No, Hillary Clinton is not 41% ahead of Sanders in Iowa and Rachel Maddow & the MSM are FULL of it.

[votesparks]

[Autumn]

1. Of course she isn't.

[Plucketeer]

2. I like Rachel's style

It's too damned bad she's not on an outlet where she can perform without her hands tied. Let's face it tho - she's seen what has happened to the rest of the evening lineup on MSNBC. They don't even have to call her into the office to tell her what to say on her show. For her paycheck, I could subtly skew things too.

[Javaman]

6. nbc is owned by ge. ge is a big hillary contributer.

I had to stop watching Rachel. Maybe, after the election, I'll watch again.

but for now, it's like one big ad buy for Hillary.

[NikolaC]

8. Actually, M$NBC was sold

to Comcast several years ago.

[Enthusiast]

39. Even worse.

[Plucketeer]

12. I absolutly agree

Last week when she had Hillary on her show for the first time, I figured they had to exchange her chair a time or two.

[pocoloco]

49. Both chairs!

LOL

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. However, she did call Hillary Clinton out on her lie re: DOMA. I have to give her props.

It's better than what the other so-called pundits have done.

[raindaddy]

61. Everyone who isn't pushing a third way agenda has left MSNBC..

A few weeks back Maddow equated Sander's large crowds to George McGovern's large crowds in his losing effort in 72.. She also pushed the fallacy that since Hillary came out against the TPP, both Sanders and Clinton were essentially in agreement on all of the issues...

[Plucketeer]

77. Yup

She has no "voice" anymore. Which is really too bad, given what we KNOW she could do.

[MrMickeysMom]

83. This tells me that she values her MSNBC job over her ethics...

Absolute power affects lots of us.

It's not like she couldn't settle for standing up to what is right and just, is it? Or IS it?

[Plucketeer]

85. It certainly would mean a big loss in income

Principals are tough to eat. And besides that, she really LOVES the podium she now. MSNBC gives her enough latitude to practice her craft without pissing off GE.

[MasonDreams]

3. Rachel is probably being told what to say, & more important, what not to say.

MSM & MSNBC will tolerate a little truth, to gain credibility, then cash it in!!! :tsk

[Enthusiast]

43. I've noticed the same thing with MSNBC.

They will tolerate a little truth, to gain credibility, then cash it in. The entire media, except for Fox, does the same. It's a built in bias that never ends.

[patricia92243]

4. I think the polling companies have made a mistake. It is just not reasonable

for Hillary or Trump. The figures are just too extreme to be accurate.

For once, I agree with Trump - "I don't understand the numbers."

[bigwillq]

5. Congrats on 900 posts!

[Amimnoch]

7. that's so cute.

Who is it again that doesn't normally believe in science or facts? Hmm, i forget.. I think it's that same group that doesn't believe in global warming or had that birther belief.

It did get something right.. it's not 41%... it's 49% RCP as of today.

[jeff47]

11. A poll that throws out everyone under 26 is not a very good poll.

And that's what they're doing in their "likely voter" screens - they're only taking voters who participated in 2004 or 2008. Which means the youngest voters in their polls are 26.

Unless you're about to massively increase the voting age, that's not going to produce an accurate poll.

(And before you come back with "they don't vote!!", remember they are the only reason Obama won both elections. Obama lost voters over 40 in 2012, and lost or tied voters over 40 in 2008.)

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

14. Conduct your own unscientific pole, here's how.

On a large 2 foot by 3 foot foam board write

HONK
FOR
BERNIE

Go to a busy intersection and hold the sign up high so the drivers can read it.

A couple of things will happen, it might get loud with horns honking and others will realize how many supporters he has.

Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Then Bernie will win.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. Do you even TRY to win over Bernie supporters?

Or do you feel insulting them is the path to victory?

[Bubzer]

21. Most clintonistas aren't interested in trying to win over Bernie supporters.

They just try to "defend" her against the ruthless ugly smears (facts) that are presented by Bernie supporters

[bvf]

64. I recently learned that

Clinton can win in the GE without any Sanders supporters whatsoever.

