Finally we have a Scientific Debate Poll and it show Hillary won by a wide margin

[stevenleser]

http://www.oann.com/dncdebate/

Post DNC Debate Poll Results

Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 760 registered Democratic voters across the U.S. regarding the performance and opinions of the Democrats that took place in the first Democratic Primary debate. The poll has a margin of error of ± 3.6%. The total may not round to 100% because of rounding. The polls were conducted using automated telephone calls (IVR technology) and weighted by party voting characteristics. The poll was conducted for One America News Network.

[Joey Joe Joe]

1. Are you sure you want to stake your reputation with Gravis Marketing?

Also, of note: telephone poll.

[Babel_17]

5. Science! :)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/05/21/the_worst_poll_in_america.html

[workinclasszero]

49. I dunno this stuff does whatever you want it to do.....

Its really good for internet push polls too!

[stevenleser]

6. They're not my favorite, but please post another scientific debate poll for comparison.

I'd like to see as many as possible. This is the only one I've seen so far.

[workinclasszero]

50. Nate Silver rates them a C

Its decent.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

[passiveporcupine]

63. automated telephone poll

I got a couple of calls last night and just hung up on them. I don't do phone calls. Plus the younger people all have cell phones...are those in the auto call listings, or do they just go with what is in the phone book (meaning land line calls)?

And what does "weighted by party voting characteristics" mean?

[pnwmom]

68. Most telephone polls include cell phones these days. n/t

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

89. Not Steve's HAHAHA!!!

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

[jeff47]

90. Not this one. It's illegal to robo-dial cell phones. (nt)

[Duppers]

94. It used to be land lines only.

You've pointed out an excellent point.

[1StrongBlackMan]

134. Then, your call wouldn't have affected the numbers ... if you had been called.

[passiveporcupine]

135. Oh, it might have affecteted the numbers, as I would have voted for Bernie.

And I'm in the old person land line only who get called for polls category.

[1StrongBlackMan]

136. No it wouldn't, regardless who you would have voted for ... You hang up. Remember? n/t

[passiveporcupine]

137. Yep, and if I didn't hang up, my vote would have counted for Bernie

And how many others like me hang up, before they even find out it's a poll? And how many of those votes might have been for Bernie?

You see, authoritarian type people, like the people who seem to be attracted to authoritarian type politicians like Hillary, may be more inclined to answer the phone and participate in the poll. People like me, who don't necessarily follow all the rules, don't always play societies games, like answering random phone calls and talking to people they don't know.

[1StrongBlackMan]

138. LOL ...

And how many others like me hang up, before they even find out it's a poll? And how many of those votes might have been for Bernie?

Statistically, about 30% of those "not going to hang-up this time" voters. That's how scientific polling works.

You see, authoritarian type people, like the people who seem to be attracted to authoritarian type politicians like Hillary, may be more inclined to answer the phone and participate in the poll.

Really? Answering one's phone and participating in a poll is indicative of "authoritarian type people ... attracted to authoritarian type politicians like Hillary"? Really.

I'll leave at the name-calling ... and just laugh (because I have no more tears for this once good space).

[pnwmom]

65. Most scientific polls are telephone polls. You were expecting door-to-door? nt

[Joey Joe Joe]

86. Yes ma'am, I was referring to

landline telephone as opposed to cell phones.

[bvar22]

131. No telephone poll has EVER been "scientific".

What are the experimental protocols?

Where is the "control"?

[pnwmom]

133. Ask the PhD statisticians who design them. But not all polls are created equal

so I'd look at Gallup and ORC as examples.

In the world of polling, a scientific poll is one that has designed to poll a RANDOM sample that accurately reflects the larger group, within a 95% error rate. They have determined, mathematically, how sample size is related to accuracy.

No self-selected, non-random sampling can achieve this.

[99Forever]

80. Why not?

When it comes back to embarrass this "reporter," he'll just turn around and say the exact opposite thing and pretend people actually buy his bullshit.


