Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTime: "Experts say it's too early for general election polls to be meaningful"
For months, Bernie Sanders has been pointing to polls that show him performing better in general match-ups against Republicans than Hillary Clinton.
For Sanders, the numbers offer a bold rebuke to skeptics who say that a wild-haired democratic socialist could not win in November. As hes slipped farther behind in the primary, Sanders has made the polling argument time and again, even arguing that Democratic superdelegates should overlook Clintons lead in pledged delegates and raw votes to choose him.
For Sanders, the numbers offer a bold rebuke to skeptics who say that a wild-haired democratic socialist could not win in November. As hes slipped farther behind in the primary, Sanders has made the polling argument time and again, even arguing that Democratic superdelegates should overlook Clintons lead in pledged delegates and raw votes to choose him.
General election polls taken months before voting day have a history of being wrong. According to data compiled by FiveThirtyEight, general election polls taken a year in advance have been inaccurate by more than 5 percentage points in the last 10 out of 14 elections for which there is data.
Even polls six months out are inaccurate, too. For example, at this point in the 2000 election, late April polls showed then-Gov. George W. Bush with a strong national lead of five points over then-Vice President Al Gore. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore by half a percentage point that November.
Even polls six months out are inaccurate, too. For example, at this point in the 2000 election, late April polls showed then-Gov. George W. Bush with a strong national lead of five points over then-Vice President Al Gore. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore by half a percentage point that November.
more: http://time.com/4305514/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-general-election-polls/
===============
This has been a common argument here on DU. Just another example of where Bernie supporters have been wrong.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 400 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Time: "Experts say it's too early for general election polls to be meaningful" (Original Post)
DCBob
Apr 2016
OP
w4rma
(31,700 posts)1. Yup. Trump can definitely beat Hillary.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)2. Its possible but very unlikely.
Thank goodness!
TM99
(8,352 posts)3. So inaccurate by 5 percentage points eh?
Sanders beats the GOP candidate choices by 10 to 20 points so being off by 5 is not that bad a bet.
Clinton on the other hand does not so being 5 points or so off is a very bad bet.
They probably didn't mean to make this sound the way it actually does!