Hot Off The Press Marist Iowa and South Carolina Polls-IA HRC 48% - SBS 45%/ SC HRC-64%-SBS 27%

[DemocratSinceBirth]

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/trump-strong-three-early-states-clinton-sanders-battle-poll-n505516

[hrmjustin]

1. I saw on twitter both campaigns expect Hillary to win Iowa because his supporters

are concentrated in the cities. Caucus rules will work against Sanders.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Hillary's support is more widespread along Iowa's 99 counties.

The Vermont senator's support is concentrated in three counties with large college populations.

[uponit7771]

13. WOW!!! Seems like he's doing this just for the rally screen shots

[Fawke Em]

23. LOL. You keep thinking that.

There is a plan in place to get students back to their hometowns to caucus with their families and lessen that concentration.

[hrmjustin]

24. I saw. It is a good plan for Sanders but it remains to be seen if it helps.

Remember classes are in session and there is snow so that might not pan out,

[cab67]

53. I teach at one of these universities.

It's going to be bloody difficult to do that without having a substantial number of students miss class. This is especially true for classes meeting late on Monday, when the caucuses are held - these are often lab/discussion sessions or seminars that only meet once a week. Skipping one of these is not the same as just skipping a lecture that meets two or three times a week.

I have very mixed feelings about it. Missing class is not a trivial thing, but neither is taking part in one's civic duty. I've cancelled a lab group meeting so I can attend my local caucus, and I have encouraged my students to take part within their ability. But it's a tradeoff.

This is one reason I think a primary system might be preferable.

[Alfresco]

3. In South Carolina, Clinton is winning the African American vote by 57 points (74% to 17%).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Alfresco, my fine friend, I am cautiously optimistic about Iowa.

[Alfresco]

7. I am too, but in the long run IA and NH matter little. IMHO :-)

[uponit7771]

12. +1, Sanders can win both... lose IA by 10+ and the gnashing of teeth would overwhelm this place

... and we'd get blamed

[Alfresco]

19. It's coming. Everyone (DNC, Media, Establishment...) conspired against Bernie. Invest in tinfoil :)

[zanana1]

79. The candidate who loses both...

Will not have momentum. (I'm a Bernie volunteer in NH).

[firebrand80]

20. Once they get to know him...

Srs, any day know...

[Fawke Em]

26. Acutally, they already like him, they just aren't sure he's viable.

Once he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, they'll move over.

Same thing happened with Obama in 2008.

[firebrand80]

47. What makes you believe this will happen?

[KingFlorez]

83. Obama being black played a part in it

And for the most part Obama was somewhat competitive in South Carolina before Iowa and New Hampshire. Sanders has no cultural appeal to the state to pull off what Obama did.

[DCBob]

27. Bernie still can't connect with AA voters.

and running out of time to figure out how to resolve that.

[RoccoR5955]

58. I dunno about that

He seems to have connected with AA voters here in NY.

[riversedge]

87. GREAT news. Thanks

[Sancho]

5. Great news!

[DaGimpster]

6. Agree on the rural HRC support.

Even as a Sanders supporter here in Iowa- I must admit that it's likely many rural precincts will go in the HRC column. That said, the media always only focuses on the popular vote in the caucus. They never really mention/care about the delegate situation.

We're feeling good about turnout where we're strong, but you just never know. Really a horse race at this time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Good morning...It is my understanding the pop vote in the IA caucus is never released.

Good morning...It is my understanding the pop vote in the IA caucus is never released because there is really no such thing.

[DaGimpster]

35. I had refresh from 2008! Been a while :)

You are correct, the Democrats don't release popular vote #.

It's the Republicans that do.

[MrChuck]

40. The media always reports

the turnout and exit polls that amount to a popular vote but you are correct that it's not a deciding factor in the counting of delegates.
A larger turnout means a Sanders advantage, of course but neither candidate requires a specific number of voters. Indeed, a candidate can garner the majority of delegates without getting the most voters to caucus for them. One of the peculiarities of caucusing.

[MoonRiver]

71. I'll never understand the caucus system!

But maybe it's designed to be confusing.

