I consider myself to be very Liberal Progressive/Democrat but Senator Sanders leaves me feeling very uneasy. I am voting for Hillary and so is my entire family. I see her detractors for what they are and I do not pay any attention to them.
2
18 United States Code 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Attorney General do your job that you're getting paid so well to do. clinton belongs in jail!!! she is not above the law!!!
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Attorney General do your job that you're getting paid so well to do. clinton belongs in jail!!! she is not above the law!!!
1
I have more faith in Ms. Selzer's methodology than otherwise. What Mr. Cohn doesn't mention, though, is that the 3 point Clinton lead over Sanders is within the poll's margin of error, so the results are statistically tied. Results could go in either direction.
Turnout will decide the Iowa Democratic race. With snow threatening, the campaign with the best transportation network, the best turnout engine and the most committed voters will prevail.
Additional factors this year: some are changing party to vote for Sanders on the Democratic side and Trump on the Republican side. If these voters indeed show up, they could tilt the final results. New voters, also more energized by Sanders and Trump, are potential factors. Will they turn out? We'll see.
Advice for all voters for all candidates: get out and vote. If you need transportation, call the campaign and have them arrange it. Your vote matters, not just for Iowa but for the nation. The country is looking to Iowa for an indication of direction, and your vote helps write the national narrative. Please vote-- it's do or die time.
Turnout will decide the Iowa Democratic race. With snow threatening, the campaign with the best transportation network, the best turnout engine and the most committed voters will prevail.
Additional factors this year: some are changing party to vote for Sanders on the Democratic side and Trump on the Republican side. If these voters indeed show up, they could tilt the final results. New voters, also more energized by Sanders and Trump, are potential factors. Will they turn out? We'll see.
Advice for all voters for all candidates: get out and vote. If you need transportation, call the campaign and have them arrange it. Your vote matters, not just for Iowa but for the nation. The country is looking to Iowa for an indication of direction, and your vote helps write the national narrative. Please vote-- it's do or die time.
3
When Ms. Selzer pointed out that expectations of her are too high, she really nailed it. For someone who cites "the law of averages" to do anything involving statistics is an utter joke. At least the Times agrees that "She's Right."
2
Polls, schmolls ... and this from a Berkeley grad-school-trained economist/statistician/strategic finance planner.
It's the "mo" that counts here. Shillary is in a high-speed stall. Campaign enthusiasm is down, the lies and hit-pieces on Sanders are up, mostly from her stable of drones -- Stephanopoulos this a.m. only the latest one -- are turning people off enough to roll for Bernie.
Her ideas are stale, vague, pandering, and lacking any practical "how to", which gives cover to her donor class on Wall Street. There is simply no "there" there, other than the same tired sleights-of-tongue trying to pull wool over our eyes.
She has too little integrity to lead my country. She is too enmeshed in the same circles that have pillaged the citizenry financially. She's been corrupted beyond redemption for public office, but is too arrogant to step aside.
And yet, there are still those stuck on this "first woman President" trope and won't vote on issues but will their gender.
It's the "mo" that counts here. Shillary is in a high-speed stall. Campaign enthusiasm is down, the lies and hit-pieces on Sanders are up, mostly from her stable of drones -- Stephanopoulos this a.m. only the latest one -- are turning people off enough to roll for Bernie.
Her ideas are stale, vague, pandering, and lacking any practical "how to", which gives cover to her donor class on Wall Street. There is simply no "there" there, other than the same tired sleights-of-tongue trying to pull wool over our eyes.
She has too little integrity to lead my country. She is too enmeshed in the same circles that have pillaged the citizenry financially. She's been corrupted beyond redemption for public office, but is too arrogant to step aside.
And yet, there are still those stuck on this "first woman President" trope and won't vote on issues but will their gender.
5
It's time for a smart, strong, competent, capable woman to run the country. Go, Hillary. Tired of people dissecting her personality. Men are rarely put to this test. #lesstestosteroneplease
6
She took $3 million in speaking fees from Banksters a year before she was going to start to run for President in an era where inequality is a heightened issue, She elected to not use state department servers in opting for her own. Her own stump speech she says we campaign in poetry and govern in prose - yet she's still campaigning in prose. Does this really look like something a smart person would do?
She gets her money from Wall Street. Wall Street employed her daughter (with just a history degree), Wall Street employs her son-in-law, and she and Bill hang out with Wall Street set at Davos, Aspen and Hamptons.
Who do you think she likes and cares about more: Wall Street or Main Street?
If push comes to shove, do you really think she'll put Main Street before Wall Street?
After the implosion of 2008 that Wall Street ignited, Obama ensured that Wall Street has been restored and made stronger than before. Meanwhile tens of millions of Americans and their families have been adversely affected and are yet restored. The middle class is still in sufferance and Hillary is campaigning on more of the same. Do you really think Main Street can tolerate or survive much more of this?
I wish she'd start by giving all the money that she's received from Wall Street back.
I doubt she'll do that. Sanders would then have much more money than she has for his campaign. In 2016 She's trapped on the wrong side of the inequality issue just like she was on the wrong side of Iraq issue in 08.
She gets her money from Wall Street. Wall Street employed her daughter (with just a history degree), Wall Street employs her son-in-law, and she and Bill hang out with Wall Street set at Davos, Aspen and Hamptons.
