New CBS News New Hampshire poll -- Sanders CRUSHING at 56% to Clinton 42% for a 14% lead!

[Attorney in Texas]

Link to CBS News December 2015 Battleground Tracker, New Hampshire.

[saltpoint]

1. Bernie is a neighbor of sorts to

many of those folks. Looks as if he's standing strong in the polling.

Them New Hampshire Democrats ain't skairt of no socialists.

[Attorney in Texas]

4. NY is 50 miles from NH and I seem to recall that Clinton was a Senator from NY so it is not like she

is playing an away game.

[saltpoint]

5. True. The state borders feel (and are)

closer up thataway than they do in other parts of the country.

I like the energy Sanders is bringing to the national political discussion. His issues are essential to meaningful reform, and we know this because the establishment media downplay his role and clip his air time.

But that grassroots campaign in New Hampshire is humming along nicely. Jeb Bush, who would be welcome in any corporate boardroom in the nation, can't generate nearly the level of enthusiasm Sanders has.

[valerief]

8. And Sanders was born in NY unlike Hillary (Illinois). nt

[Dem2]

2. This poll generally really likes Bernie

Oddly, this is only the 3rd largest Bernie lead out of 4 samples.

[Attorney in Texas]

23. Funny how the most reliable polls like Sanders best

[Dem2]

25. I wouldn't call it "funny"

*interesting* works for me

[CoffeeCat]

31. There have been a lot of sleazy, junk polls out there

This campaign season has brought an onslaught of junky, anti-science polls that were absolutely laughable.

All you had to do is read through their self-reported methodology to see the glaring flaws. The Monmouth Poll that showed Clinton ahead in Iowa didn't poll anyone under the age of of 25. 69 percent of respondents were over the age of 45. It was a complete joke. First-time caucus goers were excluded, as well as Independents in Iowa who may cross over to vote for Bernie. Huge chunks of Bernie supporters that just vanished from the Iowa pool of those polled.

You have to wonder what is going on. Are pollsters lazy? Sloppy? Or is Hillary Clinton so lucky that all of these lazy, slopping flawed polls just happen to tilt heavily in her favor?

Another prong in her rigged approach that is falling down all around her.

[Attorney in Texas]

34. So long as the unreliable polls do not discourage the Sanders campaign workers on the ground in Iowa

and New Hampshire, I think these bad polls can serve a good function. Sanders' performance in Iowa will be judged in large part on expectations. If the polls look tied on January 31, Sanders may need to win in order to beat expectations. If -- however -- the polling on January 31 shows a Clinton blowout in Iowa, Sanders may be able to beat expectations just by keeping it close.

The importance of expectations cannot be overstated. Remember that Hart in 1984 won New Hampshire based on momentum from a better-than-expected loss in Iowa, Harkin in 1992 collapsed in New Hampshire after a worse-than-expectations win in Iowa, and Buchanan in 1996 won New Hampshire based on momentum from a better-than-expected loss in Iowa. Often, beating expectations is more important than winning.

Every time I have to put up with a smug Clintonista gloating about some bullshit poll in Iowa, I just remind myself that we need them to boost the expectations for Clinton in order to get the maximum bounce out of Iowa.

[Punkingal]

3. Wow!

[JaneyVee]

6. Wait, do we like corporate polls now or not?

Getting so confusing.

[leftofcool]

7. Only if they show Bernie leading.

I think I will stick with Nate

[Attorney in Texas]

9. We don't like polls used to coronate a queen before the votes have been cast. We like polls used as

a report card to show that the campaign is on track and progressing toward a goal.

If you have any other questions, just let me know and I'll try to help you through the issue.

[JaneyVee]

10. I rest my case.

[emulatorloo]

29. Moe in Iowa poll is +/- 8.6%, NH +/- 7.5%

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-keeps-iowa-lead-sanders-stays-up-in-new-hampshire-democrats-like-both/

I'm a retired photoshop jockey, so I know you are much smarter than me. But I'm not clear how a poll with such a high MOE can be an accurate report card?

