...but really, these early match-ups mean nothing. Most people are not paying attention yet.

Bernie which is over their MOE. The fact is this poll oversampled republicans verses Democrats.

What would be nice to see is a poll of just independents, and not include Democrats or republicans in the mix. That one I would like to see, but it won't happen.

republicans are more likely to show up to vote than Democrats, and that sure was a disaster for them in 2012

change polls if one doesn't suit your needs.

Sanders beats Trump 45 – 37 percent. Bush edges Sanders 44 – 39 percent and Walker slips past Sanders 42 – 37 percent.

That is a 5 point difference with bush on top.

For Hillary it is:

Clinton thumps Trump 48 – 36 percent. She gets 41 percent to Bush’s 42 percent and gets 44 percent to Walker’s 43 percent.

That is a 1 point difference with bush on top.

Which part of the poll don't you understand?

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us07302015_U645de.pdf

Also the poll you name is from July 26th, so it is NOT as current as the quinnipac poll.

In the poll you site from CNN, Bernie beats bush by 1 point, and Hillary beats bush by 5 points.

So it would have been nice if you were not trying to mislead by slipping a different poll in the thread.

As has been pointed out the quinnipiac poll over samples republicans so you can argue on its accuracy on that basis. However, even the CNN poll has Hillary beating bush by a wider margin that Bernie against bush. I won't go into the primary results of the CNN poll, but I think you are aware based on the CNN poll you listed what it is.

Here is the link of the latest polls, including the one you named:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

To see the CNN poll you reference go down to the July 26th polls results.

while another poll by an equally if not more reliable source shows him winning against Bush.

Which means that at this early stage of the game, you cannot accept the results of one poll as the gospel truth.

that poll against bush. The CNN poll, which is an earlier poll, both Hillary and Bernie beat bush.

Also, as has been pointed out the quinnipac poll over sampled republicans over Democrats.

I agree it is too early

not beat any con.

Like it or not..

and most Democrats do not vote for republicans, that is a fact of life

As far as your assessment that it is a "solid minority", it is a solid minority of 42%, which is NOT insignificant:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

Democrats maintain their six-point edge in party identification when independents' "partisan leanings" are taken into account. In addition to the 31% of Americans who identify as Democrats, another 16% initially say they are independents but when probed say they lean to the Democratic Party. An equivalent percentage, 16%, say they are independent but lean to the Republican Party, on top of the 25% of Americans identifying as Republicans. All told, then, 47% of Americans identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, and 41% identify as Republicans or lean to the Republican Party.

are adding another variable, asking an independent where they lean more toward, the Democrats or the republicans, and "leaning" is NOT a solid given. They are independent because they don't subscribe to either the republican party or the Democratic party.

I am not going to argue the point with you. You have your view, I have mine

as partisans.

http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/most-independent-voters-arent-really

google independent voters not independent - there is a lot of info out there, a lot of polling done to conclude true independents are a much smaller group than is touted

you indicated that up to 10% of independents are actually truly independents. Do those independents vote, and if so is it enough to influence an election?

Rethinking about it, my reasoning is probably flawed. Maybe it isn't so much who tends to be aligned with the Democrats or who aligns with the republicans, but rather it is voters who have moderate views that make or break elections? That assumes a bell curve distribution. Not sure if that is a valid assumption.

and in that poll Bernie loses to bush by 5 points, and Hillary loses to bush by 1 point.

In the CNN poll you link to, Hillary beats all of them also but by a wider margin than Bernie.

THIS thread is is actually referring to the latest poll, NOT your link. Look at the dates from the article in the link

All of the other polls show Hillary and/or Bernie safely over their would-be Republican rivals. At any rate, I wouldn't put much stock into many of these early polls, which mostly reflect partisans.

Consider voting for assTrumpet is really astonishing.

The survey over-sampled white voters and under sampled African-Americans in a way that completely ignored the demographic trend of the last 8 years.

So, I wouldn't worry too much.

Because surveys tend to call landlines more than cell phones. in fact that one factor skews the survey participants to older, more affluent people so would skew the results to prefer Republicans.

polls?

Funny how that works, I think

Put Bush ahead of clinton and suddenly you guys act like it's that online "PBS poll" about Sarah Palin from back in the day

flaws that did not appear in previous polling, is a bad thing?

Couple that with the survey's poor/inappropriate summary descriptive narrative ... gives/should give observers, reason to pause ...

Unless, of course, advocacy is more important than accuracy of analysis.

And is 100% flawless whenever it tells you what you do want to hear.