We don't.


But an active fantasy life is important.

[Go Vols]

114. Yep

<

[a2liberal]

110. Not only that

Not only are they trying to push a poll by one of the least reputable pollsters, it's also one commissioned for a network founded because Fox News wasn't conservative enough.

[msongs]

2. bad poll, one cannot revote in it hundreds of times an hour nt

[JaneyVee]

7. And from around the globe.

[Marty McGraw]

100. that's gotta bum

HRC's Facebook & Twitter 'Friends'

[workinclasszero]

51. The woo factor is low

[ucrdem]

3. "760 registered Democratic voters"

hey that's nothing compared to a facebook poll

[workinclasszero]

54. I bet they are all corporate sellouts

and they kick puppies and hate babies!

rabblerabblerabble

[Jamaal510]

122. +1

[virtualobserver]

4. That same poll.....for the nomination ....Hillary 42 Bernie 34

[Godhumor]

17. Yeah, bad poll. Edited out misreading of respondents

I'm a Clinton supporter, but this is a sponsored poll from an ill-reputed pollster and a questionable sponsor.

[HerbChestnut]

19. The article says it was only registered Democratic voters.

[Godhumor]

23. So it did, I misread

Thanks for the point out. I will edit.

Still a sponsored poll, though.

[HerbChestnut]

29. Agreed.

More polls are necessary to draw any conclusions, but this one is still a very interesting data point.

[Utopian Leftist]

132. LOL

Any poll which suggests that twelve percent of the watchers of the debate would vote for Webb, MUST be fraudulent in some way!

Or else they didn't watch the same debate I watched. No way Webb at 12 percent or Chaffee at 8 percent, either.

[HerbChestnut]

18. WHOA

How did that go under the radar??

[Godhumor]

20. Ignore. I misread the respondents breakdown n/t

[HerbChestnut]

22. Is there a link to the actual poll anywhere?

The article says it was only registered Democratic voters.

[Godhumor]

39. Up to the customer to decide to release full poll results for a sponsored poll

So I doubt you'll see it.

But, as I said, Pollster and RCP will ignore it, due to its origins.

[questionseverything]

43. here ya go

http://www.oann.com/dncdebate/

[HerbChestnut]

48. Thanks, but that's a link to the article

That was in the OP. It has all the results, sure, but I'm looking for the actual guts of the poll so to speak.

[villager]

8. "Trump Dominates One America News Network's National Poll"

<snip>


Fifty-two percent of the respondents disapprove of President Obama's job performance, while only 9 percent were unsure. If the voters surveyed had to pick between the two parties frontrunners, 52 percent would vote for Trump, while 48 percent would vote for Clinton. Dr. Ben Carson had the most favorable performance against Hillary Clinton, coming in at 53 percent to Clinton's 47 percent.

According to Robert Herring Sr., CEO of One America News Network, "Trump and Clinton continue to dominate the national polls. We still have a long ways to go, so it will be interesting to see if both of these candidates can maintain their leads. I'm excited to see what will happen within the next couple of months. Peaking at the right time will be key."

<snip>

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/trump-dominates-one-america-news-networks-national-poll-300153522.html

[stevenleser]

13. So, this is a poor job of trying to discredit a polling agency. I'll help you out

If you're trying to discredit Gravis, you have to show they are an outlier on a similar question posed to a similar audience.

President Obama's numbers have been under water for a fair amount of the last 2 years, so the question is, how far is Gravis off from the rest, if any.

And as far as Trump is concerned, he is the front runner on the GOP side so it isn't exactly discrediting to a polling agency if they show him as the clear favorite.

If you want to discredit Gravis, and they're not my favorite, you have a lot more work to do.

[villager]

21. Actually, it's a pretty good job. You've already helped me out, by agreeing with a polling outfit

...that puts Trump ahead of Clinton, and shows her high unfavorables.