I love hearing good news about Bernie's progress, but to me that kind of MOE means I have no clue about what Bernie's actual progress is.

Can you give your insight? Thanks!

[Attorney in Texas]

32. CBS's margin of error is in the range of 95% confidence so it is inherently a conservative figure.

The margin of error is related to the sample size and confidence interval. While the 95% confidence interval and sample size may seem to reflect high uncertainty (margin or error), the sample size is actually large in comparison to other similar polls. For example, the last month's worth of polls in Iowa contain the following sample sizes of likely voters (and, bear in mind, the CBS poll interviewed 1,252 voters registered in Iowa to identify 602 likely caucus goers):

602 LV.....CBS/YouGov
526 LV.....PPP (D)
727 LV.....Quinnipiac
357 LV.....FOX
501 LV.....Loras College
400 LV.....Des Moines Register/Bloomberg/Selzer
405 LV.....Monmouth University
442 LV.....CNN

As you can see, the CBS poll actually has a comparative generous sample size (i.e., it is the second largest sample size of the 8 Iowa Democratic likely voter polls taken over the last month).

The polling in New Hampshire is similar (CBS polled 1,091 voters registered in New Hampshire to 459 likely Democratic primary voters, and the sample size is the largest of the 4 contemporaneous likely voter polls from the last month in New Hampshire):

459 LV.....CBS/YouGov
410 LV.....Franklin Pierce/RKM/Boston Herald
369 LV.....CNN/UNH/WMUR
458 LV.....PPP (D)

If you lack confidence in the CBS poll, that is probably somewhat justified, but if you are putting significantly more confidence in any of the other polls, you might be putting too much confidence in those other polls. Ultimately, I put little faith in registered voter polls and, among the likely voter polls, I put slightly more confidence in live phone polls that include landlines and generous sample of cell phones, and I put the second most confidence in random selection large sample internet polls, and I put almost no confidence in self-selection internet polls or robo-call polls (I think methodology can be more important than sample size, as reflected -- for example -- in the better accuracy of the Des Moines Register's historic polling accuracy despite the fact that other less accurate pollsters use larger sample sizes).

[emulatorloo]

33. Appreciate the time you took to put that together. Very helpful.

Thanks and have a great night!

[treestar]

15. +1

I thought they were all invalid!

[BlueCheese]

11. As Dem2 has pointed out...

... this is the CBS/YouGov poll that uses an Internet based methodology, and has been friendly to Sanders this whole time. It's actually a one-point improvement for Clinton since last time, which I take to mean a static race.

[HerbChestnut]

13. Other way around

Last results showed Hillary with 50% and Bernie with 44%.

[BlueCheese]

14. We're both wrong.

According to RCP, the last CBS/YouGov poll had a 7 point Sanders lead, 52-45. He had a 15 point lead in October.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

[HerbChestnut]

17. Oh my goodness I thought this was the Iowa thread!

My mistake.

[Attorney in Texas]

16. Actually, Sanders does better in the more reliable polls, and Clinton gets a boost from crap polling

The fact that Sanders has an 8.6% aggregate lead in New Hampshire at Real Clear Politics, but only a 4.3% aggregate lead in New Hampshire according to Pollster is due, in part, to the stricter methodology requirements imposed over at Real Clear Politics.

Nate Silver over at 538 discussed this phenomenon in connection with Trump's poll numbers (how he does better in poor methodology polls and does worse in polls that employ more accepted methods), and the same is true for Clinton's polling.

If you look at a graph of all the polls (the best, the good-but-flawed, and the crap), Sanders has an aggregate 4.3% lead:



If you focus on likely voters (drop the polls of all adults and polls of all registered voters), Sanders' aggregate lead grows to 4.9%:



If you drop the robo-call polls, which employ the most doubtful of methodologies, Sanders' aggregate lead grows again to 7.2%:



If you drop the pollsters who have not conducted at least 4 polls in New Hampshire (drop the one-off and infrequent pollsters), Sanders' aggregate lead grows to 8%:



If you narrow down to the live phone (landline and cell) polling of the most freuent pollster, Sanders' lead peaks at 10.6%:



And this 10.6% live phone polling lead for Sanders is bigger than the internet-polling 10.1% lead in the CBS News polls:



Contrast this with a graph that includes only robo-call polls, which give Clinton the lead in New Hampshire (and make the aggregation of polls look like a closer race than the more reliable polls suggest):

[Betty Karlson]

38. That is amazingly instructive. Thank you so much for that.

If it isn't too much trouble, would you please turn it into an OP of its own again?