I, and others, have pointed out the sampling flaws ... you claim I am being results oriented, WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE FLAWS.

Yes ... silly indeed!

Polls that predominantly engage particular demographics, or that are small enough to give a higher than 3% MOE, all seem just fine when they tell you what you want to hear. Like the AFT polling results. Those were flawed too, but regarded as holy and sacrosanct because it favored Clinton.

I absolutely claim you are "results-oriented." Nothing from you has suggested anything otherwise.

Now, my advice to you is to realize that polls are polls. They are never perfect. EVER. Especially in the modern day, where the majority of the population is "off the grid" as far as most polling practices are concerned. between now and November 2016, there are going to be tens of thousands of polls conducted. Some are going to tell you what you want to hear, others will tell you what you don't want to hear, and a good number will likely just make you go "say what?"

Don't get too worked up about them. End of the day, all you're learning is what the people who were polled think. Drawing society-wide conclusions from this is a flawed prospect, and just becuase your candidate operates that way doesn't mean you ought to (after all, you're not running for office as the nation's first openly Bipartisan president)

rather than, attempt to lecture me ... I mean, give me advise.

as you deem, dodgingly, appropriate.

The Q has a pretty good track record for employing sound modeling ... which makes THIS polling model so unusual, as to merit comment.

what should they have sampled? What are the numbers?

taken graduate level Research Methods coursework ... and did well in them.

Here is something a fellow graduate-level friend sent to me about the survey ... I checked the numbers and see it as accurate:

A couple of major questions:

What will minority voter turnout will be like without Obama on the ticket?

How motivated will white voters be to vote against Clinton?

The Republicans need older white voters to turnout strong like they did in 2014.

I WOULD NOT WORRY.

Still early, yes, but what the hell are people thinking?

So the result they got isn't hard to understand.

The question is why ANY of the 99% would vote for a Rethug.

to vote than Democrats. Gallop was humiliated by that assumption. I need to look closely at the poll, but I would like to know who the independents went for.

WE have DECADES of records and NONE of them support such a conclusion.

again, against historical trending ... Well ... everyone loves a horse race ... especially the media!

Sad that any of the 99% would even consider voting republican.

early to worry about it." A known candidate, losing in a poll at this point is a very bad sign

We have our work cut out for us.

ends in a result that is a statistical tie -- only 1% difference, well within the poll's margin of error.

the sampling ignores demographic trends, given the voting pattern of the under-sampled demographics.

Me thinks either this was sloppy design; or, horse race building; or, the Q built in an acknowledgement of voter suppression efforts.

Much whiter than any realistic electorate.

What numbers should they have polled?

Electorate....but if you are accepting these numbers and you support Sanders......then you should be afraid....very afraid.

compared to the usual 5 weeks.

An unheard of sum of, gasp, 15 million dollars, Canadian, has been raised by the Conservative government!

No time for governing in America when the campaign season begins as soon as the votes are counted from the last campaign.

Any election poll 60 weeks from Election Day is not a poll, it is a conversation starter.

Or at least part of a boot?

Not long enough to get exhausted.

Surprised Rachel would play that game.

That said, Hillary's running an utterly abysmal campaign so far. I remember everyone always said the big appeal of her was that she would fight back against rightwing attacks.

Instead, she's letting the media define her as scandal-ridden.

Her people should be hammering the NY Times for their bullshit piece every bit as hard as the Bushies went after Dan Rather.

And if she's going to hide from the media, she could at least send out some decent surrogates - i.e. NOT Lanny Davis and his perpetual lameness.

Someone needs to take control of this campaign and hit back.

with the results that one would expect.

I wonder how they're managing to skew their samples this way?

for Hillary

She was head panicker in 2008. Was often sure we would lose.

Hillary trumps Trump."
As reported on MSNBC earliet today.

So if this is true, how can Bush be beating Hillary?
Did Bush just zoom past Clinton & Trump in the last 6 hours?
Aw c'mon Rachael..not possible.

Viet screen is way off in Quinnipac so far this year. Since no other poll is showing anything remotely similar, I wouldn't put too much in the Q's numbers.

the last 3 months trashing Hillary and pumping Sanders. What do you expect? Keep it up and the GOP will win in November.

wrong wrong wrong wrong

HILLARY WILL BEAT EVERYONE. You mark my words, women are gonna hate trump and bush. women will come out STRONG for Hillary.

That way, they can cite their own failures as a reason the party should alienate even more voters and move even further to the right.

