New national poll: Hillary 52%. Bernie 12%.

[pnwmom]

Last edited Mon Dec 28, 2015, 12:26 AM - Edit history (2)

By the same group, overtime politics, whose poll is currently being touted here because of the 47-42 Arkansas results (Hillary's lead is within the MoE.)

I have never heard of overtime politics before, and do not recommend them as a pollster. But if you want to get excited about their Arkansas results, then you need to understand that their national results don't favor your side. By a lot.

http://overtimepolitics.com/presidential-percentages-dec-27-2015/

This will be the last Presidential Percentages ranking of 2015, the next one will be January 1st. As far as movements go, Marco Rubio lost a percentage point, mainly due to Donald Trump’s surging national poll numbers. The fact that Trump looks more like the Republican nominee also helps Hillary Clinton, who matches up well against Trump in head to head polling.

Hillary Clinton – 52.3% (+.5%)
Donald Trump – 16.8% (+1.7%)
Marco Rubio – 14.2% (-1%)
Bernie Sanders – 12.1% (-.8%)
Ted Cruz – 3.7% (+.4%)
Others – .9% (Carson added)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128090667

[Scootaloo]

1. Wow. All those people are going to be in the general election?

2016 is gonna be wild

[pnwmom]

2. Not only is Hillary the choice of 4 times as many people as Bernie,

she was the choice of more than all the Rethugs put together.

And, according to these results, even if Sanders was able to get every single Trump voter to turn to him instead, he still would be more than twenty points behind Clinton.

[FarPoint]

60. My vote will always be for Hillary.

Bernie Sanders is a fine man....He has much to offer in the public service sector.

[Rose Siding]

3. lol, I noticed that. She's up 5 pts, he's down 8

Don't know if the outfit's any good, but the person doesn't sign a name to any of the posts. I don't see a name on the site at all, and no polls before 2015. A search doesn't turn up anything before 2015.

Here's how whoever it is came up with these numbers:

We come up with this percentage by taking a time-weighted average of both head to head general election polls, and primary polls. Obviously, if a candidate is looking at a low chance of winning their party’s nomination, they will have an even lower percentage of winning a general election.

http://overtimepolitics.com/presidential-percentages-dec-14-2015/

Could you tell if they use phones or the net? Any demos? -Of their other polls I mean. The op numbers are squished together from other polls (not sure whose!)

[Godhumor]

4. Ignore Overtime. They're not pollsters. They really are not

There is a reason RCP and Pollster ignore them and that their biggest fan was shown the door here.

[pnwmom]

6. Their Arkansas poll is on the front page now, so I thought it should be put in context.

Unfortunately, I couldn't respond to it directly.

[Scootaloo]

16. Out of curiosity, why is that?

[Godhumor]

19. Just hit upon it in post 17

Short answer is they don't actually know how to conduct a poll.

[George II]

5. I just wonder who "overtimepolitics" is? Of the 337 pollsters rated by fivethirtyeight.com.......

........they're not included.

Did you notice this nugget on that link?

My guess is that we will see real movement around the time the Iowa Caucuses start. Once delegates start being awarded, we will finally have some concrete data to feed into the system. Until then, a mix of early voting polls and national polls will have to suffice.

No shit Sherlock! So if there is no "concrete data" to feed into the system then why even talk about it? Maybe they're the "pollster" that claimed that Sanders was leading in ALL 50 states?

[pnwmom]

7. I'd never heard of them before, but if we're supposed to be excited about

the Arkansas results, I thought this put those into perspective.

[George II]

10. Just a minor detail - there hasn't been a SINGLE poll conducted in Arkansas yet.

[pnwmom]

12. Overtime claims to have conducted one by telephone.

How would anyone know that they haven't?

[George II]

13. Landlines? Cell Phones? Two cans connected by a string?

[pnwmom]

15. LOL

[Godhumor]

17. They don't know how to conduct a poll. Seriously.

From looking through their results, they call a group of people from a public record (I.e phone book), write down what they say, tally them up, calculate an MOE and call it a poll.

There are no population parameters, demographic weighting, randomizing agents, etc in their methodology. I'm not being mean when I say they're not a pollster. They literally don't fit the definition of one.

[pnwmom]

21. If you're allowed to talk to the group that posted the Arkansas poll,

maybe you should explain this to them.

[Godhumor]

24. Nah, I don't go into protected groups to shit on something

Last edited Mon Dec 28, 2015, 12:05 AM - Edit history (1)

But I do hit it in here. The Overtime guy is hilarious, by the way. He responded to questions about this methodology by saying he understood people had issues with it, but proper polling is expensive. Besides he felt his data was more useful than no data at all (it is not).

[pnwmom]

27. When it gets highlighted on the home page, I think it deserves a response.

Otherwise, too many people are exposed to it without being exposed to the other side of the story.

[riversedge]

62. I agree. Thanks for posting.

[Godhumor]

8. Please don't. Just please don't. No one should even see a link to that site

I don't want to spend anymore time other than this post having to shut down the "But it has an MOE! I thought you cared about scientific polls?" crowd.

[pnwmom]

9. Too late. They've got the Arkansas results on the Home Page now.

I'm not going to let that stand without some context.

P.S. I added a disclaimer to the OP about overtime politics.

[George II]

11. That is just fucking "JAW DROPPING"!!!!

[pnwmom]

14. EXACTLY!!!!

[Dem2]

38. Holy s***

I posted a poll from this pollster and had to delete my thread due to implications that someone was banned for posting a poll from said pollster: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251907232

So if the poll results were different I'd have been lauded and on the home page? Wow.