So I assume you agree with those figures -- which you assiduously avoided (the poll wasn't only talking about the GOP side) -- as well.

I wouldn't rely on Gravis myself, but you have chosen to, and thus, conflate them to a level of respectability you're now obliged to defend.


On edit: And I am not as bitterly "opposed" to Clinton as you folks are to Sanders. But I agree with Sanders more, hence my primary vote. I'd be rue to cite a Gravis poll in his favor -- or at least, I would never put all my eggs in that particular basket.

[stevenleser]

24. you've done nothing except fail. Nt

[villager]

25. Oh, Steve. That's a pitiful comeback even by your standards.

n/t

[stevenleser]

30. There is no substance in your comment to address. It's what your post is worth. Nt

[villager]

35. Well, there was no willingness to address the substance, certainly. nt

[stevenleser]

64. Substance would be what I outlined in #13. Without it...

you and other Bernie supporters are reduced to complaining about the accuracy of Gravis after defending internet polls for the last 21 hours.

[villager]

71. At least you're now accurately putting Gravis on a plane w/ the other internet polls

I myself never linked to any of them, but it wasn't just polls -- there was a social media spike of interest in Bernie, post-debate.

When more actual polls start to come out, we'll see what the longer-term effects of debate #1 really are...

[stevenleser]

79. Nope, it's much better than any internet poll. nt

[villager]

81. Since you agree with their accuracy, then you agree Trump is beating Clinton

...among national voters, I gather.

So be it.

[stevenleser]

101. Straw man, however, most polls I've seen do have Trump ahead of Clinton right now.

So if that's your attempt to discredit Gravis, again, you fail.

[villager]

102. Well, no, it's just that you agree that your candidate, for all her debate success, is trailing

...Donald Trump.

Btw, I know that using words like "fail" makes you feel coolly dismissive, and like you're "in charge" of the discussion, and all, but really, what it truly reflects is simply a deeper unwillingness to have any kind of thoughtful exchange here.

[stevenleser]

109. Now you are trying to change the subject. Sorry won't work.

The Gravis poll is light years ahead of any internet poll.

[villager]

113. Sorry, Steve. Your "selection" is suddenly touting the same Gravis co. that shows Clinton trailing

...Trump, by only selectively using the one from the same firm touted in their press releases now, since it shows a result you like (though you also bypassed the stat showing a fairly large chunk of support for Sanders).

You are doing the same kind of cherrypicking that you'd be the first in line to call someone else on. And you would be criticizing Gravis if someone posted their earlier results to "prove" Clinton is also a weak candidate in the face of Trump's current ascendancy.

No changed subject, just a sad consistency in the one-way nature of your "communication" here.

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. He's takin' his ball, and he's goin' home. You don't play fair. nt

[villager]

37. Can't have a discussion on a discussion site when one is so used to hit-and-run snarking!

[840high]

62. Speaking of failing.......

[Godhumor]

28. Nah, Steve they're right in this case. It is a sponsored poll

And for a pretty bad source. Nice numbers for our candidate, but I would wait for the next one to come out as opposed to trumpeting this one.

[stevenleser]

31. See my #27. Nt

[JaneyVee]

9. Sure, bring science into it.

[RobertEarl]

10. And they were all Clinton voters once upon a time

We all were.... years and years ago.

But what I find amazing is 30 percent already feeling the Bern! Already, and that after just one debate. No wonder establishment Dems want to limit debates this time.

[questionseverything]

46. robert check the who would you vote for today graph

bernie is only down by 8...course according to same poll webb gets 12 % and chaffee 8%


so who these people were is a mystery to me

[JaneyVee]

11. That's what the actual poll numbers will look like next week.

[hrmjustin]

12. Not a fan of the polling firm but we shallsee if othef polls confirm this.

[stevenleser]

27. The joke is, the folks who have spent the last 21 hrs defending Internet polls

Are now saying Gravis isn't accurate enough.

