PPP (D) Clinton 59% Sanders 26% O'Malley 7% Former Sec of State performs best against GO(PU)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton leads with 59% to 26% for Bernie Sanders and
7% for Martin O'Malley.

...


Bernie Sanders does on average 6 points worse than Clinton in comparable general
election match ups. He trails Fiorina 42/40, Bush 42/39, Trump 44/41, Cruz 44/39, Rubio
44/38, and Carson 46/39

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_111915.pdf

[CoffeeCat]

1. Look at this 2008 poll...Hillary queen of the polls!

In October 2007 (a comparable time to where we are today)--a CNN poll had Hillary at 51 and Obama at 21.

Oh noes!!!

I could fill this post with national polls where Hillary was decimating Obama in national polls by 20, 30 and 40 points.

I could also fill this post with state polls (that didn't have impending primaries), in which Clinton was trouncing Obama by as much as 50 points.

Ask Hillary how much these national polls mattered in 2008.

Obama won the nomination, despite Hillary's boatload of shiny polls.

[brooklynite]

2. In 2008, Clinton was generally below 50%...

...while this time she's generally been ABOVE 50%. Do you understand the implication on this? Or is a math lesson called for?

[CoffeeCat]

7. In 2008 it was a three-way race...

...with the top 3 candidates doing very well.

That is mainly why she was below 50 percent in 2007/2008.

This is a two-person race now.

And again--all of that is meaningless. The magic fairy-dust that you think these polls have--will be wiped clean when the campaigns roll into these individual states.

We vote state by state in our Democratic primaries--not nationally. That fact strips these national polls of their meaning.

That's how it's always been.

This is happening in my state of Iowa, as we speak. Bernie was at 4 percent early this year. He's now within 15 of Hillary in Iowa. Comparably--Obama was behind by 10 points in Iowa at this time.

Again, history shows us that these national polls--when our primary system is state-by-state races--mean jack squat.

[brooklynite]

13. It is indeed a two-person race (sorry O'Malley)

...which means there aren't a third candidate's votes to gobble up.

1) after a difficult summer, Clinton's national numbers have been consistently rising
2) because she's above 50%, the only way Sanders wins is if he pulls votes away from Clinton, a goal he's been unable to accomplish
3) In the ONE State where Sanders can claim to be ahead, Clinton has won 5 of the last 9 polls, prior to which Sanders had one 9 out of 9. That suggests that a Sanders lead has dropped to a tie.
4) finally, polls are always an indicator of intent, not always expressed. Sanders and Clinton will now need to turn out their prospective voters. Clinton has coordinators for every Iowa Caucus site, and significant investments of staff in both States. Sanders does not appear to have the same resources.

[CoffeeCat]

23. I'm sorry but you have your facts wrong. Very wrong.

Sanders does have the same resources as Clinton, in Iowa. According to the Des Moines Register, both Sanders and Clinton have 20 Iowa offices.

Clinton claims to have 75 full-time staff and Sanders reports 71 full-time staff members.

I question your claim that "Clinton has coordinators for every Iowa Caucus site". Iowa has 1,692 precincts within the state. Each precinct conducts its own caucus.

Are you actually suggesting that Hillary has a separate "coordinator" for each of these 1,692 precincts?

I think you have incorrect information.

Hillary may have a lot of volunteers, but so does Bernie.

The truth is that both Hillary and Sanders have a comparable number of staffers and offices in Iowa.

[brooklynite]

24. You may question my claim, but that's what Robby Mook told me...

[CoffeeCat]

28. You must have misunderstood then...

No doubt Clinton has volunteers and staffers in Iowa. For sure. She has a significant presence. But so does Sanders. Your initial claim that Bernie doesn't have the resources as Clinton is simply not true. They have the same number of Iowa offices and full-time staffers.

I'm sure both candidates will have impressive volunteer armies. It will be interesting to see how that shakes out.

Obama's ground game was unprecedented. It was mind blowing. The ground game can make a huge difference. I don't know how the dynamics of that will shake out, but it comes down to--who has the most able-bodied volunteers who are wiling to go door-to-door for you. Phone calling helps, but canvassing really seems to make a big difference.

