Let me get this right...Sanders' supporters don't trust the polls...

[qdouble]

but want to use Bernie's lead in the polls against Trump as the reason for super delegates to hand him the nomination even if he loses in pledged delegates and the popular vote. If we're going by the polls, Sanders has no chance of catching up to clinton. If he actually does catch up to Clinton, that means the polls are wrong.

So Sanders wants to get on the convention floor and argue that even though polls have often been wrong this election cycle.... he should win because he's leading in polls for an election that is several months away?

[uponit7771]

1. Those polls are all "corporate" unless it supports Team Used Car Salesmen

[TM99]

2. Polls, polls, every where.

Some are bullshit. Some are 'scientific'. Some scientific ones suck (looking at you 538!). Some are used by one side. Some are used by the other side.

Play games all you want but we aren't going anywhere but to the convention for a fight. See you then!

[qdouble]

4. It's clear hypocrisy and you know it

538 mostly just bases their result on other polls...so if 538 sucks, polls in general suck. In reality, they only called 2 wrong.

Regardless, if we are to just go by polls that are several months out...then Hillary has already beaten Bernie and Trump.

Why have elections if we are to just choose candidates based on polls? Apparently, votes and polls only matter to Bernie supporters when they are in his favor?

[TM99]

8. Oh, this is precious, the hypocrisy

camp claiming we are hypocrites.

[jeepers]

3. It is not about whether or not we Sanders supporters believe in polls

It is that you believe in polls.

The popular vote is irrelevant

And super delegates were designed by the party to be independent, oops

[Lil Missy]

5. Bernie Logic

and Bernie Math

[NanceGreggs]

6. Don't know if you were reading DU ...

... last summer and fall, but "the polls" - according to the Bernie supporters - were incredibly accurate one day, and wildly inaccurate the next. As you can guess, the "accuracy" of the polls depended on whether they showed Bernie gaining or stagnating.

Then they switched to the on-line polls - you know, the ones where you can vote a brazillion times - and declared them indisputably accurate. They then started comparing real poll numbers with on-line poll numbers, and insisted that the real poll numbers were way off-base - why? Because they didn't match-up with those oh-so-trustworthy on-line polls.

So the argument that polls are correct when they are, and incorrect when they aren't, is an old, oft-told tale.

[paulthompson]

7. polls

Of course people like polls more if they show their candidate is winning. But the polls this time around have generally underestimated Sanders' support, sometimes by ridiculous margins. It's not just one or two states, it's most of the states outside the South.

To give just a few examples:

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

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.

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

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

Maine - he bettered the one poll by 15 points.

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.

And that's not even including Michigan or Indiana, supposedly the only two states where the polls were off, according to Clinton supporters with short memories. Don't believe me? Look up the numbers at Real Clear Politics yourself.

So yeah, you can see why Sanders supporters are skeptical of polls, when they're off by as much as forty or fifty points. And it's always in the same direction, underestimating Sanders. That's just crazy!

If the polls say Sanders would beat Trump by ten points, my guess is the real number could be even higher, because Sanders' support has often been underestimated. Note that this is much more the case in states with open primaries or caucuses than closed primaries. And that makes sense, because it's much easier to predict the voting behavior of long time registered Democrats, whereas Sanders is drawing in new independents who often haven't voted before.
(I wouldn't be sure though, because Trump is also be drawing in lots of new independent voters.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I learned something at DU. That is what I call an anomalous event.