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
 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:04 AM Feb 2016

Anyone else finding the media just a little coo-coo bananas lately?

Bernie Sanders 5 point loss to Clinton in Nevada (despite winning the Latino vote and coming from 30-40 points behind) might mark the end of his campaign.

Marco Rubio's 10 point loss to Trump in South Carolina and him SURGING and REVITALIZED. Proving he can compete.

Clinton and Bernie are tied in delegates.

Trump has a 60 delegate lead.

But if you listen to them, it is TRUMP who has everything to lose and for Clinton it seems like clear sailing.

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Anyone else finding the media just a little coo-coo bananas lately? (Original Post) basselope Feb 2016 OP
They are hyperventilating... dchill Feb 2016 #1
a "little"? "lately"? I've ignored the media for at least 8 years now. NRaleighLiberal Feb 2016 #2
Sanders probably didn't win the Hispanic vote in Nevada frazzled Feb 2016 #3
thats been debunked basselope Feb 2016 #4
neen? frazzled Feb 2016 #5
The "experts" were proven wrong. basselope Feb 2016 #8
LOL! I give you yesterday's serious article from the NYT's polling analyst and frazzled Feb 2016 #9
The NYTs piece is what was debunked. basselope Feb 2016 #10
One analysis doesn't debunk another analysis: they're both analyses frazzled Feb 2016 #11
no.. debunked basselope Feb 2016 #12
They will be the LAST to abandon the script. FlatBaroque Feb 2016 #6
Always. Orsino Feb 2016 #7

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
3. Sanders probably didn't win the Hispanic vote in Nevada
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:20 AM
Feb 2016

Long explanation here, about the entrance/exit polling (esp. at a caucus) versus what happened in Hispanic majority districts (which Clinton won). I only can quote a small portion of the article, but you should read the detailed explanation in the latter half of the article, which explains why entrance/exit polls are "not designed to yield very reliable estimates of the characteristics of small, geographically clustered demographic groups":

"No, the Polling Doesn’t Prove Bernie Sanders Won the Hispanic Vote in Nevada"

...

But there are a lot of reasons to question the findings from the polls. They have a small sample of precincts and voters, and they simply were not devised to provide precise estimates of the Hispanic vote.

The actual election returns in Las Vegas’s Clark County hint at a different story. Analyzed neighborhood by neighborhood, they suggest that Mrs. Clinton might have won the Hispanic vote by a comfortable margin. She won about 60 percent of delegates in heavily Hispanic areas, a result that calls the finding of the polling into question.

...

The Hispanic vote in Nevada is overwhelmingly concentrated in Clark County, home to Las Vegas. In particular, Hispanic voters are concentrated on the east side of the city, where they make up the vast majority of the population but only a slight majority of registered Democrats. (For a rough map, see this tweet.)

In the 76 precincts in Clark County where we believe that a plurality of registered Democrats are Hispanic, Mrs. Clinton defeated Mr. Sanders in the delegate count by a margin of 58 percent to 42 percent. In the smaller number of majority Hispanic precincts, she seemed to win about 60 percent of the delegates, and she won perhaps 65 percent of the delegates in the precincts where Hispanics appeared to be a particularly large share of registered Democrats. (For details on the estimates, see my note at the end of the article.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/upshot/why-clinton-not-sanders-probably-won-the-hispanic-vote-in-nevada.html?mabReward=CTM&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine
 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
8. The "experts" were proven wrong.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:24 AM
Feb 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511312655

The Clinton campaign used 30 year old discarded methods to come up with their analysis.

The ACTUAL experts show Sanders won the Latino vote quite handily.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
9. LOL! I give you yesterday's serious article from the NYT's polling analyst and
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:39 AM
Feb 2016

You give me a press release from the Sanders' campaign. That's not debunking, honey--that's called SPIN.

This is getting to be Sarah Palin-level reality flight.

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
10. The NYTs piece is what was debunked.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:44 AM
Feb 2016

Because it was drawn from Clinton's people.

The info I gave you was provided by a respected organization: William C. Velásquez Institute (WCVI)

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
11. One analysis doesn't debunk another analysis: they're both analyses
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 12:04 PM
Feb 2016

And since caucuses are different animals than electoral primaries, they are next to impossible to definitively codify. That was the point of the Times article: entrance/exit polls from caucuses are not dispositive with respect to clustered demographics.

Nothing has been "debunked." There are two competing theories.

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
12. no.. debunked
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:51 PM
Feb 2016

The times piece is based on old discarded methodology.

completely 100% debunked.

Bernie won the Latino vote.

Just an indisputable fact

FlatBaroque

(3,160 posts)
6. They will be the LAST to abandon the script.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:12 AM
Feb 2016

Their propaganda will only intensify here on out. I guess we ain't seen nothin yet. Bernie will have to continue to speak to the people directly.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Anyone else finding the m...