MI-NBC News/Marist: Sanders destroys Trump/Cruz, Clinton leads too
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:56:27 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 General Election Polls
  MI-NBC News/Marist: Sanders destroys Trump/Cruz, Clinton leads too
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: MI-NBC News/Marist: Sanders destroys Trump/Cruz, Clinton leads too  (Read 5242 times)
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,801
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2016, 03:31:48 AM »

Clinton will win IL & OH nxt week on March 15th, she should of won, but it wont matter, Bernie doesnt have the delegates needed to win. Thats why Bloomberg isnt running, he would have run only if Sanders was the nominee
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2016, 05:18:06 AM »

Bernie just mentioned his 22 point lead in the debate.

You've been posting on this forum for 12 years and you still cannot understand that early polls mean nothing.

Obama did similarly to what the March polls showed.

Uh, per RCP, McCain was leading in March...

Only briefly. Obama led for most of March and most of 2008. The idea that March polls don't matter is ridiculous.

The fact that McCain led at any point proves they're worthless.

I agree.  Would you be willing to go back in time to help me convince the IceSpear of 2014 not to believe early general election polls?  Tongue

I still think that Hillary will win if she runs, but I'm not really basing that on how she is doing in polls right now. I'm just looking at the national environment, Hillary's strengths as a potential candidate, and other things.

I agree with you.  Clinton would be the favorite at the moment.  But I don't say that because of polling, as I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that general election polling in presidential elections 2+ years before the election has any predictive value.

Heck, we've seen some crazy polling movement before *within* the election year, never mind 2 years ahead of time.  The most extreme case I can think of being:



You guys bring up good points, but increased polarization has likely increased the predictive value of early polls. I doubt we'd see any crazy swings like this in the modern era, barring a major game changer such as a scandal or economic collapse.

For example, in Romney vs. Obama numbers, there was nothing TOO crazy and wildly different from the end result in there, except during Obama's peak of popularity. Especially if there was enough polls to create an average, which there currently is for Hillary vs. the GOPers.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 09, 2016, 11:28:14 AM »

I did have a theory that increased polarization may have led to increased value of early general election polls. Once polls came out that started showing Utah being more likely to vote Democratic than Minnesota, and other similarly ridiculous things, I was clearly wrong.

That said, even back then I didn't believe the polls. I just thought they may not be totally useless. Big difference. If you're so inclined Morden, you can dig through my posts from 2014 about how I predicted Hillary would win by 5-6 points even when she was leading by 20+. Wink
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« 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 0.025 seconds with 12 queries.