New poll: Sanders down six points in Pennsylvania

[paulthompson]

I just saw this at Real Clear Politics. The last poll in Pennsylvania had Sanders down 22 points. Sanders down six points, with three weeks to go? That's looking pretty good for him! His numbers consistently go up as the election day gets closer, and then he usually beats the poll numbers by a fair amount on top of that.

Case in point with Wisconsin: Nate Silver gave Clinton an 85% chance of winning just one week ago. Not only did Sanders win by 13 points, but he beat the final poll average by 10 points.

Pennsylvania is a closed primary (advantage Clinton), but it has no early voting (advantage Sanders).


Pennsylvania Republican Presidential Primary
Quinnipiac
Trump 39, Cruz 30, Kasich 24
Trump +9

Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential Primary
Quinnipiac
Clinton 50, Sanders 44
Clinton +6

Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton
Quinnipiac
Clinton 45, Trump 42
Clinton +3

Pennsylvania: Cruz vs. Clinton
Quinnipiac
Clinton 43, Cruz 43
Tie

Pennsylvania: Kasich vs. Clinton
Quinnipiac
Kasich 51, Clinton 35
Kasich +16

Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Sanders
Quinnipiac
Sanders 48, Trump 40
Sanders +8

Pennsylvania: Cruz vs. Sanders
Quinnipiac
Sanders 46, Cruz 38
Sanders +8

Pennsylvania: Kasich vs. Sanders
Quinnipiac
Kasich 46, Sanders 40
Kasich +6

[TMontoya]

1. Outlier

Hillary has PA locked up.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. just like new york right? you never said where in ny you live

[TMontoya]

7. I live in NJ

And yes just like NY, in fact she is handily winning NY. Likely by 15 points or more.

[paulthompson]

9. The latest NY polls

One has Clinton up by 12 ponts, the other up by 10 points. You can't say both are outliners. And in state after state (outside the South), Sanders numbers steadily go up as the election date gets closer.

New York is in play. Pennsylvania too. That's why Clinton unveiled her new "discredit and destroy" strategy last night.

[TMontoya]

13. Sorry no

Its not in play, but go ahead and let Sanders waste his resources on it. When she completes the trifect of NY PA and MD the primary is over.

[morningfog]

17. She is not "winning" in NY. She is "leading" in the polling.

However her lead is quickly evaporating, as it often does as we get closer.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

50. at this point she is +10

His surge effect is already kicking in

[w4rma]

5. The Clintonites keep saying that. I don't think that the phrase "locked up" means what they think. n

Last edited Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Inconceivable!

[CoffeeCat]

12. The PA trend line is exactly the same as NY

Bernie was down 30 points in NY two weeks ago. He's now down 10. Huge gains.

Bernie was down 25 points in PA 2 weeks ago. Now he's down only 6.

Same pattern, my friend.

Quinnipiac is a highly reliable poll with sound methodology. NY and PA will be tough for Sanders for sure. No one said it would be a cake walk. However both states are close races, they've tightened in Bernie's favor, and there are many days remaining to campaign, plus a big debate.

Both NY and PA are in play.

[TMontoya]

14. No

They are not. She will win both states by 15+ points. Two outlier polls don't count. She is still well ahead in both by 20+ points. According to the polls.

[morningfog]

15. Polls in your mind. You're out to lunch bub.

[TMontoya]

18. Facts

I am sorry if the Bernie bubble cannot process them. Facts are facts and math is math.

[morningfog]

24. You don't get to say which polls are outliers and which aren't. You cite nothing

except your brain farts.

[morningfog]

27. Here, try this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ny/new_york_democratic_presidential_primary-4221.html

RCP average in NY: HIllary +11

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary-4249.html

RCP Average in PA: Hillary +17.7

You act like you are new here, so I will treat you like you are (even though we both know better). You can't just make stupid shit up and call it a fact.

[CoffeeCat]

25. That's totally untrue.

You need to hop on over to RCP and look for yourself.

I'm just reporting the facts.