[Gothmog]

8. Thank you for posting this

[Cartoonist]

10. Martin may be a nice guy

But it is time for him to realize that it's not going to happen for him. His support is so low that he can't even claim he is getting his message out, whatever that is.

[KittyWampus]

16. He and his supporters in caucus states should keep on. I am voting for him in the primary.

So kindly stfu.

[Cal33]

34. He certainly knows what you are saying, but I think he is running to gain name recognition for

future elections. Also, he might be chosen VP this election, which would also improve his chances
for the presidency in the future.

[uponit7771]

11. Sanders managers excuse for SC, " Sanders isn't well known..." (mine)... no, Sanders is known

... and well his numbers are going down not up

[Robbins]

14. LOL

cherring on one poll when others show good news for bernie and bad for clinton

[Bobbie Jo]

78. Do what?

[KittyWampus]

15. Why isn't O'Malley gaining any traction?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Bernie Sanders has done a remarkable of job consolidating the Anybody But Clinton coalition.

nt

[SidDithers]

17. DU rec...nt

Sid

[oasis]

21. Hillary cakewalks to the nomination with these two victories.

[Renew Deal]

30. If Hillary wins SC that big, Bernie may never catch up.

Just like Hillary never did in 2008.

[oasis]

76. I'm crossing my fingers it happens. nt

[Eric J in MN]

22. They also polled NH, which is the early state which knows Bernie Sanders the best.

New Hampshire Democratic Primary NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 57, Clinton 38, O'Malley 2

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. i will congratulate the senator for his victory there.

In sports parlance it is known as a gentleman's sweep. The victorious team allows the vanquished team to win one game in a series so it can feel good about itself.

[Eric J in MN]

32. Hillary Clinton is seeking a last minute additional debate in NH. She didn't surrender NH. (NT)

NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. She should. I am conceding it now./nt

[KingCharlemagne]

48. Yeah, we're going to let Hillary win South Carolina to assuage her fi-fis - nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. Her...

48. Yeah, we're going to let Hillary win South Carolina to assuage her fi-fis - nt

Her "fi-fis" will be just fine, King Charlemagne.


Respectfully,


DemocratSinceBirth
Proud Proletarian

[Jarqui]

28. I'd point out

A significant gender gap divides the two Democratic rivals. Men support Sanders by a margin of 58 percent to 35 percent, while women favor Clinton 57 percent to 37 percent.

And the poll was 41% men and 59% women, which is not a realistic demographic for the primary - and it favors Clinton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. I would point out what the respective campaigns are saying

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and his top advisers will gather here on Wednesday to confront a decision that will have lasting consequences for his presidential campaign and his political image: whether to open a new, tougher line of advertising against his rival Hillary Clinton in the closing days of the race for Iowa.

The meeting comes as both campaigns acknowledge that Mrs. Clinton has pulled slightly ahead in polling for the Iowa caucuses on Monday. Some advisers to Mr. Sanders believe he can win here only by drawing sharper contrasts with her, especially by emphasizing her ties to Wall Street.

The senator has prided himself on running an inspiring, issue-oriented campaign, and he speaks often of how he is not interested in tearing Mrs. Clinton down.

But the decision he is now grappling with echoes questions voiced by his supporters as Mr. Sanders finds himself within striking distance of Mrs. Clinton in Iowa: Does he have the stomach to directly attack her, and potentially defeat her, or will he be satisfied having injected important issues into the race and preserving his well-earned reputation for eschewing negative campaigning?


More at http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-iowa.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

[retrowire]

41. that's got nothing to do with

the demographic flaw Jarqui just pointed out in your OP's polling.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. We are discussing who will will win, are we not?

We are discussing who will will win, are we not?

DemocratSinceBirth does not do "unskew"
He thinks it is voodoo

lol



And in 2008 the exit polls indicated the IA caucus gender breakdown was 57% female 43% male


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IA

so 59% female 41% male is not much of stretch or more precisely a deviation.


Respectfully,
DemocratSinceBirth

[retrowire]

51. that's better. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Thank you, sir or madame, I am trying not to be unnecessarily quarrelsome.