I had an Obama volunteer in my yard (not kidding!) nearly every week. They would not let up. I wouldn't commit, and then I got a call from Obama asking me why I hadn't made up my mind yet. It was nuts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Here we go again...

If you believe Bernie Sanders is a proxy for Barack Obama there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. I would literally bet my life Hillary Clinton will be the nominee... If you can think of a lesser wager the house is open and I am game.

[CoffeeCat]

9. I never said that Bernie is Obama...

...but nice try.

I'm comparing data. Numbers.

The trajectory in Iowa, is nearly identical to what it was in 2008.

Obama was polling at 11 percent in Iowa in May 2007. Bernie was at about 5 percent last May.

During October of 2007--Obama was behind Clinton by 10 percent in Iowa; Bernie is now behind Clinton by 15 in Iowa.

Also, the Iowa caucuses are a month later this year, than they were in 2008. The campaigns have not peaked yet. In fact, it's been pretty quiet here.

These campaigns haven't unleashed their full potential yet.

You can't deny that the Obama/Sanders trajectories are nearly identical. The numbers speak for themselves.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. The trajectory in Iowa, is nearly identical to what it was in 2008.

The trajectory in Iowa, is nearly identical to what it was in 2008.

Respectfully, no it isn't.


Res ipsa loquitur:

On November 18, 2007 Hillary Clinton had a lead of 4/10 of a percent In IA caucus polls*:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html


On November 18, 2015 she has an aggregate lead of 24% in IA caucus polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html

It's just math!!!


* I took the five polls closest to this date from 2007,prior to and after it

[CoffeeCat]

22. With all due respect...

Last edited Thu Nov 19, 2015, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Bernie was polling at 4 percent in Iowa. According to the latest CBS News/NYT poll, as well as CNN and Fox News (among others), he's at about 31 percent.

That is a massive increase.

Obama did the same thing. The same trajectory. He was polling in the single digits in Iowa, and steadily climbed.

Obama didn't even overtake Hillary Clinton in the Iowa polls until November 14 (ABC/Washington Post poll), where he finally was ahead of Clinton 30/26.

It takes a while for these numbers to gel. The Iowa caucus season has barely begun. It's important to remember that the Iowa caucus was Jan 3 in 2008. That's a month earlier than this year. These campaigns are just getting started, and Sanders has steadily increased.

I wish he was ahead. Of course. However, one cannot deny that he has gained significant growth, despite Hillary's name recognition and familiarity. Iowa knows Hillary well--and she managed to lose 35 points in Iowa over the summer. She's gained back some of that ground (but not all). Iowa support for her is very soft, and all it's going to take is this caucus season getting into high gear (phone calling, canvassing, the ground game, public speeches, advertising, etc.) and the numbers will change more in Bernie's direction.

Another thing to remember is that the optics will favor Bernie. He's going to amass huge crowds, most likely in indoor stadiums/large venues. He's going to generate a great deal of enthusiasm. So far, Hillary has been unable to attract the 10,000+ crowds that Bernie has. This will have an effect on Iowans as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Respectfully and I am not being snarky

Respectfully and I am not being snarky the numbers are what the numbers are:



On November 18, 2007 Hillary Clinton had a lead of 4/10 of a percent In IA caucus polls*:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html


On November 18, 2015 she has an aggregate lead of 24% in IA caucus polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html



* I took the five polls closest to this date from 2007,prior to and after it.


Now, you are entitled to argue that Bernie Sanders will overcome her lead but she is infinitely better shape in Iowa today than she was on this day in 2007.


* I took the five polls closest to this date from 2007,prior to and after it.

[OilemFirchen]

38. Your interlocutor notes that...

"In 2008 it was a three-way race..."

... without acknowledging that the three candidates finished within spitting distance of one another:

Barack Obama: 37.6%
John Edwards: 29.7%
Hillary Rodham Clinton: 29.5%

Math again.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Ma and Pa Kettle do math

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhp3ac_ma-amp-pa-kettle-math_tech

[NurseJackie]

6. Sanders is not Obama. O'Malley is not Edwards. (Oh, and it's not 2007.)

"Oh no", indeed.

