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

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
Tue May 24, 2016, 09:38 PM May 2016

Hypothetical GE match-up polling is meaningless at this juncture.

You'll notice that Dukakis did not become POTUS (not even close). You'll notice that McCain did not become POTUS (not even close). A general election campaign is a different dynamic. The polls at this point, which so many on DU love to mention, are worthless.

And, as the Washington Post pointed out, the Democratic candidate has a much easier path to the nomination given today's demographics. The Democratic candidate has won 19 states (plus DC) in 6 consecutive presidential elections for a total of 242 electoral college votes. Just 28 more and it's a done deal.

There's a reason oddsmakers heavily favor Clinton to become the next POTUS. The vocal majority at DU contradicts the general consensus.

40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hypothetical GE match-up polling is meaningless at this juncture. (Original Post) Garrett78 May 2016 OP
THANK YOU!!!! oldandhappy May 2016 #1
You're entitled to your opinion. Thanks for letting us know how uncomfortable Bernie's polls make JudyM May 2016 #2
I wouldn't say they make us nervous as much as it bugs us that you people use them as a way anotherproletariat May 2016 #10
I stopped reading at "never vetted." You just lost all credibility. She found nothing to hit him JudyM May 2016 #11
People do not know him. The Repubs will keep on saying "Socialist" or "former Socialist" then kerry-is-my-prez May 2016 #16
The people supporting him are not the ones this would bother. We know better. JudyM May 2016 #28
Just how would electing Sanders take power from the corporations? The President can only veto and kerry-is-my-prez May 2016 #31
Please. Give me a lesson in the branches of government. JudyM May 2016 #32
Most Indies will vote as the party loyalists that they are. Garrett78 May 2016 #36
This isn't about how I feel. This is about reality. Garrett78 May 2016 #23
Pssst. THere are some interesting facts there in the OP too. nt BootinUp May 2016 #24
Check out the RCP averages for 2008 and 2012 icecreamfan May 2016 #3
Polls showed... Garrett78 May 2016 #19
Each of those campaigns were horribly flawed SheenaR May 2016 #21
And your assumption is that Trump will be the exception to the rule? Garrett78 May 2016 #25
No no SheenaR May 2016 #26
False, I linked the RCP polling average for McCain and Romney. Obama was beating them at this point. icecreamfan May 2016 #30
It isn't false. There were individual polls that had Obama trailing. Garrett78 May 2016 #33
Seriously? Averaging polls doesn't give a better picture than individual polls? icecreamfan May 2016 #34
It's backed up by some polls. Garrett78 May 2016 #35
Where was your tut tutting of the Clinton polls being rolled out four years ago? TheKentuckian May 2016 #4
Huh? Garrett78 May 2016 #18
Are you trying to convince us pmorlan1 May 2016 #5
I'm trying to get people to stop posting meaningless garbage as if it's meaningful. Garrett78 May 2016 #17
Translation: Hillary was just surpassed by Trump in national polls AgingAmerican May 2016 #6
No, it's simply a statement of fact. Garrett78 May 2016 #15
I answered upthread SheenaR May 2016 #22
First of all, elections aren't held then, which is sort of the point. Garrett78 May 2016 #27
And what's funny.... seekthetruth May 2016 #7
And she doesn't need the white millennials, male voters, nor the women with whom she has an insta8er May 2016 #8
Well it's not "meaningless" it's just historically not a great predictor of November Recursion May 2016 #9
I think it's fair to say they're meaningless at this juncture. Garrett78 May 2016 #14
Yup...and BERNIE is no different UMTerp01 May 2016 #12
There's kids who weren't around for McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis. Also people who can afford kerry-is-my-prez May 2016 #20
It's kind of sad, but I'm sure there are still a lot of folks who don't know who Sanders is. Garrett78 May 2016 #29
Sanders has not been vetted at all yet Gothmog May 2016 #13
You don't think David Brock has vetted Sanders? Peace Patriot May 2016 #37
The Sanders-Peace narrative doesn't jibe with reality. Garrett78 May 2016 #38
Ah! So, now he's a warmonger. And what about Hillary? Peace Patriot May 2016 #39
+1000! nt nc4bo May 2016 #40

JudyM

(29,236 posts)
2. You're entitled to your opinion. Thanks for letting us know how uncomfortable Bernie's polls make
Tue May 24, 2016, 09:44 PM
May 2016

you feel.

Some of us want to defeat tRump, so polls that are consistent and trending DOWNWARD for her do matter.