Who do you think she likes and cares about more: Wall Street or Main Street?
If push comes to shove, do you really think she'll put Main Street before Wall Street?
After the implosion of 2008 that Wall Street ignited, Obama ensured that Wall Street has been restored and made stronger than before. Meanwhile tens of millions of Americans and their families have been adversely affected and are yet restored. The middle class is still in sufferance and Hillary is campaigning on more of the same. Do you really think Main Street can tolerate or survive much more of this?
I wish she'd start by giving all the money that she's received from Wall Street back.
I doubt she'll do that. Sanders would then have much more money than she has for his campaign. In 2016 She's trapped on the wrong side of the inequality issue just like she was on the wrong side of Iraq issue in 08.
3
I think Hillary has already lost the White House.
If she wins the nomination and polls show she can beat Trump, what do the Republican strategists do? Against Hillary? She is, uniquely, despised. Sanders might not be liked, but the personal decades-long antagonism simply isn't there. If Clinton wins the nomination, the Republicans will scream themselves hoarse about the e-mail server. They will turn it into the election's defining topic. They will demand an investigation and a trial. Then another one. They'll keep it in the news cycle for month after month. They'll drag everyone who was involved into hearings. And all those people will plead the Fifth (more damage).
And if Hillary wins the nomination but the polls say she can't beat The Donald, while Sanders can? If you're a Democratic strategist, you realize that although a lot of Sanders people won't vote for Clinton, not that many Clinton voters won't pick Sanders. In that case, she'll be taken aside and told to drop out or else. Her excuse? I suspect they'll either have Bill fake a heart attack or Chelsea fake some sort of neurotic episode. In either case, Hillary will drop out (despite nomination victory being right in front of her) for "family reasons" leaving Sanders to win or lose.
But there's no way she can win the White House. It's like Richard the Lionheart during the crusades. Being able to capture Jerusalem (win the nomination) is a lot different than being able to hold it (win the presidency).
If she wins the nomination and polls show she can beat Trump, what do the Republican strategists do? Against Hillary? She is, uniquely, despised. Sanders might not be liked, but the personal decades-long antagonism simply isn't there. If Clinton wins the nomination, the Republicans will scream themselves hoarse about the e-mail server. They will turn it into the election's defining topic. They will demand an investigation and a trial. Then another one. They'll keep it in the news cycle for month after month. They'll drag everyone who was involved into hearings. And all those people will plead the Fifth (more damage).
And if Hillary wins the nomination but the polls say she can't beat The Donald, while Sanders can? If you're a Democratic strategist, you realize that although a lot of Sanders people won't vote for Clinton, not that many Clinton voters won't pick Sanders. In that case, she'll be taken aside and told to drop out or else. Her excuse? I suspect they'll either have Bill fake a heart attack or Chelsea fake some sort of neurotic episode. In either case, Hillary will drop out (despite nomination victory being right in front of her) for "family reasons" leaving Sanders to win or lose.
But there's no way she can win the White House. It's like Richard the Lionheart during the crusades. Being able to capture Jerusalem (win the nomination) is a lot different than being able to hold it (win the presidency).
4
You watch, Bernie has this one....
3
at this point in campaign, for bernie to be this far up in polls means hillary is loosing. now it is just a matter of degrees!
3
Caucus takes place in the evening and there's a snowstorm predicted for Iowa to start in the evening. If that turns out to be the case, how much bad weather influences voters? Are older voters, more supportive of Clinton, more likely to stay home? How about in the Republican side?
Back in 2008 I attended a caucus in Minnesota. I can tell you with certainty, it is the MOST boring thing that is. I purposely capitalized. I didn't go to a caucus to discuss party issues, but to make a selection for a Democrat candidate for President of the USA. Like me, most people don't care about the caucus. Why do we still have it in 2016 is beyond my understanding.
Back in 2008 I attended a caucus in Minnesota. I can tell you with certainty, it is the MOST boring thing that is. I purposely capitalized. I didn't go to a caucus to discuss party issues, but to make a selection for a Democrat candidate for President of the USA. Like me, most people don't care about the caucus. Why do we still have it in 2016 is beyond my understanding.
6
What if O'Malley gets less than 15% and his non-viable supporters get to choose whether to join the Hillary or Sanders groups? Has this excellent poll factored in that bit of uncertainty?
5
Not me, I am not waiting for the Iowa poll "everyone" has been waiting for, and I doubt many Iowans are either. By "everyone," I assume you mean candidates and campaign staff, the media, and the bookies.
Iowa may be a lovely state with nice people, but there are only 3 million of them, 92% of whom are white, and fairly evenly split by political party with 43% Republican and 41% Democrat (2014 Gallup poll). It's February and we have lots more primaries, 2 national party conventions, and 10 months to go before the presidential election.
Between now and then, get a life for heaven's sake, and stop with the polling and horserace reporting. If the media folks are bored and don't know what to write about, how about digging into climate change, Wall Street corruption, municipal water systems, whose behind those irritating rob calls and scams, why we seem to be plagued with more and more potholes each year, toxins in our food supply, skyrocketing prescription drug prices, etc., etc., etc....