A 59/41 gender split is in line with 08 exit polling.

Keep in mind, exit polling has a margin of error, albeit a small one, usually around 2%.

[Jarqui]

44. If you're in a fight, you fight

They're really up against it. They cannot pull punches.

Showing the American people what she has been up to with Wall Street lining the Clinton pockets for decades is the truth. Show Elizabeth Warren exposing the result of that cash on Clinton's vote for the bankruptcy bill. There is nothing wrong with that.

If one has their foot on the throat of this campaign, they need to step down with all their weight because their adversary has their knives out and they'll shred him when they get the chance. They'll probably try to in the next couple of days anyway. They already have try to damage him in the past few weeks.

I hope the Wall Street ads run. No quarter. If you want a revolution, you have to fight hard. Might be messy but it's going to get messy anyway because they're already lying and trying to mess Bernie up. Put the truth out there and let the American people decide.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. All that is fine. sir, but I am just pointing to the fact both campaigns...

All that is fine but I am just pointing to the fact both campaigns believe Hillary Clinton is ahead in Iowa. Here is an even later account:

DES MOINES — Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and his top advisers will gather on Wednesday to confront a decision that will have lasting consequences for his presidential campaign and his political image: whether to open a new, tougher line of advertising against his rival Hillary Clinton in the closing days of the race for Iowa.

The meeting comes as both campaigns acknowledge that Mrs. Clinton has pulled slightly ahead in polling for the Iowa caucuses on Monday. Some advisers to Mr. Sanders believe he can win here only by drawing sharper contrasts with her, especially by emphasizing her ties to Wall Street.

...

Overnight tracking surveys this week have steadied her campaign’s nerves, and both sides agree she had a slight lead here as of Tuesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01...

Respectfully,
DemocratSinceBirth

[Jarqui]

56. They're in a statistical tie.

Does one side sleep better if they're 1 point a head of the other in a statistical tie? No way because of the margin of error. They might look to be up one and in fact are down three with a margin of error of +/- 4.

Nearly all of the polls I've seen have demographics that favor Clinton - in effect pad her numbers at the expense of Bernie. So the poll of polls today showing Clinton as +.2 is BS. Sanders is ahead probably about 2 pts when you consider the demographics.

And it also comes down to who comes out to vote. If they have a bad snowfall, I think it's harder on the seniors for example (not good news for Clinton).

This is a tight contest. Could go either way. One party being a smidgen ahead of the other in the polls isn't going to govern their actions. Doing something that can distance themselves from the other party is something they would consider.

[DaGimpster]

38. This is going to be a really awkward caucus this cycle if...

it's a bunch of men like me on one side of the room, and a bunch of women on the other. That's not exactly where I like battle lines to be drawn during the nomination process. I say that for race lines as well.

[Jarqui]

45. Most of the polls are that way

Women favor Hillary. Men favor Bernie.

Young women favor Bernie though. It's the older women who are extremely in Hillary's camp - close to 80% in some polls.

[DaGimpster]

63. The age break seems to be about 50 for that?

My wife is 36, caucused for HRC in '08, but going for Sanders this year.

[Jarqui]

65. The older the women, the more they tend to support Hillary.

65+ women are heavily for Clinton. Below 50 or 44, they tend to break towards Sanders. Under 30, women strongly support Bernie.

[SunSeeker]

29. K & R

[CoffeeCat]

31. They polled "adults". Not likely voters? Likely caucus goers?

Has anyone found any more detailed info on their samples?

All of that can make such a difference.

Yesterday's Quinnipiac poll used Iowa voter lists and the first question asked was, "Do you plan to attend your Iowa caucuses?" Those who said no, were not polled. Same methods used by Selzer's Iowa Poll. That poll was sound.

I'm not saying that this poll isn't. I can't find any info. If anyone knows, could you please post here.

[DaGimpster]

37. Most polls I've seen skew/weigh 75-80% older voters. That said...

... they are typically who actually show up to caucus.

[CoffeeCat]

50. But any poll that makes editorial judgments about who will and who will not show up

has just interjected a bias into the poll.