 

anotherproletariat

(1,446 posts)
10. I wouldn't say they make us nervous as much as it bugs us that you people use them as a way
Tue May 24, 2016, 09:59 PM
May 2016

to defend a candidate who lost the primary in every conceivable way. Of course he is ahead in those polls...he was never vetted!

Lots of stuff in Sanders closets that people could have used:

Polls Say Bernie Is More Electable Than Hillary. Don’t Believe Them.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html

The Bernie Sanders 'Rape Fantasy' Essay, Explained
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/29/410606045/the-bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy-essay-explained

JudyM

(29,236 posts)
11. I stopped reading at "never vetted." You just lost all credibility. She found nothing to hit him
Tue May 24, 2016, 10:15 PM
May 2016

with. Or are you going to suggest some undiscovered dark secrets are lurking? Yeah, right.

kerry-is-my-prez

(8,133 posts)
16. People do not know him. The Repubs will keep on saying "Socialist" or "former Socialist" then
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:24 PM
May 2016

bringing up every far left thing he has voted for, commented on, or supported. Everything is already known about Hillary.

JudyM

(29,236 posts)
28. The people supporting him are not the ones this would bother. We know better.
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:59 PM
May 2016

Lessee... Give all the power to the corporations or take the power back by reforming government? Tough choice.

kerry-is-my-prez

(8,133 posts)
31. Just how would electing Sanders take power from the corporations? The President can only veto and
Wed May 25, 2016, 12:13 AM
May 2016

does not have that type of power. The president is not a dictator in this country. You need to think about the REALITY of the American political system. We need to worry about how Repubs and Indies are going to vote.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
23. This isn't about how I feel. This is about reality.
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:44 PM
May 2016

While I'm not a Clinton fan, I am a fan of reality-based thinking. From my experience, reality-based thinking is a rare thing on DU.

When it comes to the supposed value of hypothetical general election match-up polls at this juncture (Remember President Dukakis? Me neither.).

When it comes to who independents are: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512026152

When it comes to which candidate has done best in the 'reddest' parts of the US (Sanders).

When it comes to the so-called reliability of exit poll data (historically untrustworthy for numerous reasons).

When it comes to primary turnout supposedly correlating to general election turnout (historically, there's no correlation).

When it comes to thinking losing a state in the primary means that person will lose that state in the general.

When it comes to who has won more open primaries (Clinton).

When it comes to a basic understanding of demographic and mathematical realities.

Reality simply doesn't jibe with what so many on DU believe, or wish to believe.

icecreamfan

(115 posts)
3. Check out the RCP averages for 2008 and 2012
Tue May 24, 2016, 09:46 PM
May 2016

For 5/23

2008 Obama +4.6
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#chart

2012 Obama +1.7
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Yes, it matters that Clinton has lost 19% of 18-29 year olds since March and now only leads that demographic by 3%. If she can't get that well above 10% she loses and Trump becomes POTUS.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
19. Polls showed...
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:31 PM
May 2016

Dukakis beating Bush, Bush beating Clinton, McCain beating either H. Clinton or Obama, Romney beating Obama, and so on. Not every poll, of course.

What happened in each and every case? The expected loser won in an electoral college landslide.

A general election campaign is a totally different dynamic.

SheenaR

(2,052 posts)
21. Each of those campaigns were horribly flawed
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:42 PM
May 2016

I posit that the polls were very accurate. Problem is you have to actually close the deal. each race you mentioned those candidates were in the drivers seat and almost all made some terrible mistakes going toward November.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
25. And your assumption is that Trump will be the exception to the rule?
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:49 PM
May 2016

In every single one of those cases (as well as Kerry vs. Bush), the predicted loser won *easily* (except for Dubya). It's because hypothetical match-up polling this far in advance (while candidates are still focused on getting nominated) is worthless.

I'll be shocked and oddsmakers will be shocked if Clinton doesn't beat Trump quite handily.

SheenaR

(2,052 posts)
26. No no
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:53 PM
May 2016

I wasn't drawing any comparison to 2016. I was analyzing those elections you mentioned at face value

icecreamfan

(115 posts)
30. False, I linked the RCP polling average for McCain and Romney. Obama was beating them at this point.
Wed May 25, 2016, 12:09 AM
May 2016

Please look at the charts I linked.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
33. It isn't false. There were individual polls that had Obama trailing.
Wed May 25, 2016, 12:20 AM
May 2016

In May of 2012, Romney led in a handful of polls. McCain led in various polls at various points. And then there's Dukakis vs. Bush, Bush vs. Clinton, etc.