Gravis is probably one of my least favorite, ala Rasmussen. But with both of those outfits you can say they are generally skewed 3-5 points. That would still put this in the range of a huge victory by Hillary.

[hrmjustin]

36. It is hilarious to watch them try to convince us.

[retrowire]

66. You need to be convinced?

Of what? That people literally voted in online polls by the majority for Sanders?

I don't think that's debatable really.

Sure, people could argue that it's not scientific enough. Yeah, error margins are much wider in something like that.

But you can't really deny the numerous focus groups, twitter activity differences and Google analytics.

So... what do you need to be convinced of anyways?

[hrmjustin]

69. Lol sorry but i don't buy this one bit.

[retrowire]

70. Whaaat

Really? You don't buy any of that?

[hrmjustin]

72. Web polls are nothing. People wasting their time to make themselves feel better.

[retrowire]

73. Yeah, but you said you don't buy "any" of that...

Meaning, you don't buy ANY of the other things I mentioned.

The focus groups, the twitter activity, the Google analytics....

Plus, the margin of error of an internet poll begins to decrease when several of the same poll are made across many different sites and ALL of them have pretty much the same end result. Either way, online polls aside, how do you deny the focus groups and other stuff?

That's why I'm kind of flabbergasted right now.

[hrmjustin]

74. Focus groups can be manipulated. The other things metrics may shoe more interest in Sanders but

it does not mean he won the debate.

[retrowire]

75. Focus groups manipulated...

Okay, yes this is true. but....

CNN's focus group chooses Bernie. CNN chooses Hillary.

^^^ That example happened all over the web with all other focus groups, they chose Bernie, and the ones that sponsored the groups chose Hillary.

You think they were manipulated... Why would they be manipulated to go the OPPOSITE way of their sponsor?

Secondly, I'm beginning to detect a semantic thing here... As in, "the reasons THEY felt he won aren't what I consider reasons to win so... Their choice is invalid."

I mean, nobody truly WINS a debate anyways so I understand that feeling. But, why deny what the majority of people are saying, yet accept what the media and pro pundits are saying?

[hrmjustin]

77. What i find insulting here is Several Sanders supporters assuming i am following the lead of pundits

I can think for myself.

[retrowire]

82. I don't mean to offend, my apologies for assuming.

So you're following your own thought and opinion.

You believe Hillary won.

That's fine.

No explanation for why the hell CNN and others would manipulate their focus groups to go for Bernie but then declare Hillary a winner against their collected data?

[dsc]

98. the stuff you wrote about internet polls is complete voodoo

MOE's come about from inference and inference only works if you know how samples of a given size are distributed. You can only know the distribution of those samples, if the samples are random and independently chosen and internet polls are neither. As to the focus groups, I saw two Luntz' and the one for Fusion. Fusion's was entirely made up of young millenials meaning that it was quite likely to have been biased toward Bernie (he does best with younger voters). The Luntz group was chosen by him which makes it suspect and also appeared to be way whiter than our electorate would be (the Democratic primary vote is 60 percent white, 40 percent non white). His group appeared to be close to 80/20. Hillary does better among non whites.

[mythology]

99. I need to be convinced of a number of things

One, people could only vote once including by removing cookies or logging in on a different computer
Two, the sample was demographically representative of the Democratic primary constituency (including independents in states where they can vote in the Democratic primary)
Three, the system wasn't influenced by a concerted effort to create an unrepresentative sample
Four that the bias in online polling toward wealthier, whiter and younger voters was accounted for.

Start there. I'm sure I can come up with some other questions later. See that's the thing about science, it can be tested and verified. Unlike an unscientific poll that can't.

[Fawke Em]

42. Some of us haven't pointed to the Internet polls so much.

We've been pointing to the focus groups, donations, social media interactions and Google searches.

Those all show what real people are doing, how they're doing it and can be scientifically counted.