There's no evidence to suggest that Hillary is up by 20 in both NY and PA.

National polls show Bernie trending upward and Clinton trending down. The latest national polls show Bernie up by 2.

So actually, the latest NY and PA polls are in sinc with national trends.

[morningfog]

28. They are a returning intentional disruptor.

[CoffeeCat]

32. I get it

It's important to respond and refute with facts though. At least the truth is put forth so those reading understand that NY is a ten-point game and that Bernie is only behind by 6 in PA.

[TMontoya]

31. "Trends"

Is that anything like "momentum"? I am sorry if you cannot accept simple facts and math. And the facts say Clinton has a very comfortable lead in both NY and PA.

[morningfog]

33. Why do you ignore the actual facts? Are you here only to troll and disrupt?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary-4249.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ny/new_york_democratic_presidential_primary-4221.html

[TMontoya]

34. You can post this

As many times as you want if it makes you feel better. But as I said facts are facts.

[morningfog]

35. And what you say is meaningless. It is clear you are he to disrupt and not posting in good faith.

Hopefully MIRT catches you. BYE!

[TMontoya]

37. lol

Are you kidding? Seriously? In the very short time I have been here I have nothing but insults, and crass remarks by Sanders supporters. Oh well, when reality hits in NY and Clinton emerges victorious I will be here waiting for the "fraud" threads to start popping up.

[morningfog]

39. "very short time." riiiiiight.

You aren't fooling anyone with your piss poor trolling. WIth that, off to the ignore bin. Waste of time.

[TMontoya]

42. Oh well

Off to the safe space with you!

[CoffeeCat]

36. No the facts are

that Bernie has erased Clinton's 30 point lead in NY and now she's up only by 10. Also fact is that the latest PA poll shows Clinton with a 6-point lead.

Those are facts.

You're entire argument is that Clinton will win NY and PA by 15. That's not a fact. That's a prediction. It's also an opinion that is not supported by the latest polls.

[dchill]

30. I do NOT want your Super Bowl prediction.

[dinkytron]

2. Penn's a tough nut to crack. But if anyone could do it....

[Ferd Berfel]

3. Grain of salt

[lakeguy]

6. this might be one of the reasons why the HRC camp is risking the

scorched earth option.

[tex-wyo-dem]

20. Oh, the HRC camp is worried alright...

If she had it "locked up" as so many hilliarites on DU claim, why would she risk going negative and alienating Bernie voters?

If she had it "locked up", she would at this very moment be switching to GE mode and focusing her attacks on the GOP, not the Democratic Socialist senator from Vermont.

[Betty Karlson]

8. Excellent news.

Bey bey inevitability!

[democrattotheend]

10. Good news, but I am skeptical of the GE #'s

How could Clinton only be up 3 over Trump in Pennsylvania, which is slightly to the left of the country overall and has gone Democratic in the last 6 presidential elections? Even Fox has her up 10 nationwide over Trump.

Quinnipiac is a good pollster, but these numbers seem odd to me. From the number of undecideds in the general election matchups, I don't think they pushed leaners hard enough. But maybe they don't start pushing learners until it gets closer to the election.

[paulthompson]

11. Easy explanation

Independents. There are a lot of them, and they really, really don't like Clinton. In Wisconsin last night, Sanders won more than70% of independents. They don't count in the Democratic numbers, because it's a closed primary, so the pollsters discard them for that. But they do count in the Dem vs. Repub numbers. So those numbers can be very different.

Clearly, Kasich in particular has a lot of popularity in Pennsylvania.

Remember, Clinton has a 55% dislike rating nationwide. She's the most disliked major president candidate since pollsters started keeping track of favorability numbers - except for Trump. It looks like a lot of those people who dislike her are independents in Pennsylvania.

[WhiteTara]

19. Is PA an open primary? Thanks

[paulthompson]

21. you missed it

I just said in that above post and the OP that it's a closed primary. However, it also has no early voting, which favors Sanders.