Talk about having gone over the edge, eh?

[Bubzer]

94. No doubt! I suppose the coronation is on then...

[lewebley3]

67. HIllary has not smeared anyone: That is your attack on her!

[blackspade]

26. Nope.

[upaloopa]

31. Never fails

All the evil is on Hillary's side.

Can't wait till Feb 2, 2016 for the narcissism to end.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. Ask Mike Malloy.

[upaloopa]

45. Ask him what?

I was a caller on his show once

[Spitfire of ATJ]

48. About the attacks he's had from Hilary supporters....

BTW: I was a regular caller about ten years ago.

I was also the most prolific poster when he had a message board and the clips I extracted from his show helped him get the gig at Air America after the UAW's IE America Radio went under.

Here's a favorite:

http://server4.whiterosesociety.org/content/malloy/MalloyMemories/Smeagol_announces_his_candidacy.mp3

[upaloopa]

52. Callers to a talk show and people who do click

polls can be what ever they say they are. Anybody even Bernie supporters can call and say they are Hillary supporters. Just like repubs call in talk shows and the first thing out of their mouth is I'm a Democrat.

Hillary supporters haven't earned the negative reputation that Bernie supporters have on social media.
Also we are winning and we don't have the motivation to trash someone to try and win like Bernie supporters do.
Another thing no matter whether it is truthful or not Bernie's followers call it an attack. As if he can do no wrong and how dare anyone criticize him.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

62. "Hillary supporters haven't earned the negative reputation that Bernie supporters have"

[upaloopa]

65. Did you read the whole sentence?

You act like the wing nuts who take things out of context to make a point.
Here I borrowed this from your side
We are winning

[Spitfire of ATJ]

75. Is that an attempt to troll me?

BTW: Have you even looked at what the RW is saying on "social media"?

[JimDandy]

76. That IS your whole sentence! Good grief...

[Amimnoch]

36. The reasonable ones I both respect, and reach out to.

Heck I posted this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=67390

In the Bernie Sanders group this very morning.

I've even openly expressed sympathy for a Bernie supporter who's been stalked by others who support Hillary:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=733500

However, when the OP start's by attacking a long time extremely well established liberal and progressive like Rachel Maddow, yes, I turn to snark and counter insult.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. The ones that get me are the ones that try to redefine liberalism....

Or claim America doesn't want what they say they want.

[randys1]

54. The meme now that RAchel Maddow is a liar, has made DU just another rightwing board

This place is amazing.

[Lordquinton]

24. Scientific polls are great

Because they tell you exactly how biased they are, and given that information, we can determine that they are as trustworthy as a random internet poll.

[RoccoR5955]

80. WTF makes them "scientific?"

Just wondering if they just use the name as a marketing tool, or they actually have real scientific methods. My gut feeling is that "scientific" is being used as a marketing ploy here.

[Lordquinton]

88. In theory they have numbers and stats behind the numbers

So they can track numbers an methods, however no one who is talking about "scientific " has produced them (and what has been produced is hilariously biased, ignoring under 26, phone surveys over land lines only).

It's a buzz word at this point.

[RoccoR5955]

91. But don't you know...

There are lies, real lies, and statistics.

[Lordquinton]

93. I almost added that

Nothing like some Twain to start the day off right.

[RoccoR5955]

28. So this is okay if you only poll people

with a land line phone, over 26, who have voted in the 2 past primaries.
What about the ones with cell phones, under 26, who have not voted in the past two primaries, don't they count for anything?
Apparently not to this polling organization, who is getting the response that the MSM wants.

I believe in global warming, science, facts and such. I also know the fact that polls are, for the most part skewed in some way, to get the answer that the pollster wants to get. It is quite easy to do. Either by limited sampling, doctored questions, or both. I guess that some folks will believe that any pollster is honest and unbiased.

[notadmblnd]

60. let them have their false sense of security, I say.