In virtually every case, the predicted loser won in an electoral college landslide.

icecreamfan

(115 posts)
34. Seriously? Averaging polls doesn't give a better picture than individual polls?
Wed May 25, 2016, 12:29 AM
May 2016

I'm not taking the time to look at the other campaigns you're talking about, but you didn't post any numbers to back up that claim. (I'd prefer to see polling averages and trends over time if you have them)

However, the assertion that McCain and Romney were losing at this time isn't backed up by the polls.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
35. It's backed up by some polls.
Wed May 25, 2016, 01:42 AM
May 2016

Just as some polls show Clinton beating Trump and others show her losing to Trump. And I don't give a rip about any of them, no matter who they have in the lead--all are worthless.

All cherry picking aside, the overarching point stands. Hypothetical general election match-up polls are historically misleading...to put it mildly.

McCain beats Clinton by 1 and Obama by 5:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106981/gallup-daily-obama-49-clinton-45.aspx

Dukakis vs. Bush:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/26/us/dukakis-lead-widens-according-to-new-poll.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/17/us/poll-shows-dukakis-leads-bush-many-reagan-backers-shift-sides.html?pagewanted=all

Kerry led Dubya in a majority of polls up until September:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2004/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_kerry-939.html#polls

Dubya led Gore in polls right up until election day.

George H.W. Bush had big leads over Clinton in early polling of '92. It wasn't until July that Clinton first took a lead in polls.

Even Bob Dole led Bill Clinton in polls...though, in that case, I'm referring to polls taken more than a year before the election. Throughout '96, there wasn't ever much doubt that Clinton would win re-election.

Early polling had Carter defeating Reagan. Actually, late polling did, as well. But times were different. There was only 1 debate between the 2, and that was a week before the election (Reagan got a big bump following that debate).

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
18. Huh?
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:28 PM
May 2016

I don't know what you're talking about. But, FWIW, I'm not a Clinton fan. I am, however, a fan of sound reasoning and reality-based thinking.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
17. I'm trying to get people to stop posting meaningless garbage as if it's meaningful.
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:27 PM
May 2016

Simple as that. Polls at this juncture showed that Dukakis would become POTUS. Polls showed that George H.W. Bush would easily defeat Clinton. Polls showed that McCain would beat either Clinton or Obama (the latter by a wider margin than the former). Polls showed Romney would beat Obama.

In every case, not only were the polls wrong, but the person who was supposed to lose ended up winning in an electoral college landslide.

Because a general election campaign is a completely different dynamic.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
15. No, it's simply a statement of fact.
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:19 PM
May 2016

Again, you'll notice that neither Dukakis nor McCain became president.

SheenaR

(2,052 posts)
22. I answered upthread
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:43 PM
May 2016

But again, you are acting if the poll was wrong. If the election were held then, they would have won. They ran terrible campaigns and made some awful decisions, allowing their opponent to capitalize and win

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
27. First of all, elections aren't held then, which is sort of the point.
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:54 PM
May 2016

When candidates are vying for their party's nomination, looking at hypothetical general election match-up polling is a waste of time. A 1-on-1 general election campaign (with a whole new media focus, debates, etc.) is a completely different dynamic.

Secondly, I don't agree with your assumption that those folks would have won just because polls showed them being ahead.

Thirdly, these aren't exceptions to the rule. They *are* the rule. Dukakis, Bush, Kerry, McCain, Romney. I didn't mention Gore (and I'm hesitant to mention Kerry) because I think Gore *did* essentially win. In virtually every case, not only did the predicted winner lose, he lost in an electoral college landslide. More than likely, that will be Trump's fate, as well.

 

seekthetruth

(504 posts)
7. And what's funny....
Tue May 24, 2016, 09:51 PM
May 2016

is that the polls now are probably going to either stay the same or move towards Trump's direction because people already know Hillary. The list of those who don't like her is just going to grow.....

 

insta8er

(960 posts)
8. And she doesn't need the white millennials, male voters, nor the women with whom she has an
Tue May 24, 2016, 09:54 PM
May 2016

unfavorability rating of 49%.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
9. Well it's not "meaningless" it's just historically not a great predictor of November
Tue May 24, 2016, 09:57 PM
May 2016

It's an accurate sample of who people say they would vote for if the election were today. The election isn't today, but that doesn't make it "meaningless".

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
14. I think it's fair to say they're meaningless at this juncture.
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:18 PM
May 2016

The candidate, populace and media focus is utterly different during a primary than it is during a general election campaign. It's a totally different dynamic.

But I can go along with "historically a really poor predictor" of what's to come.