But, Hillary fans don't seem to be paying attention.

[retrowire]

60. +1

Be amazed as you get crickets for this response to which no one can retort.

[Marty McGraw]

105. One faction

gets paid for their response and the other one doesn't.

That's just not confusing me on what to Rely on More. Really Simple when you get Right Down to it.

[workinclasszero]

55. Irony eh?

SMH wow!

[mcar]

85. The mind, it is blown

Online polls - great!!!! Real pollster, albeit not the greatest - bad, inaccurate, how can you possibly tout this???

[arcane1]

93. It's hilarious how people will do a complete 180 like that, isn't it?

Destroys all credibility

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. Cali_Democrat thinks your poll is "notoriously unreliable".

I don't imagine he'd be very impressed with this at all. "You're gonna have to wait a few days for reliable post-debate political polling to come out.

I'm surprised you didn't know this. What was your major? Clearly it wasn't statistics."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=682068

[Cali_Democrat]

38. I've never been impressed with Gravis polling

DUer Grantcart exposed them years ago. Maybe they've improved, but I wouldn't know.

If they did in fact use a random sample of 760 democratic voters who watched the debate, then it's probably much more reliable than any internet poll. I'm not going to look into the methodology.

I must say that I'm flattered that you think so highly of my opinion when it comes to political polling that you'd bring my name up in a thread where I haven't even posted.

Thanks!

[cherokeeprogressive]

44. You are quite welcome.

I just thought it extremely ironic that mere minutes after you comment on my edumacation, here comes the Fox Contributor doing exactly what you said you were surprised I didn't know couldn't be done.

That kinda made my day actually. Well, that and the kiss.

[wyldwolf]

15. Gravis Marketing is an arm of the corporate fascist plutocratic meany DLC

[kenfrequed]

88. Uhm...

Gravis Marketing gives Donald Trump the election over Hillary... doesn't it?

Would you really want to use their polls?

[wyldwolf]

91. uhm

several have similar results.

[kenfrequed]

92. Elaborate

Several What has similar results? Several polls?



Could you at least try to make a complete argument?



Or are you counting some kind of score by the number of posts you can make per hour or something?

[StrongBad]

104. Wait. Are you really suggesting to disregard

Simply because you don't like the results???

[kenfrequed]

118. Do you honestly believe people prefer trump to Hillary?

If you do, then you have to think about supporting a candidate that might have a better shot at beating Trump

If you do not, then you have to admit the polling is shit and that maybe the numbers separating Bernie and Hillary are probably different.



I will be honest though, I do not think Trump is going to be the candidate anyhow so the whole thing could be moot.

[StrongBad]

120. Did you really think people preferred Reagan to Carter back in '80? Or Bush to Gore in '00?

[kenfrequed]

125. I think we are in a different time period.

So no. I do not believe people are going to prefer Trump to Hillary.


And I think if you believe Trump is going to defeat Hillary we have to consider supporting Bernie Sanders.

[StrongBad]

129. It's just as plausible that Trump (or whoever the GOP nominee is) could beat Bernie.

[boston bean]

16. Well, that was obvious to most.

but thanks for the additional confirmation.

[restorefreedom]

26. automated calls

so land lines only?

mmm hmmmm

[riversedge]

32. Thanks steve. Great to see some science. Hope a few more come out soon and we

will have a better notion of the wining man/woman.

[aidbo]

34. OANN is trying to out-Fox Fox News.

Even had Sarah Palin guest host one of their shows.

[stevenleser]

40. See my #27 above. Nt

[aidbo]

57. If I made an OP with a link..

..to Fox News or The Blaze or some such other site that supported Bernie Sanders, it would be excoriated by all Hillary supporters.

Enjoy your 'win'

[stevenleser]

61. Actually, Fox News polls are posted here occasionally and no, posters are not necessarily

excoriated.

[aidbo]

121. excoriated. shmexcoriated.