Then they will be more likely to rest on their laurels and sit back while figuring others have their backs.

[zeemike]

70. It cracks me up when people call it science

When the evidence is selected by standards that are not scientific at all.
Likely voters are subjective...and assume that as it was last time it will be again this time.

[erlewyne]

9. Excellent!

I used to not miss Maddow then I discovered that
she was told what to say ... against her will.

So I quit watching her.

Hate to see her called out though.

GO BERNIE!!!

[lark]

10. Wow, just wow.

Including Rachel as one of the MSM, how harsh and inaccurate as well. Making wild accusations about other Dems is one of the things that turn some off to Bernie supporters. Bernie doesn't do that, he's not attacking Rachel, and IMO neither should any of us. I will be voting for Bernie in the primary, so I'm not saying this as a Clinonista. I just think that Dems shouldn't be trashing other Dems and should vote for whoever is the D candidate in the general. Anything else is just helping to establish the oligarchy even more firmly in their control of our country and to screw over the working class.

[randr]

13. If Rachel only stated everything once

her show would only be 15 mins. long.
I try, I really try to listen, and after a long 5 min spiel about "this you won't believe" I have to turn the channel before my head explodes from iterations upon iterations.

[glinda]

15. Rachel and the rest of them are hired as "talking heads" first and "journalists" as down the list

somewhere. They were doing this in journalism school 10 years ago.
We expect more from them but perhaps it is unrealistic to think so. With all the firings they certainly would attempt to hang onto their jobs for either the reason to be able to report sometimes or just to hang onto their paychecks and visibility. I suspect they are given their scripts and have little time to actually check the viability of the reports.
I only watch MSM once in awhile now. My viewership has dropped by a large margin.

[fredamae]

16. They dumped the fact finders

who spoke the truth...Bashir/Olbermann/Reid/Sharpton/Hall/Schultz etc

It finally dawned on me that those remaining could not-imo-be trusted because they're Still there...obviously willing to play corpormedias American Information Deception Game!

I left and no longer watch Any of the cable story hour programming.
They don't care - It's not about the money or ratings, not really-it is-imo- their determination to control how we view our society and guided us to agree.
Control the messaging....Control the people. Just ask the media industry moguls.

[Enthusiast]

44. Huge +1!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

18. Unskew the polls!

Random person on YouTube < Actual science.

[Bubzer]

22. Most of the polls presented lack actual science.

As stated at post 11; A poll that throws out everyone under 26 is not a very good poll. There's certainly nothing scientific about it.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

23. Unskew the polls!

It's a Hillary conspiracy!!!

[Bubzer]

25. Mocking it doesn't make it less true.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

32. What poll threw out everyone under 26?

I see a claim, but no citation. If you're talking about polls of "likely voters" (you know, the gold standard in polling since forever), then they remove registered voters who DIDN'T vote in the last primary. Also, 26 and under, historically, have the LOWEST turnout to the voting polls, even lower so for primary and midterms.

IOW, UNSKEW THE POLLS!

o.O

[markpkessinger]

87. Here's your citation . . . .

From page 4 of Monmouth University's release of the poll (on Monmouth's domain):

The Monmouth University Poll was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute from October 22 to 25, 2015 with a statewide random sample of 400 Iowa voters drawn from a list of registered Democratic voters who voted in at least one of the last two state primary elections and indicate they are likely to attend the Democratic presidential caucuses in February 2016. This includes 300 contacted by a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 100 contacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone, in English. . . .

As Jeff47 explains above in message #7, the bolded text above, by definition, means that it must be someone who is at least 25 (okay, so 26 is off by one year). Remember, there was no presidential primary in 2012, because we ran an incumbent. That means every recipient had to have voted in either 2004 or 2008. If someone was 18 in 2008, they are 25 now, and will be 26 in 2016.