... it was clear she couldn't win. If she's folding already in a pretty uneventful primary election, time to go back to the drawing board. Rumors of her invincibility are clearly grossly exaggerated.

politician and campaigner than Clinton. That's why.

Clinton is not a good politician, but she is our only hope to win in November.

Obama went toe-to-toe with Hillary in an old school type campaign. Bernie's campaign is changing the paradigm, operating largely through social media. It's revolutionizing the process. Plus the only numbers going up for Hillary are her disapproval rating. It appears Bernie's got a real shot at the title.

are not going to vote for a short, old man with crazy white hair, a Brooklyn accent who is Jewish and an avowed socialist for POTUS. Wake up people.

Would love it if Sanders stood a chance but he doesn't.

By the same token, Hillary is not going to be able to explain satisfactorily her private server at home, the classified emails being discovered, and the huge donations to their foundation followed by, for instance, arms sales to countries on the watch list. Hillary could very easily have avoided the appearance of wrongdoing while SOS, but chose not to.

I have more faith in the American people to not be swayed by superficiality. Here's a column written today about Hillary's "white liberal problem." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/hillary-clinton-has-a-white-liberal-problem-that-will-help-bernie-sanders_b_7910526.html I think perhaps you might want to rethink your views on Hillary's electability.

Our candidates are much better than theirs. Any of them could do it.

You're serious aren't you?

No I call it being a progressive left-winger myself.

To hell with titles.

To hell with Hillary.

To hell with Jeb!

To hell with all of it.

It ain't over till its over as the old saying goes!!

Or is it her fault, which is being blamed on someone who actually does have enthusiasm behind him.

I'd rather win than play the blame game.

which is within the MOE.

In the same poll Bernie loses to bush by 5 points, outside the MOE.

Why can't they just go along with the Corporate Agenda and STFU?!

What do they expect when they do the character assassination FOR the GOP.

If advocating for bedrock Democratic Party principles is extreme, fuck this party.

The GOP is figuring out which red nose belongs to who, are stepping on each others large shoes, and can't figure out whose turn it is for the clown makeup.

And I'm not even a Hillary fan.

There is no mention of independent voters. This poll right now is just a garbage poll. It's there only to drum up interest.

If this exact same thing shows in October 2016-more than a year away-with independent voters then I might be a bit more concerned.

From what I've read every person polled expressed a political affiliation. There were none polled who called themselves "independents", which is the largest voting block.

There is nothing to worry about right now. Let the primary season play itself out first. I've heard quite a few independents talking about wanting to watch Sanders and Clinton debate in the primaries, which bodes well for the party in general.

Independents???

of voters consider themselves "Independent" when it comes to party affiliation. That would constitute a majority of the voting bloc. If the poll is polling only about party affiliation then it won't be accurate.

Honestly, the majority of voters calling themselves independent makes sense. And many of the independent voters just don't have much of an opinion right now about the election because it's so far away. I heard one person the other day make a comment about O'Malley, saying he knows nothing about him. Someone else said something about only knowing that Sanders, Clinton, Bush, Trump and Walker were running. She had no idea that there were other candidates on either side. They are both independent voters. Neither usually votes in a primary, just like many other independent voters.

The primaries are made for the two party system to duke it out on each side until they get to the last person standing in their party. The general election is when everyone else comes out to vote.

Most voters don't affiliate. They tend to cross back and forth over the party lines. They might vote Dem on a national scale but vote Repub on a local level because their neighbor is running for sheriff or vice versa.

I see you are a Clinton supporter. She has name recognition, which is actually a plus for the independent vote. Independent voters tend to vote for who they know, which is understandable.

I don't understand what the big deal is about there being so many independent voters. It is what it is. All of the campaigning for the general election isn't about going after their party vote-they already have that since they have their official candidate. And it's not really about getting voters from the other party since they will vote their party line. The campaigning during the primaries is about getting the party vote while the campaigning during the general election is about getting the independent vote, which is the largest voting bloc.

recognition.....I mean...WTF has Hillary Clinton EVER done to deserve her poll position right? I mean its JUST her name right?.....she is just a woman after all....she was JUST married to a President...that is her ONLY claim to fame right? Lord knows she has NO record of her own to speak of.....



Meanwhile Bernie has been there how long now and STILL doesn't have name recognition???


GMAFB! So tired of this false "name recognition" meme

I'm a woman who is actually volunteering with her campaign in my area. I like her. I've been a fan for years. She's a strong candidate who is more than able to do the job. She also has name recognition, which helps get the attention of the general public.

