Selzer/DMR/Bloomberg FINAL IOWA POLL: Trump +5, Clinton +3
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:32:59 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls
  Selzer/DMR/Bloomberg FINAL IOWA POLL: Trump +5, Clinton +3
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]
Author Topic: Selzer/DMR/Bloomberg FINAL IOWA POLL: Trump +5, Clinton +3  (Read 6871 times)
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,932
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: January 31, 2016, 10:48:34 AM »

I'm going to say that it won't be particularly narrow and Clinton will secure a good amount of delegates. It goes back to her having a better distribution of votes geographically, which is what this caucus is all about.
Logged
BlueSwan
blueswan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,290
Denmark


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -7.30

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: January 31, 2016, 01:44:19 PM »

I'm going to say that it won't be particularly narrow and Clinton will secure a good amount of delegates. It goes back to her having a better distribution of votes geographically, which is what this caucus is all about.
Sorry to be nitpicking, but I don't think this causus is about that at all. Infact, I think delegate allocation for Iowa is close to being irrelevant. The ENTIRE significance of the Iowa caucus is symbolic. I'm 100% positive that any candidate would rather win Iowa and receive ZERO of the delegates, than come in second and receive 100% of the delegates.
Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,751
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: January 31, 2016, 01:47:16 PM »

I'm going to say that it won't be particularly narrow and Clinton will secure a good amount of delegates. It goes back to her having a better distribution of votes geographically, which is what this caucus is all about.
Sorry to be nitpicking, but I don't think this causus is about that at all. Infact, I think delegate allocation for Iowa is close to being irrelevant. The ENTIRE significance of the Iowa caucus is symbolic. I'm 100% positive that any candidate would rather win Iowa and receive ZERO of the delegates, than come in second and receive 100% of the delegates.

In other states this is true, but Iowa doesn't report votes totals on the Democratic side, so here, it is about delegate count.
Logged
Beezer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,902


Political Matrix
E: 1.61, S: -2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: February 02, 2016, 06:21:20 AM »

Junk poll.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: February 02, 2016, 06:26:26 AM »

The closest to the result and better than any pollster was actually the Atlas poll average.

48-47 Clinton/Sanders

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2016D/polls.php?fips=19
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: February 02, 2016, 06:06:41 PM »

It actually looks like that sh**tty ISU poll was the closest.
Logged
Donnie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 351


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: February 02, 2016, 06:22:15 PM »

Selzer/DMR/Bloomberg - gold standard my ass Smiley
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 13 queries.