 

UMTerp01

(1,048 posts)
12. Yup...and BERNIE is no different
Tue May 24, 2016, 10:27 PM
May 2016

His folk will chalk it up to the fact that we are "scared" or "bothered" or "worried". Umm....no. Those of us who follow elections know to take these early GE polls with a grain of salt, particularly since the Presidency is won via Electoral College and not national polls. You'd think we would have learned our lesson by now but apparently not.

kerry-is-my-prez

(8,133 posts)
20. There's kids who weren't around for McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis. Also people who can afford
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:38 PM
May 2016

to have "fun" with their vote. Then there are people who are really convinced that Bernie can win. Most of us who are cautious have been around and have either worked in campaigns or are political wonks who have followed closely what has happened in the past. This is waaay to early to be looking at GE polls and Bernie is still an unknown - he hasn't been picked apart. The Repubs and Trump haven't even bothered with him.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
29. It's kind of sad, but I'm sure there are still a lot of folks who don't know who Sanders is.
Wed May 25, 2016, 12:01 AM
May 2016

Most folks simply don't follow politics all that closely, especially not this far out from the general election. Bloomberg said he'd run if Trump and Sanders were going to be the nominees. In such a scenario, there's a good chance nobody gets 270 electoral college votes.

Gothmog

(145,176 posts)
13. Sanders has not been vetted at all yet
Tue May 24, 2016, 10:39 PM
May 2016

No one including people who like Sanders think that he has been fully vetted or that he is really electable http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/24/bernie-sanders-is-crushing-donald-trump-head-to-head-and-it-doesn-t-mean-a-thing.html

But I don’t know a single person whose opinions I really value, and I include here Sanders supporters I know, who takes these polls seriously. There’s one simple reason Sanders polls better against Trump than Clinton does, which is that no one (yet) knows anything negative about him. He’s gotten the freest ride a top-tier presidential candidate has ever gotten. The freest, bar none.

While he’s all but called Clinton a harlot, she’s barely said a word about him, at least since the very early days of the contest. And while Republicans have occasionally jibed at him, like Lindsey Graham’s actually quite funny remark that Sanders “went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon and I don’t think he ever came back,” in far more serious ways, Republican groups have worked to help Sanders weaken Clinton.

That would change on a dime if he became the nominee. I don’t think they’d even have to go into his radical past, although they surely would. Michelle Goldberg of Slate has written good pieces on this. He took some very hard-left and plainly anti-American positions. True, they might not matter to anyone under 45, but more than half of all voters are over 45. And then, big-P politics aside, there’s all that farkakte nonsense he wrote in The Vermont Freeman in the early ’70s about how we should let children touch each others’ genitals and such. Fine, it was 40-plus years ago but it’s out there, and it’s out there.

But if I were a conservative making anti-Sanders ads, I’d stick to taxes. An analysis earlier this year from the Tax Policy Center found that his proposals would raise taxes in the so-called middle quintile (40-60 percent) by $4,700 a year. A median household is around $53,000. Most such households pay an effective tax rate of around 11 percent, or $5,800. From $5,800 to $10,500 constitutes a 45 percent increase.

Sanders will respond that your average family will save that much in deductibles and co-payments, since there would be no more private health insurance. And in a way, he’d have a point—the average out-of-pocket expenses for a family health insurance plan in 2015 were around $4,900. But that is an average that combines families with one really sick person needing lots of care with families where they all just go see the doctor once a year, who spend far less. They’d lose out under socialized health, which Republicans would be sure to make clear.

But all the above suggests a rational discourse, and we know there’ll be no such thing during a campaign. It’ll just be: largest tax increase in American history (which will be true), and take away your doctor (which also might be true in a lot of cases). There’s a first time for everything I guess, but I don’t think anyone has ever won a presidential election proposing a 45 percent tax increase on people of modest incomes. And the increases would be a lot higher on the upper-middle-class households that tend to decide U.S. elections.

Bah, you say. Bernie can handle all these things. Plus, he’s going to get all those white working-class votes that Clinton will never get. It’s true, he will get some of those. But every yin has a yang. How is Sanders going to do with black and Latino voters? They won’t vote for Trump, obviously, but surely some percentage will just stay home. This will matter in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, maybe Michigan—all states were a depressed turnout from unenthused voters of color might make the difference. The media find discussing this a lot less interesting than they do nattering on about the white working class, but it’s real, and Trump is smart enough to get out there and say, “Remember, black people, Bernie said your votes weren’t legitimate.

General election polls don’t reflect anything meaningful until nominees are chosen and running mates selected—that is, July. They especially don’t reflect anything meaningful when respondents know very little about one of the candidates they’re being asked about. Superdelegates know this, and it’s one reason why they’re not going to change. I don’t blame Sanders for touting these polls; any politician would. But everyone subjected to hearing him do so is entitled to be in on the joke.