[pnwmom]

39. I wouldn't have posted it except to provide context for an OP with 60 recs and counting.

I noticed that someone alerted on that OP and it was allowed to stand, by a vote of 6 to 1.

[Dem2]

40. I'm glad you posted!

Putting this sort of phenomenon into context is eye opening.

[Godhumor]

42. Yeah, it was me that warned you off

These guys really are nothing but trouble...

[Dem2]

48. I agreed with you

The more I looked, the less I found - this organization appears to be fly-by-night

[Thinkingabout]

18. Interesting results of across the board.

[bowens43]

20. hillary is polling worse now then she was against Obama in 2006...hillty is toast. she's done.

get used to , she will never be queen

[pnwmom]

22. You are right, she will never be queen. No problem.

I just want her to be the next President.

[Logical]

25. Get ready for disappointment. nt

[seabeyond]

29. 2006?

[George II]

31. News flash.....neither Clinton nor Obama ran for President in 2006.

[ismnotwasm]

23. Whoa...

[Cha]

26. Good job, pnwmom! They can have Arkansas I'll take the country for 52% Hill.. BS 12%.

[cui bono]

58. What did Hillary do to make you support her so much after you hated her so much in 2008?

I'm very curious.

.

[Ned_Devine]

28. I heard she had an eleventy-million point lead and the rest of us can just shit in our hats

Is that about right?

[seabeyond]

30. No worse than having that eleventy-million point lead and being told she should drop out and hand

the coronation to Sanders, just cause. Lol.

[Ned_Devine]

36. I've never posted such a thing

[seabeyond]

49. I didn't say you did. Though like you heard whatever, I have heard this. So, Meh... on both counts

[Sheepshank]

32. Well, according to the polling group the Bernie group recced to the front page

...you just did you own interpretation of the national poll.

[Ned_Devine]

35. All I know is that whenever someone posts something positive about Bernie...

...so many of you flock to be the first to respond with national poll numbers that show her with a 99% lead and constantly trying to put a pin in our balloon. I don't care about the polls which is why I don't post them. I just want Bernie to win the first two states and start getting some recognition for the movement he's started. Is that ok?

[pnwmom]

47. Bill Clinton lost Iowa and New Hampshire. Didn't hurt him,

because he did so well in the South and among minority voters.

Two of the groups that Hillary is also doing very well with.

[seabeyond]

50. So, when new polls come out favoring Clinton, we are not allowed to post them because it hurts your

feelings? Or might interfere with you celebrating or something? Should we ask permission when we are allowed to post new poll numbers that come out? Or are we simply not allowed to post poll numbers because they do not favor your candidate?

I mean, I am not getting what your expectations are of Clinton supporters.

[Ned_Devine]

52. No, whenever you post or talk poll numbers, I'll just post this video

[seabeyond]

54. Whatever, I do not care. I wasn't the one complaining, Lol.

[pnwmom]

61. Bill Clinton only got 3% in Iowa when he first ran, and 23% in N.H.

Didn't seem to hurt him much, though, because most of the other states have a lot more minority voters -- which is an area of strength for both him and Hillary.

[Ned_Devine]

65. You already posted this response

[Android3.14]

33. Something sure is strange about that site

I'd treat these polls with a great deal of skepticism. The site has no contact information, no about page, and we know nothing about methodology.

This poll is just as reliable as the one showing Bernie doing well in Ark.

pnwmom is right.

[pnwmom]

34. Thank you. Yes, their Arkansas and national polls rise and fall together.

I agree with taking a skeptical view toward this site; but if you're going to accept the Arkansas results, then you have to accept the national results, too.

[jfern]

45. This isn't a poll

[okasha]

37. The amazing number

is how many fell for a bogus poll.

Then again, we'very got truthiness going strong today.

[pnwmom]

43. Amazing and discouraging. n/t

[Number23]

41. Well played.

[jfern]

44. That's not a poll

That's obviously some sort of calculated odds to become President.

[pnwmom]

46. Overtime politics uses the phrases "poll numbers" and "head to head polling."

If you object to calling this a poll, then why aren't you objecting to the Arkansas "poll" by the same outfit?

This will be the last Presidential Percentages ranking of 2015, the next one will be January 1st. As far as movements go, Marco Rubio lost a percentage point, mainly due to Donald Trump’s surging national poll numbers. The fact that Trump looks more like the Republican nominee also helps Hillary Clinton, who matches up well against Trump in head to head polling.

[jfern]

51. This is them trying to be 538. They link to other pollsters.

What the OP references is clearly some sort of wanna-be 538 model of odds.

[pnwmom]

53. And no one should take any of their "results" seriously -- either state polls or national. n/t

[NurseJackie]

64. Excellent question! (The answer is obvious, however.)

Thanks for taking a moment to clearly illustrate how quickly they disregard and refute the sources they "love" and cheer about ... but only when the data isn't flattering or encouraging to their candidate.

[Historic NY]

55. Interesting methodology they have......

I have to admit its direct and to the point..

[elleng]

56. Because at this point 'national polls' are worth so much!

[newfie11]

57. Just once I would like to be polled

I'm 68 and wouldn't ya think I would have been polled by now!

How many more like me are out there.

[brooklynite]

63. Guessing you've never been picked by Nielsen, either.

If someone polled 7 million people, you'd still only have a 10% chance.

[Cha]

59. KICK!