Iowa may be a lovely state with nice people, but there are only 3 million of them, 92% of whom are white, and fairly evenly split by political party with 43% Republican and 41% Democrat (2014 Gallup poll). It's February and we have lots more primaries, 2 national party conventions, and 10 months to go before the presidential election.
Between now and then, get a life for heaven's sake, and stop with the polling and horserace reporting. If the media folks are bored and don't know what to write about, how about digging into climate change, Wall Street corruption, municipal water systems, whose behind those irritating rob calls and scams, why we seem to be plagued with more and more potholes each year, toxins in our food supply, skyrocketing prescription drug prices, etc., etc., etc....
16
Hi, I hope all of you above are right! I m SO SICK of the way the media manipulates us in politics--Bernie Snders is right and this publication is one of the gulitiest; but worst, it sometimes publishes pieces that make you question but, in juxtaposition with blatant caving in to the establishment. For example, once again this past week, right before the Iowa primary, promoting Hillary in the editorial and OP-ED sections with totally fatuous arguments and negative comments on the others, but then at the same time, pushing with in the news reporting and analysis, a seeemingly more objective picture, that those who supprt Trump and those who support Sanders are somehow related in their anger and are on the fringe--the conclusion that one should draw, then, is that the only sensible and middle of the road and safe way, is Hillary Clinton! This is total malarky and manipulation. It is as Sanders says: the press and the media treat elections like sports events. Unfortunately, this is the system we have allowed and where medai is only a consurmer item, for profit, this is what we get! Instead of honest coverage and dissecting the ideas, we get what sells and what is safe! Gimme a break and feel the Bern!!
3
Just who are these eager anticipators?
4
It's hard to understand how Clinton or Trump will have time to govern if either wins.
Hillary spends her time thinking of ways to shift blame to others for her mistakes or telling us we don't properly understand the intricacies of the subject at hand.
Trump spends his time filing lawsuits. The latest suit in my area is against the town harboring Trump National Golf Course, Hudson Valley for its refusal to reduce the assessment value by 66%. Residents would foot the bill for revenue loss but anyone who considered this fact wouldn't become a billionaire. Feel the Bern.
Hillary spends her time thinking of ways to shift blame to others for her mistakes or telling us we don't properly understand the intricacies of the subject at hand.
Trump spends his time filing lawsuits. The latest suit in my area is against the town harboring Trump National Golf Course, Hudson Valley for its refusal to reduce the assessment value by 66%. Residents would foot the bill for revenue loss but anyone who considered this fact wouldn't become a billionaire. Feel the Bern.
12
I find these polls suspect at best, I split my time between Oregon and Florida, have an enormously diverse selection of friends, and I have yet to encounter someone who says I love Hillary, when her name comes up at all it is with caveats such as I'm worried that Bernie can't beat Trump, or the Clintons have been friends of Israel but never, ever is there the adoration enjoyed by Bernie or even the enthusiasm for "The Donald" among some for his lack of political correctness and his blunt rhetoric, an example being " if we fight a war for them (take your pick in the M.E.) I want half their oil " or in describing Charles Krauthammer "he's a moron"(I agree). America desperately needs real change, at some level everyone from my homeless friends in Portland Oregon to the wealthiest in Palm Beach know this and that's exactly why we need to elect Bernie, among democrats and believe it or not some Republicans he's represents the possibility of change if nothing else, even my rabid Republican friends know that the game is up and the wheels are going to come off if things remain the same. Please think before you vote, especially in the primary.
16
Maybe you need some more friends. There are millions of us who love Hillary. And millions more around the world.
18
Based on the comments section in the recent New York Times editorial that endorsed her, there are million of you who love Hillary, but there are tens of millions who most definitely do not.
18
"If a random-digit-dialing poll’s sample of adult men is unusually Democratic, for instance, then the group of Democrats would end up too male — since the poll will simply filter the electorate to those people who call themselves Democrats."
Did anyone else have issues with this sentence?
Did anyone else have issues with this sentence?
15
Yes.
4
You are in for a big surprise NYT. Bernie will not only win but win big. The young enthusiasts who support him will turn out even if they have to register the night of polling.
I am an old (68) voter, and I don't go out much at night. But I went to a Bernie party, and will definitely vote for him.
I am an old (68) voter, and I don't go out much at night. But I went to a Bernie party, and will definitely vote for him.
34
Truth! How refreshing;) And absolutely correct.My kids have a plan...they are 22 and 23
1
All agree that the Electoral Process is broken. Perhaps if the election was held by a telephone poll the results of polls could be more accurate. However Polls are very much like one reporter interviewing another. Means nothing and is often wrong.
Lets Start by banning Polls and other media fear tactics.
Lets Start by banning Polls and other media fear tactics.
3
Yup, I'm sure going to take my guide for the world from people who to to "Bernie" and "Hillary" parties and declare victory because a lot of folks showed up....
The electoral process is broken? What sort of alternative do you have in mind?
1
Seems like a monumental waste of time. Why not just wait and on election day see who wins. But if we must try to predict via polling, I'll go with Yogi Berra. "Eighty percent of it is half mental" .
1
We've become poll crazy in America. Its the only thing we have until voting, so it has become like some sort of magical solution. The day after most voting, the question becomes: where did the polling go wrong? Voting, actual voting, is different than giving your opinion. Most people take voting more seriously than answering questions over the phone.