The poll should reflect the age/gender of the population being polled, not some random opinion of what the pollster thinks people will do or not do.

With that said, most polls probably do not do that. I'm not seeing that this NBC/Marist poll engaged in what you're describing.

However, there is this: There are 450 likely Republican caucus-goers and 426 likely Democratic caucus-goers defined by a probability turnout model which determines the likelihood respondents will participate in the 2016 Iowa Republican/Democratic Presidential Caucus based upon their chance of vote, interest in the election, and past election participation.

This is an issue. In Iowa, they polled "likely Democratic caucus-goers". They used past election participation as a criteria for defining a "likely Democratic caucus-goer." This is flawed methodology that will skew toward Clinton because: The polling excludes first-time caucus goers of all ages and younger voters.

Ann Selzer has discussed this method of polling Iowans--and how it is flawed and unscientific.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/IApolls/IA160124/NBC%20News_WSJ_Marist%20Poll%20Iowa%20Tables%20of%20Likely%20Republican%20Caucus-Goers_January%2028%202016.pdf#page=1

[DaGimpster]

61. Somewhat interesting side note on polling likely caucus goers.

My wife and I relocated to Iowa in 2001, and have caucused in 2004 and 2008 for the Democrats and voted in all generals without fail. We have both had same same cell phone numbers that whole time. She is 36 and I am 37. We are both caucusing for Bernie Sanders this year.

I have been called about 5 times to participate so far this cycle, and she has not been called once (much to her annoyance).

PS, all 5 times I've been polled it's been Marist or PPP. Only PPP asks if this is a landline or cell.

[CoffeeCat]

66. That's crazy!

What are the chances of you getting polled so frequently, given that most samples are around 500 Iowans?

My husband and I thought it was odd that we have both been polled by Quinnipiac. I was polled in their poll that came out three weeks ago. My husband was polled for the most recent poll that was released yesterday.

They did ask both of us if we were on a cell phone.

You being polled so often is extraordinary! What are the odds?

[DaGimpster]

67. Until this caucus cycle

I have NEVER been polled before. All of my polls have been a live person as well from random area code 319 and 515#s. The one exception was the last PPP poll was a PA area code.

[retrowire]

36. lol you don't like quinnipiac anymore I see. XD nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. I never liked quinnipiac polls.

I desperately wanted to unskew them here but it's a bad look so I usually refrain from doing so, though I have slipped.


Best to just look at the aggregate, any way, and not any poll...


I do give an abundance of credence to the fact both campaigns believe Sanders is behind In Iowa.

[retrowire]

62. both campaigns said that sanders is behind?

lololol

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. I will be the bigger...

both campaigns said that sanders is behind?
lololol

-retrowire

I will take the high road, be the bigger person, and not laugh at you. I will just cite the facts, ergo:

The meeting comes as both campaigns acknowledge that Mrs. Clinton has pulled slightly ahead in polling for the Iowa caucuses on Monday.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-iowa.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

[div class="excerpt" Overnight tracking surveys this week have steadied her campaign’s nerves, and both sides agreed she had a slight lead here as of Tuesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-iowa.html


With all due respect,

DemocratSinceBirth

[CoffeeCat]

68. but the facts do not bear that out

the Quinnipiac poll released yesterday showed that Bernie had a 4-point lead. They use incredibly sound polling methods, similar to Ann Selzer's Iowa Poll.

The recently released NBC/Marist poll excluded all young people under the age of 22 and all first-time caucus goers. That's not a model for sound, reliable polling in Iowa, for sure.

I don't see any quote from Sanders saying that Hillary Clinton is slightly ahead in Iowa, but I'd like to see that quote, if so.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. I merely cited what the New York Times reported.

I merely cited what the New York Times reported.

The meeting comes as both campaigns acknowledge that Mrs. Clinton has pulled slightly ahead in polling for the Iowa caucuses on Monday.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-iowa.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

[div class="excerpt" Overnight tracking surveys this week have steadied her campaign’s nerves, and both sides agreed she had a slight lead here as of Tuesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-iowa.html


I merely cited what the New York Times reported. Since I pride myself on being a helpful and dutiful member of this community I will share with you the address of the Public Editor at the Times and you can request a retraction, if you so desire, ergo:

E-mail: [e-mail]
Address: Public Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

Respectfully,
DemocratSinceBirth

[CoffeeCat]

74. LOL! I just don't see a quote

and I know how the media tends to say things that maybe weren't said--so I'll just remain skeptical of that.