[Beacool]

29. It's a poor comparison.

The circumstances are not the same and the candidates are quite different. Obama was a young, charismatic man with a different personal history than other candidates. Obama's nomination made history and it meant a lot to many people.

Barring an unforeseen event, I don't see Sanders winning the nomination.

[NurseJackie]

3. This is a great way to start my day!

Let it shine shine shine all around the world!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Morning Has Broken

[Recursion]

8. That's the highest O'Malley has ever polled nationally

Glad to hear that.

[elleng]

37. Yes it is, and shows an important TREND!

[JaneyVee]

10. Just like I predicted, O'Malley got the debate bump.

[Attorney in Texas]

12. The live phone polls of likely and registered voters are more reliable than the internet polls and

the automated phone polls and polls of adults without screening for unlikely or unregistered voters.

Here is what the aggregate of live phone polls of likely and registered voters looks like:



Bear in mind, regardless of whether you focus on more reliable methodologies or less established methodologies, this is national polling and there is not a national primary so this national polling is representative of a nationwide primary vote that is not a vote that will ever occur.

It is an interesting phenomenon that Clinton does better (in a very consistent pattern) in automated phone and internet-based polls as compared to live phone polls. I do not know why that is, and I'm curious about it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Res ipsa loquitur

Last edited Thu Nov 19, 2015, 01:30 PM - Edit history (5)

Bear in mind, regardless of whether you focus on more reliable methodologies or less established methodologies, this is national polling and there is not a national primary so this national polling is representative of a nationwide primary vote that is not a vote that will ever occur.

It is an interesting phenomenon that Clinton does better (in a very consistent pattern) in automated phone and internet-based polls as compared to live phone polls. I do not know why that is, and I'm curious about it.

-Attorney In Texas

Res ipsa loquitur

Research/Shaw & Company Research is a well respected bi-partisan polling team using live phone polling (including both landlines and cell phones), which is the A+ methodology.

-Attorney In Texas

A+ METHODOLOGY



The survey was designed and conducted by Public Religion
Research Institute. The survey was made possible by
generous grants from the Ford Foundation and the Nathan
Cummings Foundation. Results of the survey were based
on bilingual (Spanish and English) RDD telephone interviews
conducted between November 6 and November 10, 2015,
by professional interviewers under the direction of SSRS.
Interviews were conducted among a random sample of 1,010
adults 18 years of age or older living in the United States (510
respondents were interviewed on a cell phone). of respondents within households was accomplished by
randomly requesting to speak with the youngest adult male
or female currently living in the household.

[Attorney in Texas]

15. When a polling company does live phone polls including landlines and cellphones, the cellphone polls

target a younger demographic because younger people are very underrepresented in in any landline-only poll so the focus on a younger demographic for the cellphone portion of the poll is to make up for the unavoidable older-skewing sample of landline users.

This methodology was the most reliable methodology used among pollsters who participated in polling the national elections in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. The poll I cited utilized the robust methods you held out as a benchmark.

EOM

[Attorney in Texas]

18. Are you saying the PPP poll in your OP is a live phone poll? If so, there is no doubt that that the

live phone polling methodology is the best methodology and I agree that it is definitely the benchmark polling method, but Huffington Post's Pollster reports the methodology as IVR/Online.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I am saying this poll met the rigorous standards...

I am saying this poll met the rigorous standards you established, ergo:

Research/Shaw & Company Research is a well respected bi-partisan polling team using live phone polling (including both landlines and cell phones), which is the A+ methodology.

-Attorney In Texas

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/AVS-Supplement-FINAL.pdf

A+ METHODOLOGY



The survey was designed and conducted by Public Religion
Research Institute. The survey was made possible by
generous grants from the Ford Foundation and the Nathan
Cummings Foundation. Results of the survey were based
on bilingual (Spanish and English) RDD telephone interviews
conducted between November 6 and November 10, 2015,
by professional interviewers under the direction of SSRS.
Interviews were conducted among a random sample of 1,010
adults 18 years of age or older living in the United States (510
respondents were interviewed on a cell phone). of respondents within households was accomplished by
randomly requesting to speak with the youngest adult male
or female currently living in the household.

