Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Mass

(27,315 posts)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 12:31 AM Feb 2016

Seems that pollsters were totally wrong on both sides

Most polls thought Trump would win Iowa (about 100 % of polls in the last 10 days) and most (though not all) pollsters thought Hillary Clinton was ahead of Bernie Sanders by several points. This race has not been called yet, but it will be very close.

This is why it is so funny to see people interpret every poll as if it was sacred words (everybody knows that LV are very hard to define, and samples too small), and even the averages were wrong this time.

But certainly tomorrow, pundits will look at NH and SC/NV polls as scriptures and tells us what a difference of 1% in one direction or another means.

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Seems that pollsters were totally wrong on both sides (Original Post) Mass Feb 2016 OP
If we listened closely they were saying that Hillary and Cruz had invested the most flamingdem Feb 2016 #1
I haven't been watching MSM a lot tonight. Have any of them admitted the polls are for shit?!? Stardust Feb 2016 #2

flamingdem

(39,313 posts)
1. If we listened closely they were saying that Hillary and Cruz had invested the most
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 12:33 AM
Feb 2016

and had the most natural base in Iowa.

That investment paid off for both. Bernie is simply too new in the game to have had the time to build that ground game.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Seems that pollsters were...