Last edited Thu Oct 15, 2015, 01:16 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251683058

Now I see someone posting Fox News and Drudge polls as proof of BS's success in the debate. Come on people. You really need to be just a tad more cynical. This isn't about coming up with fucking clever snark. The path this country takes in the future depends on a DEMOCRAT being in the White House. This isn't a fucking game.

On the same poll you cited. Just a few hours later.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251683369#post4

This is from a very right wing conservative outfit with Tea Party

and Moonie Times connections

[Todays_Illusion]

41. Wow, who knew, opinion is now called scientific. n/t

[tammywammy]

45. I think people should wait until more polls come out.

While self-selecting online polls are completely unreliable, I think more than one scientific polls is needed for confirmation. Plus this firm is kinda sketchy. I look forward to seeing more results in the next few days.

[stevenleser]

142. We've got another one and it also shows a 30 point margin for Hillary.

Apparently Gravis was right on with this one. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251687729

[workinclasszero]

47. Finally!!!!!

Oh look an actual scientific poll showing Hillary KILLED IT last night!

[RichVRichV]

52. If that's the poll you want to go with.....

59% of the respondents were 50+ (age group that has been going strongly for Hillary)

How old are you?

18-49 - 41%
50-64 - 34%
65+ - 25%

Bernie is now within 8 points of her.

If the Democratic Primary Elections for President were held today, who would you vote for?

Hillary Clinton - 42%
Bernie Sanders - 34%
Jim Web - 12%
Lincon Chaffee - 8%
Martin O'Malley - 5%

I'll happily let her have the debate win for those poll results at this point in the contest. Especially for the age demographic polled. Based on those results it looks to me everyone but Hillary won from the debate.

[Lizzie Poppet]

53. A poll in which 59% of the respondents are age 50 and up favored Hillary?

Gee, how shocking...

[workinclasszero]

56. Ageism? Really?

Age 50 and up voters actually go to the polls and vote a whole hell of a lot more than 30 years old or under I bet!

[frylock]

95. What ageism?

[Scootaloo]

58. And overwhelmingly white, only "slightly liberal."

Science says - old white mostly-conservative democrats favor Clinton.

History agrees! 2008 made it pretty clear.

[Cheese Sandwich]

59. After 24 hours of corporate media spin. Could explain the results somewhat.

After people hear from TV pundits who the winner was.

[randome]

83. Right. Because the people who are uprising with Sanders are so easily led astray.

Like you? Is that what you meant?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[ejbr]

67. Not for nothing...

but 2% thought Chafee won the debate? The guy who looked liked he got lost and ended up on stage in front of a huge audience? If this is true, I find this more disturbing than anything, but that is just me.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

76. 15.2 people per state?

[stevenleser]

84. That's pretty typical for national polls. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

96. It's like those polls where they ask 6 people in the red counties and six in the blue....

Then they report their 50/50 results.

After they throw out half of the democratic responses based on the assumption that democrats don't actually vote and they call the results "likely voters".

[artislife]

78. Don't trust the source.

Trash thread

[StrongBad]

106. Good call. Internet polls with no methodology are superior.

[artislife]

107. I don't think you understand which source I am referring to...heh

[StrongBad]

108. I really don't. I guess you're referencing something I don't get.

[SCantiGOP]

87. Objectively, I thought she won. NT

[Persondem]

97. First poll with a controlled sample so it beats the hell out of internet polls.

Gravis isn't great but even with double theme Clinton stills wins easily. Thanks for posting. K & R.

[sufrommich]

103. Gravis isn't as highly regarded as some,but in the next couple

of days we'll see more polls showing similar results.

[stevenleser]

111. Yup. My guess is that Gravis is again off by 3-5 points and the numbers will instead be closer

To my prediction right after the debate ended of 55% for Hillary, 40% for Bernie and 5% for O'Malley.

[jfern]

112. Sure if you think that Hillary is up only 8 points over Sanders

And that Webb, O' Malley, and Chafee somehow ended up with a quarter of the vote between them.