[WhiteTara]

22. Thanks. I did miss it

No early voting would probably favor Sanders, but doesn't closed favor Clinton?

[paulthompson]

26. Yes

Closed favors Clinton. But maybe not so much as it used to. According to exit polls from Wisconsin last night, Clinton and Sanders tied with Democrats (and Sanders won big with independents). Whereas until recently, even in states he's won he's lost the Democrats by a fair margin.

And the Reuters national tracking poll has Sanders tied with Democrats for the first time today. So the numbers are shifting.

[JimDandy]

40. Not true of Washington State. Our Dems went big for him.

Lots of progressives here though.

[paulthompson]

43. Yes

Yes, but that's also a state that voted very recently. I said he's been doing better with Democrats as of late. Earlier on, much more of his support came from independents.

If every state had an open primary, Sanders would be in the lead now, and would go on to win. (But then again if every state had a closed one, Clinton would have locked things up already.)

[WhiteTara]

46. Interesting.

[stillwaiting]

23. Exactly. It's what makes the Democratic support for HRC so frustrating for me.

HRC has a HUGE problem with independents. And, if she's the nominee she could very well lose us the White House because of it.

This could be true no matter who the nominee is from the insane party.

[democrattotheend]

29. True, but Sanders was only up 8 over Trump

That is also narrower than I have seen in nationwide polls.

[closeupready]

38. Funny. I just tried to do a similar analysis of 538's forecasts vs. results.

What I discovered just now (because if I were a poll junkie, I'd probably already know this - but I'm NOT a poll junkie) was they were dead wrong on a couple of forecasts, but that for the most part, they FAILED/DECLINED to make projections on the races where Bernie was favored strongly.

Now WHY do you think they did this? ??

[paulthompson]

41. 538

They would say there wasn't enough data. And they'd have a point. Sanders has won big in caucus states, and I think pollsters are afraid to poll those because they can be so unpredictable. For instance, Washington is one of the ten biggest states and yet there wasn't a single poll there!

That said, lots of other people predicted those states, and a lot of them were fairly close to correct. For instance, I read in the mainstream media that Sanders was expected to win in Hawaii by about 2 to 1 (despite no polls there), and sure enough that's exactly what happened. How did they know that but Silver didn't? That's his exclusive job, to predict such things!

I used to respect Nate Silver a lot, but his site has been terrible this season. He's been just as bad on the Republican side, constantly underestimating Trump's chances.

[closeupready]

44. Thank you, I didn't know all that.

Separately, if he's getting all scaredy-cat about the potential of being the proverbial bearer-of-bad-tidings, maybe he should switch careers? Become a librarian or accountant or something staid and boring?

Cuz yeah, he's been awful, despite the frequent threads here in GDP with his pro-Hillary forecasts.

[JimDandy]

45. Because caucus states are difficult to get accurate polling out of... n/t

[closeupready]

47. Is that so? Do you know why that is?

?

[JimDandy]

49. They are a complicated, time-intensive process. It is difficult for the potential participants

themselves to know if they are going to make the commitment to attend, let alone a pollster.

[jillan]

48. Pic from outside of Sanders Rally in PA. Guess they didn't hear the memo that it's time

for him to drop out.

[TMontoya]

53. Your point?

Its been proven his rallies do not translate to votes in closed primary states. Bernie is in big trouble over the next three weeks.

[Tarc]

51. The cherry-picking crops in Sandersland are quite plentiful this year, it seems

Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential Primary

Quinnipiac Clinton +6
Harper (R) Clinton +22
Franklin & Marshall Clinton +25

[hrmjustin]

52. Quinnipiac had Hillary winning Ohio by 5 percent and she won by 14%.

[paulthompson]

54. Ohio

Ohio is literally the one state (outside the South) where Clinton outdid the most recent polls. And the final poll average was Clinton winning by six, so Quinnipiac was no different.

What probably happened was that more Sanders supporters voted strategically against Trump.