Perhaps Bernie has said it. If he did say it, that is big news. I wonder why the journalist didn't use a specific quote, if that is indeed what Sanders said. Perhaps that's because Sanders didn't say it.

Yesterday, people were asserting that Bernie was "tamping down" expectations because he said that it was "mythology" that he must win Iowa to win the nomination. I went through and looked at the articles and he was not tamping down anything.

He was simply answering a question. Would be similar to a reporter asking, "Do you have to win in Nevada to get the nomination" and Sanders replying, "No, we're in for the long haul" --only to have someone scream, "He's tamping down expectations in Nevada!!"

It's ridiculous.

I'm a bit skeptical when I don't see the direct quote. Even when there is a direct quote, it's often misconstrued. We're into silly season.

[retrowire]

75. Okay, I saw post 72 as instructed

and you merely doubled down and told us to ask the editor.

Will do!

[retrowire]

70. With all due respect DSB...

You must acknowledge spin as a fact of life in politics correct?

Both of these "acknowledgements" are neither official statements nor cited material.

Do you believe everything they say on the TV? I'd hope not.

Fact is, editors and writers are free to insert things like this into their articles without the need to cite anything. If it were true, then I'd expect a quote, or even a generic "statement from a campaign official who is familiar with both parties". But this, honestly could just be the author having a little fun.

Second to that, what polls would they be agreeing on? That's left out as well, curious. It only lends further credit to the idea that this statement was creative thinking.

Again, don't believe everything you read. This is politics after all.

Don't let it get the best of you.

With italicized regards for emphasis,

retrowire

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. Please see Post 72

Thank you very much.


BTW, my friend, there is a thread where another member of our august community "unpacks" the Marist Poll. You can share your concerns there. I try to avoid the "unpacking" threads so can you please cite the fact the IA caucus was 57 F 43 M in 08 so 59 F 41 M in 016 is such a stretch.


Respectfully,
DSB

[workinclasszero]

39. Great news DSB!

I needed that, thanks!

[MineralMan]

43. The poll that will be released next Tuesday will

tell the tale. At this point, I'm ignoring Iowa polling altogether. We'll soon know the results of the caucuses in IA. I expect much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Now, they're predicting possibly heavy snow in IA on Monday evening.

[CoffeeCat]

69. No, the snow is predicted for early Tuesday morning

The snow should have no effect on the Iowa caucuses, unless they've changed their forecast models in the past 10 hours.

The storm is supposed to hit around 3 a.m. Tuesday morning--several hours after the Iowa caucuses have ended.

[MineralMan]

86. Could be. Weather is unpredictable.

[JRLeft]

55. I said it before and I will say it again, if Bernie loses Iowa the race is over.

[stonecutter357]

59. K&R!

[Iliyah]

60. K & R

Propaganda corporate media ain't gonna dwell on these polls except for T-rump ones.

[Ed Suspicious]

77. Where is New Hampshire and Nevada?

[lunamagica]

80. K&R.

[Agnosticsherbet]

81. In 2008, Obama led a Revoltuion. Low turn out will call in doubt a 2016 Revolution...

If he wins Iowa, the revolution becomes more believable.

I look forward to the counting.

[Betty Karlson]

82. So even excluding first time voters Clinton is barely ahead of Sanders?

Even when excluding the age demographic most likely to come out in DROVES for Sanders, Clinton is tetering on the brink of losing the caucus? Excellent news. I also note the upswing in SC. Clinton is hemorrhaging support everywhere, even in her supposed "fire-wall".

[Arkana]

84. I feel like with a close win or strong second in IA and a win in NH

that Bernie's SC numbers go up considerably.

[Iliyah]

85. That CNN poll which showed HRC 8 points down of which the corporate media

touted, well it appears that the one SURGING is HRC - LOL