Beyond the elections, polls are cites as some kind of authoritative guide to what the national govt. should do. "A majority of Americans say they don't want"...bla, bla, bla. Most of the time, when complex questions are involved, people don't know enough to give a really intelligent answer, but they will sure give you an answer anyway.
Polls are just like weather forecasts: they aren't the real thing, they are snapshot impressions of the real thing. Everyone should understand, also, that the answers given are highly dependent on how the questions are phrased. "Do you favor helping all poor, destitute Americans stricken with cancer to get treatment?", would be answered by about 93% as yes. "Do you favor giving free medical care?", would result in the opposite response.
With the capacity to have electronic voting of some sort or another, we should need far less polling in the future. People can participate more fully in decisions and, in the process, they will have to devote more care and attention to what they say they want.
Beyond the elections, polls are cites as some kind of authoritative guide to what the national govt. should do. "A majority of Americans say they don't want"...bla, bla, bla. Most of the time, when complex questions are involved, people don't know enough to give a really intelligent answer, but they will sure give you an answer anyway.
Polls are just like weather forecasts: they aren't the real thing, they are snapshot impressions of the real thing. Everyone should understand, also, that the answers given are highly dependent on how the questions are phrased. "Do you favor helping all poor, destitute Americans stricken with cancer to get treatment?", would be answered by about 93% as yes. "Do you favor giving free medical care?", would result in the opposite response.
With the capacity to have electronic voting of some sort or another, we should need far less polling in the future. People can participate more fully in decisions and, in the process, they will have to devote more care and attention to what they say they want.
9
"Beyond the elections, polls are cites as some kind of authoritative guide to what the national govt. should do. "A majority of Americans say they don't want"...bla, bla, bla."
As you note these sorts of polls are very dependent on how the poll is conducted and are often created with the intent of generating a desired result and therefore should be cited sparingly.
As an alternative, I think we should create a national referendum so people can specify an opinion on issues and have it mean something, though referendums are certainly not perfect I think this would help in forcing congress to tackle issues people want fixed.
As you note these sorts of polls are very dependent on how the poll is conducted and are often created with the intent of generating a desired result and therefore should be cited sparingly.
As an alternative, I think we should create a national referendum so people can specify an opinion on issues and have it mean something, though referendums are certainly not perfect I think this would help in forcing congress to tackle issues people want fixed.
2
She's even better, or luckier, than the Times will say.
She supposedly "missed" by 9 points in the 2012 Republican caucus? According to 538:
"Even when Selzer’s final poll missed the winner in 2012, it still indicated the potential for Santorum to win. The survey was conducted over four days, and in addition to the topline, aggregate numbers, Selzer released day-by-day results. The final day of her last 2012 caucus poll showed Santorum within a percentage point of Mitt Romney."
She supposedly "missed" by 9 points in the 2012 Republican caucus? According to 538:
"Even when Selzer’s final poll missed the winner in 2012, it still indicated the potential for Santorum to win. The survey was conducted over four days, and in addition to the topline, aggregate numbers, Selzer released day-by-day results. The final day of her last 2012 caucus poll showed Santorum within a percentage point of Mitt Romney."
3
I find it shocking the way the mainstream media has fallen into line behind Ms.Clinton. The underhanded way in which the message to vote for her, boosting her in pictures and words has been tantamount to an extended commercial message. I have to say the New York Times has been less so in all around balance and even handedness in reporting. It is no surprise that they are backing her and have come out yesterday to say so, but the television stations like CNN, The Guardian in Britain have been shaping their content to demonize, marginalize, tamp down and omit Senator Sanders campaign in their coverage. They have been forced due to the Senators popularity and enthusiasm for him to begin to take him seriously albeit very reluctantly. I think despite this concerted effort, Sanders is still coming out on top. I am hoping that after an Iowa win they will realize that people, especially young people really want change and a New Deal.
43
Really? What is it that drives this almost paranoid sense of grievance and conspiracy among many Sanders supporters?
5
Have you check social media? Take a look at Facebook, nothing but Bernie postings all day long and this have been going on for months.
8
I find it shocking that a term "mainstream media" continues to be used when in reality the mainstream media went out with Walter Cronkite.
6
This misses a key reason why polls are so inaccurate: response rates, which are often in the single digits and which are almost never reported. If you try to reach 100 people but only 9 are reached and agree to answer the survey, your results are bound to be off. In two polls last week, one had Clinton ahead by 29 points; the other had Sanders ahead by 8 points. The disparity is impossible if these were truly 'scientific' polls.
2
Surprised Nate doesn't point out some of the even more obvious ways that "random number" polling is likely to get things wrong.
One always hear's about landlines vs. cellphones, and I'd argue that the distortion just from that is large and getting larger. Really, just as women are a little less likely to provide a phone number (or have it retrievable by "research" that I doubt happens as routinely as the author suggests ... or as reliably), young people are savvy about NOT supporting telemarketers in this way.
And young people/cell phone owners (not the same but probably decently correlated) are more likely to screen (NOT ANSWER) people like pollsters.
