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?
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.