Bloomberg National Poll- Clinton 55% (+22) Sanders 30% (+6)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Clinton leads Sanders 55 percent to 30 percent among Democrats in the poll released Friday. She led Sanders 33 percent to 24 percent in a September poll that also included Vice President Biden.



Hillary Clinton has solidified her lead nationally in the Democratic presidential nominating contest, amassing a 25-point advantage over Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and earning higher scores than her closest competitor on a range of traits important to potential voters, including the ability to combat terrorism.
The latest Bloomberg Politics national poll, taken in the days following the most recent Democratic candidates' debate and the Paris terror attacks, shows that Clinton enjoys another key advantage over Sanders: A higher percentage of her supporters say they are certain they will vote for her next year, while more of Sanders backers say their minds could change.[
And in one sign Clinton may be getting a handle on concerns about her likability inside her party, she drew a “very favorable” rating from 31 percent of Democrats and Democrat-leaners, up significantly from 23 percent in September





http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-20/bloomberg-politics-national-democratic-poll-november-2015

A+ Methodology from an A rated 538 Pollster

Nov 20 (Bloomberg) --
The Bloomberg Politics Poll, conducted November 15-17 for Bloomberg Politics by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, IA, is based on interviews with 1,002 U.S. adults ages 18 or older. A subset of interviews with 628 U.S. adults was conducted November 16-17 on topics related to ISIS and immigration. Interviewers with Quantel Research contacted households with randomly selected landline and cell phone telephone numbers supplied by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were administered in English. Percentages based on the full probability sample may have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, and those based on the subset of 628 U.S. adults may have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points. This means that if this survey were repeated using the same questions and the same methodology, 19 times out of 20, the findings would not vary from the percentages shown here by more than plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. Results based on smaller samples of respondents—such as by gender or age—have a larger margin of error. Responses were weighted by age and race to reflect the general population based on recent census data.

[JaneyVee]

1. K AND R!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. A + methodology too

!

[quickesst]

3. I've been going over and over...

..... the question trying to figure out just how they skewed this in Clintons favor. Its gotta be there somewhere. Don't worry, I'll find it. I'll get back to you on the 12th of never.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. It might be skewed because people all over the world can't vote as many times as they want.

EOM

[quickesst]

6. Good one

You may be right.

[onehandle]

4. Ten weeks and change until Hillary wins the Iowa Caucuses. nt

[MoonRiver]

7. And the beat goes on...

[riversedge]

11. "History has turned the page, uh huh" (for the first Madam Pesident)

[MoonRiver]

13. Oh yeah!

[Alfresco]

8. Excellent Numbers

[DCBob]

9. Must be bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign.

[MineralMan]

10. That can't be right. They didn't conduct

it on the internet, so it's skewed.

[Alfresco]

12. It has to be disheartening

for some to see these kind of numbers over and over again.

[lunamagica]

14. So much so that they want to stop DSB and others from posting polls. They keep complaining

that polls don't matter...except when it favor Sanders, then it's all

[nolabels]

24. Everything matters, especially when you have enough money to buy everything!

Think about it though, if you wanted to assure your success, if you could, wouldn't you buy up every other other avenue that might have a way to defeat you? What have they got lose anyway, it's only money, which they have plenty of

[lunamagica]

26. Then why isn't JEB! the front runner?

And why did Rmoney lose? Why did poll after poll predicted (correctly) that Rmoney would lose, so much so, that they started the meme that "polls don't count" and had their "uneskewed polls" guy? Why are those guys unable to "buy up every other avenue"?

But of course, the polls were right, and Obama won. Then the uneskewd polls guy said he only was wrong due to voter fraud...ridiculous, eh? Yet I have a feeling the same ridiculous claim will be made when Hillary wins the primary.

[nolabels]

27. That must indicate that your are for Bernie then?

Every other politician running for POTUS in the two major parties is backed by major financial interests (mostly billionaires). The idea of why some of those others are not front runners goes back to buy everything and control the conversation, attention and debate about everything. If an outlying interest cannot be bought then marginalize whenever possible (This is a most of the time thing when you own most outlets for disseminating information).

Obama won and got to stay in office because he played ball with them mostly. He was vetted at some point and was able to pass the litmus test. If he hadn't passed the test he probably would have been circumvented with something like a 'scream'. It was probably also not a surprise to most of those backing Romney that Obama won but you most remember to influence those down ticket races playing it like it was close keeps that base voting otherwise congress could have changed hands because of disenchanted republicans. They play their fools with much calculation if you haven't noticed.

Bernie supporters and their like who are on the other side just get whittled away in a game of attrition. This year is a bigger prize for billionaires, they are getting to pick (to some degree) who will win the primaries. As long as they get a lot of what they want they will keep throwing money at it. It's just simple investment on a larger scale

[tritsofme]

15. Bbbut what about the 12 year olds in Iowa!!1!!1

My Facebook post got 50 likes from all 50 states, that has to count for something!!

[NurseJackie]

16. 5 kids from one Sanders household vs. 1 kid each from two Clinton households.

Counting the schoolhouse votes, that's 5 for Sanders and 2 for Clinton. Sanders wins!

Unfortunately, in the real world, we only count the vote of the parent/s. Assuming a 2-parent household for each, that's 2 votes for Sanders and 4 votes for Clinton. Clinton wins!

This is just an example, and other scenarios could be created by switching the names, and the flaws in this method become very obvious.

It's true that kids' opinions are influenced by how their parents vote. It's also true that this is a good civics lesson for the kids to participate in. But, as the examples above show, counting "kids votes" is not an accurate way to predict the final count of their parents will vote on election day.

In their search for some "good news" and "positive polling" for their candidate, I think small inconvenient fact this is something that the Sanders fans were too willing to overlook.

The student caucus results were about as accurate as a worldwide no-click-limit online poll.

[Alfresco]

17. She is a force

She is a force, a tsunami, a tide that no man (republicans included) can deter.
Hold fast, here she comes.

[NurseJackie]

18. One with which to be reckoned. :-)

[Alfresco]

19. No doubt about it.

[riversedge]

22. Can you imagine her debating vile stupid Trump??

[NurseJackie]

23. It would be a dream come true. (But a nightmare for Trump.)

Hillary would be eloquent, detailed, calm, collected, confident, knowledgeable, thorough ... Trump would be bellicose, abrasive, offensive, pandering, fear-mongering, bigoted, blusterous ... there would be no contest. She'd chew him up and spit him out. She'd clean his clock.

[Alfresco]

20. Without data it's just another opinion.

And we all know about opinions.

[Persondem]

21. Great news. K & R nt

[artislife]

25. Poll!

Drink!

#9