In virtually all other cases (outside the South), Sanders starts way down and keeps going up as the election gets closer, and then usually exceeds the final polls.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511617438

Here's most of what's at that link. And it specifically points out how Ohio was a unique case.


The Sanders late surge trend. I've been documenting this in state after state outside the South. (Unfortunately, the trend didn't happen in the South, but the South has finished voting, except for Kentucky.) I've posted these numbers a couple of times already, but I'm updating them and posting them again here, because I think they are so important to understanding poll results.

Here's a look at all the non-South results, in order of election date. (Note that most of the data comes from Real Clear Politics, including their final poll averages.)

Iowa - Sanders virtually tied after being down by about 20 points a month earlier.

New Hampshire - he beat the final poll average by about ten points.

Nevada - he lost by five points, but he did 18 points better than the one poll from a month and a half earlier.

Colorado - he beat the one prior poll by over 40 points!

Minnesota - he beat the latest poll by 50 points!

Massachusetts - he lost, but he beat the final poll average by five points. He also lost the early voting, but got a majority of the election day voting.

Oklahoma - he beat the final poll average by 12 points.

Vermont - his support in his home state was already basically maxed out - he won the state with 86% of the vote. But even so, that was seven points better than the one poll from a week earlier.

Kansas - he beat the one poll from a week earlier by 45 points!

Nebraska - apparently, no polls were done at all.

Maine - he bettered the one poll by 15 points.

Michigan - he beat the final poll average by 20 points!

Illinois - he lost by two points, which was in line with the last three polls. But the two polls from a few days prior to those had him down by 40 points!

Missouri - two polls had Clinton leading by five points and seven points respectively. One late poll had Sanders leading by one point, and the state ended up a virtual tie, with Clinton winning by less than a thousand votes.

Ohio - this is a bit of an anomaly. Clinton won by 14 points, which is six points better than the average of the last polls. But still, Sanders did ten points better than the average of the three polls from the week prior to that.

Idaho - he beat the one prior poll by 54 points!

Utah - he beat the last poll by 51 points! Plus, two poll prior to that one were off by 15 more points.

Arizona - he lost by 16 points, but that was still 14 points better than the final poll average. (Note that his numbers improved slightly a week after the election due to counting provisonal ballots.) He also lost early voting by a large margin, but won the election day voting.

Washington - no polls.

Hawaii - no polls.

Alaska - the lone poll from January showed Clinton winning by three points. In the actual election, Sanders had a 63 point victory margin!

Further evidence of this late surge trend can be seen by how he consistently loses big in early voting but does much better with election day voting. This has even happened in the South, where he has done so poorly overall. For instance, in Florida, Clinton won by 36 points by those who made up their minds one week or more prior to election day, whereas Clinton only won by 13 points among those who made up their minds in the final week. In North Carolina, Clinton was ahead in the final poll average by 24 points, but only won by 14 points. Why? Because Sanders lost the early voting there, but actually beat her with election day voting by four points.

---

The bottom line is, Clinton has a favorability rating of -14 nationwide, and Sanders has a favorability rating of +11 nationwide (according to the latest poll averages at Huffington Post). That means the more voters learn about Sanders, the more they realize they don't have to vote for someone they don't really like, so Sanders' numbers tend to go up.

Thus, you can be nearly certain that while Sanders might not win New York outright, his numbers there will keep trending better as we get closer to election day.

I've been keeping a close eye on the numbers for all the states, and I've only seen one time when Clinton actually outperformed the final polls, and that was in Ohio, where she beat the final poll average by five points. (And that was a strange situation, because many Democrats crossed over to vote for Kasich against Trump.) In every single other case, Sanders has equalled or bettered the final poll averages.

Oh, and New York and most of the states that follow a week later are closed primaries, which definitely favors Clinton (since Sanders is overwhelmingly popular with independent voters, who can't vote in those primaries). However, New York does not allow early voting (though it allows absentee balloting). Furthermore, of the states that vote a week later, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania also don't allow early voting, and only Maryland does. Most states that have voting so far have allowed early voting, so that's a factor that helps Sanders.