2016 Postmortem

pnwmom

(108,978 posts) Sun Feb 7, 2016, 08:16 PM Feb 2016

RCP Poll AVERAGES: National, Clinton 50.4 vs. Sanders 36.4

New Hampshire: Sanders 53.6 Clinton 40.4

South Carolina: Clinton 62 Sanders 32.5

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwa

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

RCP Poll AVERAGES: National, Clinton 50.4 vs. Sanders 36.4 (Original Post) pnwmom Feb 2016 OP

Old data... hoosierlib Feb 2016 #1

2 national polls, but the Reuters/IPSOS polls aren't represented on RCP. (nt) w4rma Feb 2016 #4

You are correct, my apologies... hoosierlib Feb 2016 #6

The Reuters "poll" showing a virtual tie wasn't an actual poll. pnwmom Feb 2016 #13

I wonder why... thomservo Feb 2016 #2

This message was self-deleted by its author polichick Feb 2016 #3

I can't find anything about how that poll was conducted, can you? pnwmom Feb 2016 #5

post #6 in this thread explains it. thomservo Feb 2016 #7

Thank you. It wasn't an actual poll then. A snippet doesn't count. n/t pnwmom Feb 2016 #14

DU rec...nt SidDithers Feb 2016 #8

K & R SunSeeker Feb 2016 #9

Much of that lead is based on the discredited pollsters (Gravis, PPP) that said Clinton would win Vote2016 Feb 2016 #10

Lol - I went over there and O'Malley is still in it. Outdated perhaps? jillan Feb 2016 #11

It's almost over for Bernie. Super Tuesday is not very far off now ... NurseJackie Feb 2016 #12

hoosierlib

(710 posts)

1. Old data...

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 08:23 PM

Feb 2016

For context, both the national and SC averages are using old polls...only 1 national poll and 0 SC have been reported since Iowa...

w4rma

(31,700 posts)

4. 2 national polls, but the Reuters/IPSOS polls aren't represented on RCP. (nt)

Reply to hoosierlib (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 08:29 PM

Feb 2016

hoosierlib

(710 posts)

6. You are correct, my apologies...

Reply to w4rma (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 08:43 PM

Feb 2016

That being said, it still mostly old data...

pnwmom

(108,978 posts)

13. The Reuters "poll" showing a virtual tie wasn't an actual poll.

Reply to hoosierlib (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:14 PM

Feb 2016

It was a snippet from an online rolling poll.

Online polls are sketchy enough. Snipping out one days worth of data invalidates the results completely.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1251&thread=1169439

thomservo

(147 posts)

2. I wonder why...

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 08:24 PM

Feb 2016

they dont include the reuters/ipsos poll from yesterday in their rolling average?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSMTZSAPEC253J02S1

Response to thomservo (Reply #2)

polichick This message was self-deleted by its author.

pnwmom

(108,978 posts)

5. I can't find anything about how that poll was conducted, can you?

Reply to thomservo (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 08:41 PM

Feb 2016

The link for more information just led me to a another poll from a few weeks ago.

thomservo

(147 posts)

7. post #6 in this thread explains it.

Reply to pnwmom (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 08:48 PM

Feb 2016

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511165494

pnwmom

(108,978 posts)

14. Thank you. It wasn't an actual poll then. A snippet doesn't count. n/t

Reply to thomservo (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:15 PM

Feb 2016

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)

8. DU rec...nt

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 08:49 PM

Feb 2016

Sid

SunSeeker

(51,559 posts)

9. K & R

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 08:54 PM

Feb 2016

Vote2016

(1,198 posts)

10. Much of that lead is based on the discredited pollsters (Gravis, PPP) that said Clinton would win

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 08:57 PM

Feb 2016

Iowa by 10%.

Since there is no "national primary," I'm more curious about how the polling looks in Nevada where you would think Clinton's horrible record on anti-labor trade agreements and her past board membership with union-busting WalMart would cost her dearly.