissive coverage than Sanders.

You could argue that Sanders gets less coverage than he deserves (which can be said for almost every candidate not named TRUMP). But to say that he gets more negative coverage that's just ridiculous.
Just think that after so many months running nobody even bothered to search for old statements and videos like the one praising Castro and Ortega.

[This account no longer in use.]

I beg to differ. Whether you want to admit it or not, the Washington Post did run such classic stories as "Clinton Is Running For President. Sanders Is Doing Something Else," "This Is Huge: Trump, Sanders Both Using Same Catchphrase," "'Excuse Me, I'm Talking': Bernie Sanders Shuts Down Hillary Clinton, Repeatedly," "Five Reasons Bernie Sanders Lost Last Night's Democratic Debate," "Here’s Something Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders Have in Common: And the Piece of the Argument That Bernie Doesn’t Get Quite Right," and "Why Obama Says Bank Reform Is a Success but Bernie Sanders Says It’s a Failure," not to mention many more, all in the span of 16 hours.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I beg to differ. Whether you want to admit it or not, the Washington Post did run such classic stories as "Clinton Is Running For President. Sanders Is Doing Something Else," "This Is Huge: Trump, Sanders Both Using Same Catchphrase," "'Excuse Me, I'm Talking': Bernie Sanders Shuts Down Hillary Clinton, Repeatedly," "Five Reasons Bernie Sanders Lost Last Night's Democratic Debate," "Here’s Something Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders Have in Common: And the Piece of the Argument That Bernie Doesn’t Get Quite Right," and "Why Obama Says Bank Reform Is a Success but Bernie Sanders Says It’s a Failure," not to mention many more, all in the span of 16 hours.

Seriously?

The first is blatantly not a hit piece, the second is just dumb horseshoe clickbait, the third is literally just facts, the fourth is a journalist editorialising who won the debate (and the same journalist penned an article later about Donald Trump winning, and it's not like Wapo are in the tank for Trump), the fourth I give you is a bit dumb and the fifth is definitely not a hit piece at all. What weak arguments!

[This account no longer in use.]

I beg to differ. Whether you want to admit it or not, the Washington Post did run such classic stories as "Clinton Is Running For President. Sanders Is Doing Something Else," "This Is Huge: Trump, Sanders Both Using Same Catchphrase," "'Excuse Me, I'm Talking': Bernie Sanders Shuts Down Hillary Clinton, Repeatedly," "Five Reasons Bernie Sanders Lost Last Night's Democratic Debate," "Here’s Something Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders Have in Common: And the Piece of the Argument That Bernie Doesn’t Get Quite Right," and "Why Obama Says Bank Reform Is a Success but Bernie Sanders Says It’s a Failure," not to mention many more, all in the span of 16 hours.

Seriously?

The first is blatantly not a hit piece, the second is just dumb horseshoe clickbait, the third is literally just facts, the fourth is a journalist editorialising who won the debate (and the same journalist penned an article later about Donald Trump winning, and it's not like Wapo are in the tank for Trump), the fourth I give you is a bit dumb and the fifth is definitely not a hit piece at all. What weak arguments!

That's true. Individually, the first is completely correct indeed, the second is ridiculously stretching, and the fourth is just an attempt at clickbait for the same people that use Buzzfeed. But when you put all of these headlines in a span of 16 hours, that's a bit odd. It doesn't help that there were ten other stories as well.

[SingingAnalyst]

A Democrat wins the South, loses MI while getting 60% in Wayne Co and 73% in Detroit.... WHAT YEAR IS IT??