Fut here is what I found even more telling: the table indicating the distribution of respondents by age group (also from page 4 of the linked document):

POLL DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)
44% Male; 56% Female
96% White, non-Hispanic; 5% Other

7% 18-34
17% 35-49
37% 50-64
39% 65+

But of course, we know that 7% of voters who are "18-34" is really 7"25-34," because of the requirement of having voted in one of the last two Democratic primaries (in either 2004 or 2008). Yet, according to the Pew Research Center, the 17-29 age group comprised 22% of the total Democratic turnout in 2008, and 17% in 2004. So how can a poll that so negatively weights its sampling of the younger vote group with a 15-percentage point lower representation than that group had in the last Democratic Primary possibly be considered to be a valid poll?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

92. So, the methodology is like

EVERY SINGLE likely voter poll since the existence of likely voter polls.

22% and 17% turnouts for the 18-29 age group is pretty small. So, they usually get a small sample size.

There is nothing nefarious nor unscientific about the way that these polls are handled. It's the way they have ALWAYS been done. The key word is likely voter. 18-29 group have a very low percentage of likely voters (and always have, historically speaking).

Statistics in a nutshell.

But please, keep trying to "unskew the polls". It worked so well for President Romney. Oh, wait... o.O

[giftedgirl77]

20. There goes Rachel under the bus...

[GoneFishin]

33. She's been slowly crawling under the bus for years, ever since she's been on MSNBC. She kicked ass

at one time, but never on MSNBC.

[workinclasszero]

27. Unskew those polls Bernie fans!

Texas: Clinton 59% Sanders 10% O'Malley 3% Undecided 28%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110723972

Lone Star State Poll -Hillary Clinton 59% Bernie Sanders 10%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251736969

Palmetto State Poll-Clinton -43% Sanders 6% 0'Malley 3%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251734319


Loras College Poll (IOWA) - Clinton 62% Bernie Sanders 24% Martin O'Malley 3%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251733510

Clinton is rising in North Carolina
PPP's new North Carolina poll finds Hillary Clinton with her largest lead in the state since May. 61% of Democrats in the state support Clinton to 24% for Bernie Sanders
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110723689

BREAKING: New Loras poll gives Hillary 38 point lead over Sanders in Iowa
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251732960

Two new polls give HRC huge leads in Iowa
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251732917


Clinton Holds Massive Lead in Iowa
October 27, 2015By Taegan Goddard


A new Monmouth University Poll in Iowa finds Hillary Clinton with a huge lead over Bernie Sanders, 65% to 24%, with Martin O’Malley at 5% and Lawrence Lessig at 4%.

Key findings: “Clinton enjoys a large lead over Sanders among both male (55% to 33%) and female (73% to 16%) voters. She also has an edge across the ideological spectrum, leading among voters who are very liberal (57% to 34%), somewhat liberal (68% to 22%), and moderate (69% to 19%).”

A new Loras College poll finds Clinton leading Sanders, 65% to 24%, with O’Malley at 3%.

http://politicalwire.com/2015/10/27/clinton-holds-massive-lead-in-iowa/

[RoccoR5955]

30. Yep, all from the mainstream media.

All skewed to give the results that they want to see.
Check the methodology.

[riversedge]

51. Thanks so much for taking time to compile these state polls from last week or so.

[workinclasszero]

55. My pleasure

[Fred Sanders]

53. Well done. Poll-denying is akin to medicine-denying during the Ebola episode. Same folks, I bet.

Echoes of Romney denying the polls pointing to his loss....and he did lose as I recall.

Who needs the old fashioned scientific methodology polling when there is the new wild frontier of entertainment on-line surveys!?

[workinclasszero]

56. Science, math and statistics are hard

When they show your candidate getting beat badly.

[Science Crow]

29. It seems to me that no one has researched the important question.

Which is, if previous polls show Bernie and Hillary in a dead heat and current polling shows her with a greater than 40 point lead, how, if at all, are the current polls different than past polls? If the methodology is materially different wouldn't that suggest that the procedure was altered to skew the results?

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the same procedures were used both times and the figures are correct. What happened?