[peacebird]

41. Wonderful! Love this, thanks!

[reformist2]

12. Wow. Now DWS's Freakout Friday is making a whole lot more sense...

They probably got wind of the results from contacts inside CBS late Thursday night, and went into full freakout mode.

[Attorney in Texas]

22. Anyone who lived through Clinton 2008 has GOT to be feeling pants-shitting levels of deja vu

[kath]

24. "Pants-shitting levels of deja vu"!

bwah!
Just had to see that again!

[Vinca]

18. That reflects what I'm seeing on the ground.

[Attorney in Texas]

19. The view from the ground is usually more accurate than the view from the pollsters. I like it best

when those two views coincide.

[brooklynite]

20. Just to be clear -- Polls can be trusted now?

[Attorney in Texas]

21. Depends what you use them for. A poll can't be used to call a race 6 weeks before the votes are cast

A poll can be used as a snapshot in time to assess whether a campaign is on the right track or the wrong track in terms of meeting its goals of getting its message across.

For example, if you look at current Iowa polling as conclude "Cruz will be the Republican nominee," you don't know how to use polling data; if you read that polling and conclude "Cruz will win the Iowa caucus," you again confirm that you don't know how to use polling data; but if you read that polling and conclude "Cruz seems to be on the right track and Carson seems to have peaked too early," then you are drawing the types of conclusions that can be validly inferred from the polling.

Why is this so complicated to you? Is it because you try to preemptively crown Your Highness based on national polling and everyone rightly concludes that only an idiot would read polling that way and so you resent when anyone uses polling data to draw any conclusions from it?

[still_one]

26. I will wait until other pollesters confirm the YouGov pollster. I question their online metholdogy,

Two days ago the polls indicated a 2 point difference in NH.

I will reserve judgement until other polls come out confirming this or not

[Attorney in Texas]

36. Just 10 days ago, the CNN poll put Sanders' New Hampshire lead at 10%

[still_one]

39. two days ago another poll had Bernie with a 2% lead. I will wait for confirmation with other polls

in the next few days

The same pollster said that Cruz has surpassed Trump in Iowa. I will wait for further confirmation on that one also

Regardless, the polls have been extremely volatile

[grasswire]

27. Go Bernie Go!!

What's so encouraging to me is that so many of his backers are young people. Savvy young people who want HIS guidance for the world they will have to live in as young adults, raise their children in, etc.

His campaign is futuristic, not stuck in 1992.

[Dawson Leery]

28. So now corporate polls are liked by the Bernistas?

[Attorney in Texas]

30. Polls are polls. You can like them or dislike them, but in the end, they are just a data point. If

want a sign that a campaign is heading in the right direction, a favorable poll can serve that function.

If you want proof that one candidate or another has already won an election over a month before the first votes are cast, then you don't know how to use polling.

[AzDar]

35. It's only anecdotal, of course... but here in my very red pocket of a red state, I've seen TONS

of Bernie stickers and merch. NONE, literally NONE for Hillary... and only 1 Carson ( gah!) bumper sticker.
I think Bernie is winning over peeps that the Pollsters have no way of quantifying.

[Samantha]

40. I have been saying that all along

He gets 25 percent of the Republican vote in Vermont. I think he will get an impressive percentage in Iowa from both Independents and Republicans. It will be very interesting.

Sam

[senz]

37. And he did it w/a virtual media blackout and no corporate donations, either.

[Attorney in Texas]

42. That says a hell of a lot about Sanders' grassroots support!