[Herman4747]

115. I Wonder About the 1% Choosing Jim Webb nt

[uponit7771]

116. This is a scientific poll, this doesn't count /sarcasm <--- cause this is needed around here

[BooScout]

117. Thanks for this....

I've shared it on to spread the word! Looks like the biggest losers last night were Webb and Chafee....and Hillary definitely won the debate!

[ismnotwasm]

119. Of course she did

Who could doubt it?

[eridani]

124. People who don't like her voting to kill a million Iraqs n/t

[SoLeftIAmRight]

123. only 30 percent of the people asked watched the debate

they all voted Sanders

62 percent watched good morning america

9 percent said - what debate

[flamingdem]

127. Hillary has the wind at her back

She nailed it. Bernie is the best thing that could have happened and thankfully he pushed her to the left.

[Fearless]

128. Gravis Marketing: "The Worst Poll in America"

The polls were conducted using automated telephone calls (IVR technology) and weighted by party voting characteristics.
There's always one, and so far in 2014, Gravis Marketing is in the lead for the prestigious Strategic Vision Award for Botched Polling. In Texas, its final poll of Sen. John Cornyn's primary gave him a weak 43–28 lead over Rep. Steve Stockman. This was 25 points off—Cornyn beat Stockman, one of the laziest campaigners in recent Texas memory, by a 59–19 margin. (Other anti-Cornyn candidates split the rest.)

In Kentucky, Gravis closed out with a poll that found Mitch McConnell up by 14 points—48 to 34 over Matt Bevin. When I met Bevin at CPAC, he pointed out (not incorrectly) that he was burning a trail across the state, quite a contrast to Stockman. Gravis was slightly less wrong this time, as Bevin won 35 percent of the vote. But McConnell won 60 percent, for a 25-point margin that more than doubled Gravis'. The poll that gives the most hope to insurgents does so by being wildly off.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/05/21/the_worst_poll_in_america.html

---------------------------------------------

And this....

UPDATED Gravis Marketing Exposed AND Eviscerated

...Doug Kaplan runs Gravis Polling which have been giving out polls heavily weighted in Mitt Romney's favour. These polls have been included in RCP poll of polls and Nate Silver's 538.

This has helped to cause the narrative since the 1st Presidential debate to swing in Romney's direction....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/15/1144688/-Gravis-Marketing-Exposed-AND-Eviscerated








Also you want to talk about skewed...

Highest Level of Education Completed:

POST GRAD: 36% (!?)

Some college : 31%

Bachelors: 22%

High School: 8%

Some High school: 2%


90% of those polled had some college experience or higher??

[BootinUp]

130. Of course. nt

[Bernblu]

139. Because of media influence, we will never actually know who actually won the debate

This poll just measures public opinion about who won the debate after the media weighed in. Many voters who didn't watch the debate and voters who did watch the debate but didn't have a strong favorite were influenced by the media to believe Clinton won. If all of the headlines say Clinton won then the public thinks "Well, Clinton must have won."

The corporate media is controlled by large corporations who are not sympathetic to Bernie's campaign and ideas. If you are a pundit or an editor for one of the corporate media firms you have to buy into the corporate ethic or you will not have a job for very long. This is not to say that this is a conspiracy. This is just how the corporate media controls public opinion.

Now, if Hillary had completely flubbed the debate they would have framed it as "Hillary loses debate" rather than "Bernie wins debate."

[jfern]

140. That wasn't of people who saw the debate

I'm pretty sure of Bernie won among people who actually saw the debate and didn't depend on the right-wing media to tell them who won.

[Honeylies]

141. If you want your poll to skew conservative, use landlines only

Like this poll did. I suspect thats why you see Webb doing unusually well too. I'll wait for some mixed-mode polling, thanks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/03/12/the-problem-with-modern-polling-in-one-chart/