Last, when smallish numbers apply and the race is in flux, the role of mischief-making increases - i.e., Republicans saying they're for Bernie or Dems saying they're for Trump. I hope I'm not alone in hoping that this is the year Ms. Selzer's "luck runs out" - as the Times has been reporting for ... months (but especially recently), this reminds me of the moment back in '68 where LBJ got the news that "inevitable' is only that ... until it isn't!
(Lots more recently, "the establishment" probably correctly characterized the Tea Party as lunatic and was "surprised" at their success. All that's needed in Iowa is one or a combo of these 2 things:
a) people vote for Bernie to "send a message";
b) people say - as they sometimes do - I refuse to vote for tweedle-dum because s/he strikes me as a little bit better than tweedle-dee.
One always hear's about landlines vs. cellphones, and I'd argue that the distortion just from that is large and getting larger. Really, just as women are a little less likely to provide a phone number (or have it retrievable by "research" that I doubt happens as routinely as the author suggests ... or as reliably), young people are savvy about NOT supporting telemarketers in this way.
And young people/cell phone owners (not the same but probably decently correlated) are more likely to screen (NOT ANSWER) people like pollsters.
Last, when smallish numbers apply and the race is in flux, the role of mischief-making increases - i.e., Republicans saying they're for Bernie or Dems saying they're for Trump. I hope I'm not alone in hoping that this is the year Ms. Selzer's "luck runs out" - as the Times has been reporting for ... months (but especially recently), this reminds me of the moment back in '68 where LBJ got the news that "inevitable' is only that ... until it isn't!
(Lots more recently, "the establishment" probably correctly characterized the Tea Party as lunatic and was "surprised" at their success. All that's needed in Iowa is one or a combo of these 2 things:
a) people vote for Bernie to "send a message";
b) people say - as they sometimes do - I refuse to vote for tweedle-dum because s/he strikes me as a little bit better than tweedle-dee.
1
The argument about mobile phones vs land lines is getting old and tiresome. What you fail to realize is the enormous volume of call that have to be made in order to arrive to the right statistically significant population sample. Stop. It did not work for the republicans when they casted aspersions on the polls and will not work for either Bernie or Hillary. The polls are what they are, a snapshot in time. Over the weekend there could be a Bernie surge that allows him to overcome, or as I suspect there will be a final realization among the Democratic electorate that Bernie is pie in the sky nonsense, and they will coalesce around Hillary. But whatever happens is not because the pollsters missed the fabled lost youngster with a cell phone, the unicorns of lore in the American electorate. Like most myths they doesn't exist.
3
I'm one of those fabled "young people with cell phones." I don't have a landline and I don'f accept calls from unknown numbers unless I am job hunting or hoping to buy or sell something on Craigslist. I stopped participating in a telephone polls about ten years ago, when campaigns began to send out attack ads, dressed up as as opinon polls, by way of my own phone. (Yuck!) I'm guessing younger voters who do accept such calls are less likely to be employed than those who do not. As workers without a college-education have higher rates of unemployment and lower rates of political engagement, it seems unlikely
to me that a phone survey would paint a representative picture of what younger voters and/or voters without landlines are thinking.
to me that a phone survey would paint a representative picture of what younger voters and/or voters without landlines are thinking.
6
There is this e-mail thingy that could knock Hillary right out of the race.
1
The poll regarding the Dems is compromised.
It was conducted Jan 26-29 when the bombshell about Clinton's emails came out Jan 30.
I am surprised the Times missed this.
It was conducted Jan 26-29 when the bombshell about Clinton's emails came out Jan 30.
I am surprised the Times missed this.
5
The bombshell. wow. Shinny! It doesn't matter. If this was the general election, and "the bombshell" had gone off, lol, it would matter. Different electorates. The folks in Iowa that are going to caucus are mostly hard core democratic activists, well committed to one candidate or another and not easy to influence by this kind of information. Hillary supporters have been hearing about the emails for eight month now. It is bake in the cake. Do you really believe these hard core Clintonistas are going to change now? Pleaseeeee!
1
What bombshell? Hillary Clinton's e-mails have been in the news off and on for several months. We don't know what was in the 22 e-mails recently talked about. We do know that the information in them was not classified when the e-mails were written. We also know that there is way too much classification in the federal government. Clinton's e-mails are much ado about nothing.
2
What bombshell? That email more than two years old has been reclassified? Nice try.
4
When it comes to evaluating pollsters, 538 is the best! Hands down. If Selzer gets an A+ you can take that to the bank.
1
Sorry, but I'm not going to trust any Bloomberg poll considering he's contemplating a run for President.
This is a little ridiculous. Would you trust a CNN/Biden poll ?
This is a little ridiculous. Would you trust a CNN/Biden poll ?
1
Fran, Bloomberg himself did not commission the poll. Bloomberg Financial News Network did. I seriously doubt Michael Bloomberg is trolling Ann Selzer's polling operation to cook a result. Can we all grow up a bit?
4
"Margin of error" has a concrete meaning, which seems to be lost in the way this piece misrepresented the statistically insignificant difference in the Democratic race. It's a virtual tie!
11
You are right to a certain extent, but, what this poll confirms is that Hillary does have a lead, and when you aggregate other recent polls it shows a trend that is unmistakable. It is not a tie. The other thing this poll catches is that there does not seems to be a surge of new voters or increased turn out, that Sanders needs.