Did disappointed Biden hopefuls suddenly join the Hillary camp en masse to account for that +40% leap? Webb voters? Chaffee voters? Assuming every Biden, Webb, and Chaffee supported suddenly switched to Hillary, were there enough of them to cause a 40 point swing?

This is a huge change folks! Is anyone on the ground in these states looking for answers? Anyone in the media raising these questions? No, and I think we all know why.

[swilton]

66. +++++++++++++++

great answer!

[zeemike]

71. Yes we all know why.

And they don't care if it looks fishy...it fits the narrative they want to project...Hillary is inevitable and unbeatable so just give up.

The clue to it is when CNN called if for HRC even though the public called it overwhelmingly for Sanders...and they stuck with it just ignoring the facts.

And Welcome to DU.

[upaloopa]

78. Geez. I can't believe the things said here

CNN interviews people!
Who do you think answers the polls lab rats?
An on line click poll is not a picture of the feeling of a the people just those that click for what ever reason.
I would be afraid if Bernie won because it would mean we all turned reality in for a fantasy!

[zeemike]

86. And those who who click are not people.

And don't count because they are just clicks not people.
Real people are "likely voters"...and we all know a likely voter is one who voted last time because people never change and who voted last time are the only ones who vote.
That's reality for you...and it's scientific.

[upaloopa]

34. It's in line with the PA poll today

So how many similar pools will it take for reality to sink in?

[workinclasszero]

40. It will never sink in for Bernie fans

because they are fantasy based and reality has a Hillary Clinton trajectory. LOL

[Tarc]

35. This is so utterly convincing, I don't know why I never saw it before.

I mean, when on one hand we have a scientific, statistically-valid poll, and on the other we have a women saying "no" in a youtube video.

[Ed Suspicious]

38. I just want to remind people that we take a very flawed poll in early November every 4 years. Its

self selected with loads of hurdles in place to get a real reading of the people, and we call the winner of that unscientific poll our president. Sometimes the scientific exit polling misses the mark on the actual poll. I'm just questioning whether we should be calling polling "science" not matter what.

[William769]

37. Rachel Maddow being thrown under the bus today

Last edited Thu Oct 29, 2015, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Emily's list being thrown under the bus today.

Anyone see a pattern here?

[workinclasszero]

57. Yes and its getting real crowded under

Bernie's bus.

[William769]

58. Amen to that!

[Amimnoch]

63. It's that whole "if you are not with us you're against us" mentality.

I forget, which party is that kind of absolute the norm for?

[mcar]

68. I would love to be part of the conversations under that bus!

Rachel, John Lewis, Sherrod Brown, Emily's List and all the others. These are people I would be proud to associate myself with!

[William769]

69. Me too!

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. You'd probably hear ...

John Lewis:" Hey you!"

Sherrod Brown: "What upppp!"

Emily's List: "Wow ... So you guys got tossed under the bus, too. Huh?"

Rachael Maddow: "Yep ... Good thing the bus is standing still! BTW, did you see me take it to that Inhofe creep ... he's really creepy."

Emily's List: "Yeah! That was great! We really need more journalists from the Left, exposing the nutty right; rather than, using what the right is saying to attack folks on the Left."

BLM: "Yeah, Rachael. We really appreciate how you handled Seattle."

Rachael Maddow: "Thanks! Hey Guys ... Better move over. My feed just streamed that the Reverend Al just said something nice about Hillary's chances."

[mcar]

74. LOL

[DFW]

46. Get real people. Isn't obvious?

Any poll that shows YOUR candidate ahead is dead-on, scientifically accurate to within a 1/10 of 1% margin of error.

Any poll that shows any OTHER candidate ahead is deliberately skewed, results paid for in advance, and put together by Frank Luntz.

[madfloridian]

84. I disagree.

Look what they are doing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251734441

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251734441#post41

And from Hillary's spokeswoman:

https://twitter.com/jmpalmieri/status/659101528389718017

[DFW]

89. My comment was meant to be generic

I'm just tired of endless repetition of the old Buffalo Springfield line "Mostly say hooray for our side."