Sanders has not been vetted and would be a horrible general election candidate

Peace Patriot

(24,010 posts)
37. You don't think David Brock has vetted Sanders?
Wed May 25, 2016, 04:14 AM
May 2016

Last edited Wed May 25, 2016, 04:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Lol!

And he COULDN'T FIND anything negative, so he designed a Rovian program of attacking Sanders' very impressive positives, with "swift-boating" dirty tricks and "Big Lie" propaganda, trying to make Sanders--of all people on this earth--out to be a racist, and a liar on his civil rights activism and arrests in Chicago, and trying to turn him into a sexist, a man whose record on women's issues and gay issues is PRISTINE and goes back for many decades, and trying to turn Sanders into the leader of gang of violent Bernie thugs--Sanders, an inveterate gentleman who has always favored peace over unjust war and is known for his ability to get along with people of opposite views and get things done (the "Amendment king" in a RW Congress!). We see these "Big Lies" cross our view every day here at DU.

This Brockian-Rovian strategy was also designed to cover up Clinton weaknesses: Her early support for Barry Goldwater, who opposed the Civil Rights Act; hers and Bill's policies of mass incarceration of the black and the brown, and their cruel hits on the poor; Hillary's waffling on 3rd trimester abortion and her support of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); her fomenting of war and injustice at every turn--Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Iran (not to mention who her advisors are--Robert Kagan of PNAC and Henry Fucking Kissinger); and her vicious and racist campaign tactics in 2008.

Oh, yes, Bernie Sanders towers over Clinton as one of the most courageous and consistent human rights defenders of the modern era, and she is a dwarf by comparison. There is really no comparison. And so, that's what David Brock set about changing, with Stalinist techniques. He found absolutely nothing to attack, so he decided to turn reality on its head, and turn this good man into a racist and a sexist who approves of violence.

And on yet another investigative issue for Brock's spies: Sanders likes simple living and has no wealth, just modest savings and a home. He is clean as a whistle--an extraordinary accomplishment in this era of bought-and-paid-for office holders, and this is reflected in his presidential campaign which has no superpac and accepts only small donations; while Hillary...gawd, Hillary, whom Wall Street handed half a billion dollars for her pocket money, in exchange for "speeches," and who takes money from every uber-wealthy entity on earth who wants a piece of the White House!

What does Brock do? He started a "Big Lie" that Sanders is running for president to bilk his small donors of their money!

Yeah, Sanders got vetted. Not a thing Trump can say about him except that he's a "socialist," at which point Trump will get laughed at across America, by the American people who are sick unto death of welfare for the rich.

Peace Patriot

(24,010 posts)
39. Ah! So, now he's a warmonger. And what about Hillary?
Wed May 25, 2016, 05:28 AM
May 2016

Hm?

I didn't say he was a pacifist. I said he is a gentleman and one who supports peace and opposes unjust war.

Hillary Clinton is the one who laughed at the bayonet rape and murder of Gadaffi. ("We came, we saw, he died! Har-har-har!" --Hillary Clinton, it's on vid.) She is the one who engineered the massive destruction of Libya, the horrors of civil war and the ripping open of the country to a brutal IS jihadist invasion. It's called "Hillary's War" in Washington DC. She is the one who unleashed the fascists in Honduras to rape and murder thousands of women, many of whom are environmental and pro-democracy activists. She is the one who voted for, and enthusiastically supported, the Iraq War.

Sanders supports diplomacy, opposes "regime change," including way back when Reagan and his thugs tried murder and mayhem to bring about "regime change" in Nicaragua (as mayor of Burlington, Sanders created a "sister city" program with Nicaragua and traveled there, a dangerous thing to do at that time), and has spoken eloquently against using military force without understanding what the fuck you are doing and what will happen NEXT.

Got any other Brockian "Big Lies" to tell us about Sanders? Was he really the president of CORE in Chicago? Is that really him in all those photos, or is it his look-alike? How about the one where he's chained himself to a young black woman as Chicago cops hover over them? That black women's legs could be fake, could be a theatrical prop, since her face isn't showing. Huh? And how do we know Sanders isn't stuffing his pockets with all those $27? Better stop donating until you find out where all that moolah is going. And, hey, didn't he pick up a chair and hurl it at that poor woman trying to debate him? And at least he was thinking of it, wasn't he, the way he flails his arms around in her majesty's presence? Yeah, he was thinking it--'I'm gonna bash that broad!'

This stuff is shit and you know it. It attacks Sanders' fine accomplishments as a human being, and tries to distract from Clinton's failures as a human being--her greed, her warmongering and her ever-changing masks.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hypothetical GE match-up ...