2
But in the end...no matter the results in Iowa, NH and beyond, the newly elected POTUS will continue to enable and turn a blind eye to our banks and other financial institutions as they steal us blind. Sad.
1
No mention of the 4, 5, or even 8% statistical errors in the polls? So one of Selzer's polls was off by 4%. That's to be expected.
1
Excellent breakdown. Very interesting. Let the chips fall where they may!!
As fraught with outageousness as we are here in the USA I found myself today grateful that we DO allow such a wide and wacky field of ridiculous contenders, provincial first voters and unqualified commentators such as myself.
It's been this way in The USA since the 1790's you know. Allowing our brand of craziness probably helps us avoid the more violent and extreme reactionary public mood swings.
So let us be us, uncertain, grappling, struggling, stupid, messy. Hooray!?
I do love OUR country, every single day I consider myself fortunate while looking for property in Canada!!
As fraught with outageousness as we are here in the USA I found myself today grateful that we DO allow such a wide and wacky field of ridiculous contenders, provincial first voters and unqualified commentators such as myself.
It's been this way in The USA since the 1790's you know. Allowing our brand of craziness probably helps us avoid the more violent and extreme reactionary public mood swings.
So let us be us, uncertain, grappling, struggling, stupid, messy. Hooray!?
I do love OUR country, every single day I consider myself fortunate while looking for property in Canada!!
4
Ah yes, Canada! Bob Ford and Harper!
um well Christopher Hobe Morrison, I know its hard to believe but in the time you have been bemoaning Trumps staying power and celebrating Bernie's confounding strength or vise versa these last few months, we had an election, threw those bums out and handed the Liberals a brand new majority government. They're upending everything that Harper and the other guy stood for.
Ah Yes. Canada! Not just for red necks anymore. Welcome to 2016 and the way of the future.
Ah Yes. Canada! Not just for red necks anymore. Welcome to 2016 and the way of the future.
2
This time a new factor is going to be the Latino vote
first time ever several community organizations spent several hundreds of thousand of dollar to promote the participation..
All across the state different organizational were doing caucus workshops...
National Latino TV has been for weeks here..
If the polls are not wright Feb 2nd
consider the Latino vote as one reason...
p.s. more than 50 000 Latinos have the capacity to vote in Iowa... t
the goal of the community organizations was to mobilize at least 10 000 participants/voters...
first time ever several community organizations spent several hundreds of thousand of dollar to promote the participation..
All across the state different organizational were doing caucus workshops...
National Latino TV has been for weeks here..
If the polls are not wright Feb 2nd
consider the Latino vote as one reason...
p.s. more than 50 000 Latinos have the capacity to vote in Iowa... t
the goal of the community organizations was to mobilize at least 10 000 participants/voters...
1
Lots of losers won in Iowa. And winners lose in the general election. Too many evangelicals in Iowa, they make nothing happen.
6
Affordable housing is, perhaps, the greatest playing field leveler.
Folks can put up with an awful lot and aim for an awful lot if they are not being gouged for housing. That was one of the great blessings of post WWII America.
Folks can put up with an awful lot and aim for an awful lot if they are not being gouged for housing. That was one of the great blessings of post WWII America.
The thing Democrats will need to fight this election cycle is apathy--voter turn out.
While I like Bernie Sanders positions, I live in the real world and know, especially out here in the middle of the country the Republicans will tar and feather him with the word 'socialist', not because it's bad but because most people are too lazy to really understand what it means.
I suspect Mr. Sanders, in the end, will not do very well because there isn't the anger and hopelessness there was in the Democratic Party in 2008. Young people won't bother to vote in the primaries. People won't be motivated to make the effort because they've been more or less content with Barack Obama.
The "revolution" this time belongs to the GOP. If there is a revolution. But in truth most of the moderate Republicans I know won't vote for any of the nominees. Will they vote at all? That remains to be seen.
And most of the people I have encountered who consider themselves Trump supporters don't vote. Will they register? Hard to say, but knowing the type, understanding who they are, I'm doubtful.
While I like Bernie Sanders positions, I live in the real world and know, especially out here in the middle of the country the Republicans will tar and feather him with the word 'socialist', not because it's bad but because most people are too lazy to really understand what it means.
I suspect Mr. Sanders, in the end, will not do very well because there isn't the anger and hopelessness there was in the Democratic Party in 2008. Young people won't bother to vote in the primaries. People won't be motivated to make the effort because they've been more or less content with Barack Obama.
The "revolution" this time belongs to the GOP. If there is a revolution. But in truth most of the moderate Republicans I know won't vote for any of the nominees. Will they vote at all? That remains to be seen.
And most of the people I have encountered who consider themselves Trump supporters don't vote. Will they register? Hard to say, but knowing the type, understanding who they are, I'm doubtful.
15
Even if Hillary loses in Iowa and New Hampshire, it won't matter much except in public perception. Hillary is already ahead of Bernie by about 369 superdelegates, though they can switch their votes if they want to. Hillary has a very large head start. Plus the pledged delegates from each state are awarded proportionally based on the vote in the caucus or primary. So if the outcome is close, the difference in delegates for each candidate out of Iowa will be miniscule. Iowa will send only 44 pledged delegates to the Democratic convention, and New Hampshire will send only 24. In contrast, California will send 475 delegates to the Democratic Convention. According to the Cook Political Report, for Bernie to win the nomination, he will have to win decisively in the primaries and caucuses in order to overcome Hillary's advantage in superdelegates.