Hell, I liked her back in 2008. I voted for her in the primaries. I'm volunteering for her this time around, as is my teenage daughter.

I'm going with her but if Sanders were to win the primary I would campaign for his GE with no qualms. I don't have a problem with O'Malley either. If Biden threw his hat in the ring I wouldn't have a problem with him. I'm still giving my support to Clinton in the primaries but any of those candidates would have my support in the GE.

Name recognition isn't a bad thing. She has name recognition and will use it to her advantage, as she should. She's known for a career in politics. That's name recognition. She's married to a former president-name recognition. She was a senator-name recognition. She was Secretary of State-name recognition. It's not a bad thing. It's proof of who she is and where she's been. Some will use it against her but those same people would use it against her if she had little to no name recognition.

She is a woman running for the presidency. If she pulls through she will make history. She has been dealt a great hand of cards and she'd better use every single one of them during the cycle. Recognition is just one of the cards in her hand. If she doesn't use them all at the right time someone will swoop in with a crappier hand and win it all. And honestly, if she doesn't take every advantage I'll be pissed.

WTF?

and I laid it out why that is tired and pointless....and why it makes Bernie look foolish.

She made a name for herself as an attorney, as the first lady, as a senator, as the SoS. She earned her name and she earned the recognition that goes with it. I don't understand what the problem is with that.

The meme you're complaining about says that she is only being considered because of her name. That's not what I'm talking about at all.

Meme is tossed at her. Which is ironic on its face when used by a Sanders supporter in that Bernie hasn't made a name in all these years.

You don't believe there are very many independent voters.

You are upset when people say that Clinton has "name recognition", even when it works in her favor.

You keep bringing up Sanders supporters when I've already said that I've attended local meetings to volunteer for Clinton's campaign, the most recent was two weeks ago. I'm a single mother in Missouri and I'm really excited about volunteering for her. My teen daughter is also very excited to do the same. Do you need proof that I'm a supporter? Do you need my organizer's name? (Mike Watts, if that's what you need.)

I don't understand why you are so upset about all of this. In the end this is all about a flawed poll that doesn't take a number of factors into consideration for an election that is fifteen months out.

How does that denigrate her?

Everyone knows who Hillary Clinton is, for better or worse. Why deny it? Why pretend she's a candidate that is unknown?

She is running for election. She wants to be the next President of the United States-something that, as a woman, will make history. She will have to fight harder than any other candidate because she is a woman. Is it fair? No, but that's life. I've obviously never had that kind of attention but have learned that even for simple promotions I've had to fight against younger men with less experience. As a middle aged woman I've had to jump through more hoops, fight harder and appear to be nearly perfect just to fight for a small raise. I can't imagine what she has to go through day after day.

If a man had that kind of name recognition he'd run with it. I would be disappointed if she didn't use it to her best advantage. I want her to use being a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter, etc, along with all of her qualifications. I want her to appear to be a strong woman who is more than qualified for the position, possibly the most qualified of the current batch of candidates for the position. I want her to pull out all the stops and I want her to leave absolutely nothing behind when she campaigns.

Here you will see the meme repeatedly....as IF she has never earned her poll position in the Primary.....that its only because she has a famous name. Its used here to deminish her accomplishments all the time...

I've been through a few election cycles here. I know how this place works and I know how it works with HRC in an actual election, since I saw it back in 2008. So, let me give you a lesson on how DU works during a big election.

1) There will be numerous candidates from the Dem party
2) There will be lots of disagreement about who "deserves" to be the candidate
3) There will be hateful posts about anyone projected to be the front runner
4) There will be threads about how if the front runner or the second in the polls runs against any Republican they will lose and that we need to look towards a different candidate
5) There will be people threatening to leave the party if their candidate doesn't get the nomination
6) There will be posts about voting for a third party candidate and how if a certain candidate doesn't get the nomination they will vote for that candidate instead of the nomineee
7) The front runner will pull ahead and the threads will get even more toxic about the front runner
8) There will be threats about party divides as the convention arrives
9) There will be threats about leaving the party if certain people don't pick the correct candidate for vice president
10) There will be hateful threads about the new presidential and vice presidential nominee and how they cannot beat the projected Republican nominee


And then the Republicans have their convention. Everything after that is about how great our candidates are, how they will beat the Republican nominees, etc. The new threads will be about where to donate money and how to donate time. They will be filled with rah-rah cheers and how they always knew the party candidate would be the best choice.

In other words, the primaries are the time for us to get all of our infighting done. The general election is the time for us to get together and gather behind the party candidate, even if that person isn't who we supported in the primaries.