Ironically,there is a confluence between a poll whose methodology you question and a poll whose methodology you embrace. They both show a 33 point lead for Hillary Clinton:


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/11/gop-has-clear-top-4-clinton-dominant-for-dems-general-election-tight.html


http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/AVS-Supplement-FINAL.pdf

[Attorney in Texas]

20. I agree randomly generated cellphone and landline live phone polling is most reliable, but did you

notice that -- out of the 1,010 respondents polled by Public Religion's Republican-focused poll entitled "2015 AMERICAN VALUES SURVEY" -- only 145 of the 1,010 respondents were likely Democratic primary voters?

I love the data gathering method, but it is difficult to project a Democratic primary race when less that 15% of those polled are likely Democratic primary voters.

Even where less that 15% of those polled are likely Democratic primary voters, I still like the data gathering method better than automated phone polls or internet-based polls, but if you are wondering why Real Clear Politics and Pollster both excluded this poll from their aggregation models, I suspect it was because the poll sampled far too few likely primary voters.

Still, it is an interesting poll -- especially it's breakdown of how different religious factions evaluate the various Republican candidates; I wish they had gathered similar data about the Democratic race.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Democrats =304

Democrats =304
Likely Democratic voters =145

[Attorney in Texas]

34. No confirmation of whether the 304 are registered or eligible to vote or expressed any interest in

voting in the primary.

The only data we have is that less than half of the Democrats surveyed expressed any likelihood of voting in the primary (different pollsters use different criteria for assessing likely voter status, and it is usually based on registration plus a "yes" answer to the question do you plan to vote in the election being polled about).

[Alfresco]

17. Even Ray could see ...

the way this race is shaping up.
WINNING!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

21. Sort of hard to believe that any of the Republicans

are getting at least 30%.

[riversedge]

25. Experience matters when choosing a President.

Experience matters when choosing a President.


Dan Merica ?@danmericaCNN 18m18 minutes ago

Clinton, per aides, had a substantial role in writing this ISIS speech and wasn't finished w/ it until this AM. http://cnn.it/1MWUQtM

[Iliyah]

26. PPP (D) was one of the most accurate polling busniness in the USA.

[DCBob]

27. Great news!

[Beacool]

30. I think that this will be the main factor that will tip the nomination to Hillary.

Democratic Primary

Hillary Clinton - Base: 59%; Hispanic: 84%; White: 50% African American: 70%; Other: 72%

Bernie Sanders - Base: 26%; Hispanic: 8%; White: 36% African American: 13%; Other: 7%

Hillary has the overwhelming support of Hispanics, AA and women (H 69% to S 47%).

No Democrat can win the nomination without the support of minorities and women.

[riversedge]

36. Steady as she goes.

[Aerows]

31. To be fair, inanimate objects

would perform well against the GOP clown collective.

[riversedge]

35. Clinton leads Sanders 47/32 w/ men, but 69/22 w/ women. 53/32 w/ younger voters, 66/17 w/Senior

PublicPolicyPolling ?@ppppolls 7h7 hours ago

Clinton leads Sanders just 47/32 with men, but 69/22 with women. 53/32 with younger voters, but 66/17 with seniors: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/11/gop-has-clear-top-4-clinton-dominant-for-dems-general-election-tight.html …

[EndElectoral]

40. That's a 22 point gender gap. Not sure I buy the senior gap or younger vote gap.

She left open the possibility of raising the retirement age and is not fully committed to raising the cap.

As a college student I find it odd that Sanders free college for all would not appeal to them as much as Clinton's - sorry, but the banks need that money approach.

Still early, and the links of this organization with the Clinton PAC on the last poll make the numbers a bit suspect.

[SidDithers]

41. No fair...

in that poll, people could only vote once.

Sid

[riversedge]

44. Chuckle

[riversedge]

42. Clinton leads Sanders just 50/36 with white voters, but 70/13 with African Americans, 84/8 with Hisp

Clinton leads Sanders just 50/36 with white voters, but 70/13 with African Americans, 84/8 with Hispanics: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/11/gop-has-clear-top-4-clinton-dominant-for-dems-general-election-

[Persondem]

43. Nice. particularly the H2H matchups. K & R nt