8
If Bernie has won more states and has a significantly higher percentage of votes going into the convention, and Hillary get the "coronation," it will be a disaster for the Democratic Party.
3
The Democratic Party as know by the NYT and other mainstream press and media is DEAD. Young people, older people, Latinos, African-Americans are not ruled by mainstream media. They have gone another direction. If we can't get Bernie Sanders this time, we won't give up. Enough is enough. We don't want a tired politician who is propped up by the establishment--Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Pharma, Monsanto, etc. Hillary owes them big-time if she is the nominee; then watch her step right over the middle class, minorities, and the young to give pay-back to those who are paying her way--they'll be standing in line waiting for an even bigger share of taxpayer dollars. Disgusting.
3
If the majority of non-super delegates is for Bernie, and a majority of super delegates vote for Hillary so that she is given the nomination, similar to the way the Supreme Court gave the presidency to Bush, it will be quite a spectacle. A third will stay home in protest during the general, and a third or more will vote for Trump out of spite against the establishment. Most likely Hillary would never see the presidency.
Excellent explanation, and much appreciated. I was hoping Nate Cohn would explain how or why a poll calls itself Democratic or Republican, which seems oxymoronic to me. Are people so determined to stick with their brand that this selection of party no longer is relevant? Doesn't seems like sound statistics based on the rise of the angry populists in both parties that were not foreseen. I have had a sneaking suspicion that many of the polls revealed only what the posters wanted them to show, and of course manipulating the "likely voter" percents is a simple and "honest" way to get the answers they were seeking while still passing an "audit". I wonder if GOP remembers that this is what gave them the fabulous fireworks display over the Boston Harbor when President Romney was elected after the "cooked" polls?
One unknown is the response rate to the pollster's phone calls. An increasing number of people refuse to answer pollsters. There's no way to reliably show that these people are otherwise just like the people who do answer.
However, there is a way to find out exactly how the people who actually go to the caucuses in Iowa, or to the polls in November, will vote. It's called waiting for the election. I recommend that we do that, and afterwards discuss what was good or bad in the polling technique.
I predict that there will be an outcome in Iowa. Wait for it.
However, there is a way to find out exactly how the people who actually go to the caucuses in Iowa, or to the polls in November, will vote. It's called waiting for the election. I recommend that we do that, and afterwards discuss what was good or bad in the polling technique.
I predict that there will be an outcome in Iowa. Wait for it.
12
At any time in her polling did Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register Feel The Bern ?
Therein lies the entire election result.
Therein lies the entire election result.
36
Why would you want a pollster to be in the bag for any candidate? Science happens when we put our biases on hold.
Or was this just a little advertisement for "your guy"?
Or was this just a little advertisement for "your guy"?
15
Two things lead me to suspect that this poll may get it wrong this time around:
1) Hillary's lead is within the margin of error - plus/minus 4 percentage points;
2) It doesn't have any way to directly measure momentum
It's worth noting that virtually 100% of the momentum in Iowa, as elsewhere, has been with Bernie. And that momentum has not as yet plateaued off - meaning that it may very well be continuing to build. Since the last of the interviews concluded on Friday - three days prior to the Caucus - and a LOT can happen in three days, the situation remains very fluid. All bets are off.
1) Hillary's lead is within the margin of error - plus/minus 4 percentage points;
2) It doesn't have any way to directly measure momentum
It's worth noting that virtually 100% of the momentum in Iowa, as elsewhere, has been with Bernie. And that momentum has not as yet plateaued off - meaning that it may very well be continuing to build. Since the last of the interviews concluded on Friday - three days prior to the Caucus - and a LOT can happen in three days, the situation remains very fluid. All bets are off.
31
You are probably right. Bernie will probably win.
Honestly, if Hillary wins by less than 5 points, it's basically a loss for her.
Honestly, if Hillary wins by less than 5 points, it's basically a loss for her.
5
The new batch of Hillary Clinton e-mails released Friday, for example.
6
The e-mails are a non-story. The material was not classified at the time it was sent, the chances that she had anything to do with sending it are small. People should remember that a lot of totally harmless material is classified as secret even after it has been openly published for years. The e-mail story is the latest episode in the series that gave us Vince Foster's murder and the Benghazi cover-up.
6
"Many voters provide their telephone numbers on their voter registration forms when they register, but it’s not hard to fill in the missing ones from other sources." -- Most younger people use cell phones exclusively. Not many that I know would include their number unless it was required, which it isn't, and I don't think it could be easily discovered from (unnamed) "other sources". Thus, such a method probably underestimates younger voters, who are overwhelmingly for Bernie. At the same time, random dialing does capture these otherwise unlisted cell phones, and such polls show Bernie ahead.
44
Hawaii is a very small and VERY liberal state. It is in no way indicative of the rest of the country.
Another issue is not everyone who is called answers and young people with cell phones (caller id) are probably less likely to answer.