So many angry posts on here, and almost none of them directed at Republicans. It gets tedious.

This site is getting less like a Democratic Underground and more like a "Democrats under water."

I'm glad I don't spend much time in the States these days!

[riversedge]

47. Oct 27 PPP (D) Clinton rising in North Carolina-Clinton -61% Sanders 24%

Will Sander fans unskew this one also?


Tue Oct 27, 2015, 03:02 PM

Star Member DemocratSinceBirth (60,076 posts)

PPP (D) Clinton rising in North Carolina-Clinton -61% Sanders 24% [View all]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=733898


PPP's new North Carolina poll finds Hillary Clinton with her largest lead in the state since May. 61% of Democrats in the state support Clinton to 24% for Bernie Sanders, 5% for Martin O'Malley, and 2% for Lawrence Lessig. A month ago Clinton led 51/23 in a Joe Biden-less field and these numbers suggest that pretty much everyone who's made up their mind since then has gone into her camp.

North Carolina provides more evidence of Clinton's favorability numbers improving over the last month. She's gone up a net 9 points from +34 (63/29) in September to now +43 (67/24). Her lead is pretty steady across the board- she gets 74% with African Americans, 66% with seniors, 65% with liberals, 62% with women, 60% with men, 58% with moderates, and 57% with whites. The group where Sanders come closest is with younger voters, but even there Clinton still has a 50/34 advantage.


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/

[riversedge]

50. ALSO new Loras College poll finds Clinton leading Sanders, 65% to 24%, IOWA

How about this one. 2nd Iowa poll same day


ALSO new Loras College poll finds Clinton leading Sanders, 65% to 24%, with O’Malley at 3% http://politicalwire.com/2015/10/27/clinton-holds-massive-lead-in-iowa/ … #Hillary16

[SheilaT]

59. While I realize that my observations

are even less accurate or predictive than an on-line poll, I occasionally see a Bernie button or bumper sticker. So far no Hillary ones. I did see a Ben Carson yard sign the other day, which horrified me, and it was all I could do not to stop and knock on the front door and ask them what they were thinking.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

72. In my area (Central FL)

I have seen a couple Bernie bumper stickers. I've seen a couple Hillary ones as well. Mostly, however, I've seen confederate flags, NRA, and Trump bumper stickers.

Although, I saw a good one (albeit old one) the other day:
January 20, 2009
End Of An Error

[Gothmog]

79. Unskewiing polls worked so well for Romney and Karl Rove

This lady is really sad but funny. Karl Rove and Mittens also believed in skewed polls and that belief did not serve them well

[Walk away]

81. Hillary's own campaign has said those polls were outliers. However....

soon enough more representative polls will be coming out and she will still show she is gaining over Sanders. Just not by such an inflated amount We are all aware of the in Hillary's forum so it won't be a shock to see the new polls.

[okasha]

82. Abandon facts! Abandon science!

Embrace your inner woo.

[PaulaFarrell]

90. Unscientific poll

I have just conducted a poll of this thread:

Attacks on Hilary Clinton : 1
Attacks on Clinton supporters: 8
Attacks on Bernie Sanders: 0
Attacks on Sanders supporters: 16

I admit this is a very unscientific poll as I sometimes wasn't quite sure who was being attacked, given the similarity of what was being said by both sides and (to be honest) the nonsense of it.

However, there seems to be meme being established that Sanders supporters are by definition rude, hostile and deluded. This is incredibly dangerous for Clinton supporters, as these polls being touted only reflect Democratic opinion. Once the primaries are over, if Clinton wins she will need the support of all those Democrats and then some to win (the same obviously being true of Sanders). There is a huge well of hate out there for Clinton among Republicans and I do not see her inspiring the same set of voters that Obama did. I honestly believe that if the Republicans wind up with a half-plausible candidate then Clinton would have a huge battle on her hands and no guarantee that she would win. You should save triumphalism until you've actually won - the presidency, not the nomination.