Honestly, fuck the memes. It's going to get a lot worse around here before it gets better. When it's an especially bad day just log off, relax with a drink and come back two days later. If you don't you'll never make it through the primaries.

And the result was a statistical TIE, even though the sample skewed toward Rethugs.

No one should take a Quinnipiac poll seriously. They seem to have a pattern of oversampling for Rethugs. Does anyone seriously think there are more R's than D's in the general population now?

Also, in polls like this one candidate is never really 1 percent ahead of another -- because any result within the margin of error (which in this case is 2.4 points) is a statistical TIE. The polls can't accurately predict a winner when the results are within the margin of error.


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-surge-jeb-bush-slump-2016-poll-120795.html#ixzz3hR1NYQGj

The poll of 1,644 self-identified registered voters carries an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points. Subsamples of 681 Democrats and 710 Republicans have margins of error of plus or minus 3.8 and 3.7 percentage points, respectively.

Don't like the poll. Trash it. I'm sure you have better poll numbers since you know how to do it.

And the fine print of this poll shows that the sample skews toward Republicans. So unless you think there really are more Rethugs than Dems in the population, then the samples weren't representative.

CNN, ABC, USA Today and PPP have all released polls this month with Hillary up

CNN's poll was released only a few days ago.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html

The sample is white, by several percentage points, than the 2012 electorate. In every presidential election since the 70's, each successive presidential election has been LESS white, not more.

Also, the person you are responding to is correct. Party ID is WAY off from the actual electoral make-up in presidential years.


Could the poll be right on the match-ups? Yep. But it disgree with most other polls AND has a suspect sample... that's why we need to look at polls in the aggregate, an not in the ones and twos.

Remember when the Bernie supports were cheering that YouGov poll a couple weeks back? Many of us warned it looked like an outlier, and results since then confirm that is was. Never looks at a single poll, especially one with a suspect sample.

All you get at this point is name recognition and surface impressions. That's all.

We here on DU pay a lot of attention to political things all the time. More than 80% of everyone else is barely aware that next year will be a Presidential election. Unfortunately, a lot of that 80% votes.

Clinton is in the MoE, as is Biden. And that's before people are reminded of Bush II's greatness before thinking about the greatness of Bush III, Jeb W. Bush.

Also, Quinnipiac's polls have serious flaws, aside from the fact that QU is a third-rate education bubble institution.

dislike and distrust Hillary Clinton.

I quit going to senior meals in part because of the hate and stupid.

I find unexplainable that so many still support GWB and even the BS that was sprayed in the media to lie us into an evil war, they still believe the lies.

So another Bush is fine and even welcomed.

I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter; honestly, I wish she would go away and get out of the discourse. Still I will be an unhappy partisan in my vote.

Hillary Clinton could well lose the election if the Democratic nominee because, rightly or wrongly, she is disliked by so many. Reality.

The poll was conducted only with those who offer a party affiliation. The majority of Americans do not affiliate. They are independent voters. It is far too early to even test the waters with independent voters for the general election.

It doesn't really matter who wins the primary right now. Wait until we have a nominee and then see how it goes. When the party goes all out things can change. It doesn't matter if the candidate is Clinton, Sanders or even if Biden were to decide to run.

It is far too early to tell. We have well over a year. We haven't even begun primary season.

More? Never pay attention to the topline number on a poll.

No wonder people don't vote in the USA. They are so fucking weary of perpetual campaigns that they just stay home.

Give it a rest, sheeple. Relax. Have a martini or two. Play some softball. Go for a swim with the kids. Look at the stars at night.

There was even a post here tonight worrying about when the Democratic primary debates were going to be!!!!

We are all being played. In my nearly 70 years I do not think I have ever seen such rubbish as what is happening politically right now. No wonder the GOP has nearly all the marbles. If they gain the White House next year it is our own damned fault for playing into this perpetual campaign narrative, among other things.

and stop playing into the perpetual campaign narrative which can only have the inevitable result of repressing voter turnout.

Sorry, my friend. The UK does national elections in six weeks. The only reason why people like you have been setting your hair on fire about 2016 is because people in the media have been telling you that there is some urgency in the whole affair. After all, how else better to get a dozen and a half people into the GOP primary fifteen months before the election! (Thank you Citizens United, I suspect.)

I argue that voter turnout would be much better if we did not set our hair on fire so soon. Need I add that voter turnout helps Democrats?

Condescending???? BAH!

How about not being a dupe!