1
Hawaii may be small but the behaviors of young people when it comes to cell phone use are important enough that the CDC uses cell phones and text messages instead of landline or other ways to now reach young people and continue to retain their attention.
I'm Gen X so not that young but have students that are younger who behave similarly and, even as Gen X, I behave similarly. I do not give out my phone or e-mail address easily and you will not reach me on my landline.
I'm Gen X so not that young but have students that are younger who behave similarly and, even as Gen X, I behave similarly. I do not give out my phone or e-mail address easily and you will not reach me on my landline.
1
Please, God, I hope she's right this time. Let it be Hillary.
60
Bernie.
15
I agree with Tristan. You misspelled Bernie.
1
Feeling the Bern are ya? Hillary is GOP lite...She is our lesser evil.
The media criticized itself for the "horse race" aspects of its political coverage... and now we see this in the Times.
Ignoring the facts that: polls often get it wrong, and the "winner" of the Iowa Caucuses is frequently the winner of little else.
Ignoring the facts that: polls often get it wrong, and the "winner" of the Iowa Caucuses is frequently the winner of little else.
27
I can't rermember the exact words: As goes Maine, so goes Vermont. Or was it New Hampshire?
1
"Hey Jimmy! Make mine a double, with a Selzer."
Don't mess with success.
Don't mess with success.
4
Who is actually selecting our future leaders? Is it us or the pundits who breathlessly report on the never ending latest poll.
It's a fact that hearing the results of a poll can activate the well known herd instinct (a desire to be on the winning side) and thereby alter voter behavior.
Research shows that it only takes a minority of 5% to influence a crowds direction which means the other 95% follow without realizing it.
Some states refuse to get involved in so called exit polls for the same reason. Fearing that early voters will influence what later voters do. If that awareness is present regarding exit polls why should any polling that can make a difference in the outcome of an important race be considered acceptable.
It's a fact that hearing the results of a poll can activate the well known herd instinct (a desire to be on the winning side) and thereby alter voter behavior.
Research shows that it only takes a minority of 5% to influence a crowds direction which means the other 95% follow without realizing it.
Some states refuse to get involved in so called exit polls for the same reason. Fearing that early voters will influence what later voters do. If that awareness is present regarding exit polls why should any polling that can make a difference in the outcome of an important race be considered acceptable.
29
Your point is correct, but I do not agree with your solution (which is stopping polls). The solution, like in so many other issues, is education. Schools should teach critical thinking skills so citizens can critically evaluate candidates and reach their own conclusions independent of the "herd". Perhaps a requirement to register to vote should be to be reasonably well informed and demonstrate critical and independent thinking?
1
Good point about teaching critical thinking. Because polls won't go away, maybe suggestions to do critical thinking should be added to the reporting of poll numbers. (In our dreams) That's reminiscent of Buddhism. Supposedly the Buddha admonished his followers to not only listen to what he had to say; but to turn inward and discover truth for themselves
1
We need to have nationwide primaries and shorten the pre-election time to a reasonable period measured in months, not years.
Trump and Cruz have been like prolonged root-canal, w/o anesthesia.
Trump and Cruz have been like prolonged root-canal, w/o anesthesia.
101
Ha, agreed
12
Truer words were never said.
If the process yielded meaningful discussion about issues I might feel differently. As it is, a two-year long election cycle is an utter complete waste of time and money. Not to mention that by increasing the need for fundraising corrupts the democracy AND reduces the amount of time our leaders can actually spend time LEADING.
I have come to believe our leaders are just temporary pegs that fill a slot. The problems are deeply built into the system itself.
If the process yielded meaningful discussion about issues I might feel differently. As it is, a two-year long election cycle is an utter complete waste of time and money. Not to mention that by increasing the need for fundraising corrupts the democracy AND reduces the amount of time our leaders can actually spend time LEADING.
I have come to believe our leaders are just temporary pegs that fill a slot. The problems are deeply built into the system itself.
9
I saw an interesting article pointing out that "the media" have been the biggest beneficiary of "Citizens United," i.e., super-PACs free to spend whatever for whomever without a shred of transparency ... buy time and place print ads the way grocery stores used to.... So, it's no wonder a great deal of campaign-centered NON-NEWS [filler and trivia, at most] finds its way into those very same media outlets.
OTOH, re your argument, one DOESN'T have to pay attention - at least not if one is in CA or NY, ... and we're talking "the winner" having 4-8 years in the #1 job in the world re one individual's influence over life on planet earth!!
Up to a point [remember, root canal is never 5-10 minutes!], one should be grateful that folks like Carson can't fool enough people for more than a month. (True, Trump makes that argument less compelling, but maybe this is like AIDS - it's just taking longer fo find a cure; we may wind up being glad that we don't have an abbreviated process.)
OTOH, re your argument, one DOESN'T have to pay attention - at least not if one is in CA or NY, ... and we're talking "the winner" having 4-8 years in the #1 job in the world re one individual's influence over life on planet earth!!
Up to a point [remember, root canal is never 5-10 minutes!], one should be grateful that folks like Carson can't fool enough people for more than a month. (True, Trump makes that argument less compelling, but maybe this is like AIDS - it's just taking longer fo find a cure; we may wind up being glad that we don't have an abbreviated process.)
5