Is there a recent poll showing Sanders trailing Hillary by only 39-43? I thought

[KingCharlemagne]

I saw a thread on it a few days ago, failed to bookmark it and now cannot find it.

Any assistance would be appreciated. Arguing with someone who claims Hillary has a 40-point lead.

[onehandle]

1. Sounds like an outlier NH poll. She still leads in the upper 40s, nationally.

'Ipsos now has Biden doing better than Sanders among likely primary voters:

Hillary 63%
Biden 14%
Sanders 13%'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110714794

[KingCharlemagne]

3. Thank you for replying. Hmm, maybe I was engaged in a little wishful thinking. Could swear

I saw a thread here that had Sanders only trailing by 4, within the MoE (IIRC). Can't remember for the life of me whether it was a NH outlier or some other poll.

Oy, that will teach me to bookmark shit the first time I see it

[sabrina 1]

13. Yes, you are correct, I believe it was a Quinniapic poll showing Sanders to be now only

5 points behind Hillary. Same poll showed him 8 points behind her a couple of weeks ago.

[Fawke Em]

5. We don't vote for presidents nationally.

National polls are simply about name recognition. We vote state by state.

But, in any case, the NH poll the OP asked about is not an outlier. It's an aggregate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

[Godhumor]

7. There is almost a 1 to 1 correlation between national polling and national results

And the poll the OP referenced isn't the aggregate but the Gravis NH poll found on the page you referenced.

[Fawke Em]

9. Not this early out, though.

National polls before even the first debate don't tell you much about anything except who people know the most.

Part of the reason it's different this year is because the DNC, in their infinite "wisdom," have so kneecapped anyone but HRC in limiting the debates to only six. By this time in 2008, we'd already had several debates. We haven't had a one, yet.

On edit: But thanks for pointing out the Gravis poll. I thought the OP might have seen the aggregate and not the one poll.

[Godhumor]

12. But the same logic works for all polls then

And you can see that as the national race has tightened slightly, state races have also tightened slightly. At this stage, national polling is about as useful as counting up votes from each individual state that has polled to figure out the race.

[sabrina 1]

14. The last quinniapic poll showed Sanders now only 5 points behind Hillary in a state where

he has worked to gain more recognition, NH up 3 points from their last poll. So clearly once people KNOW him, his poll numbers go up drastically. Which is why it will take a while since he had virtually 0 name recognition just months ago.

[Godhumor]

18. In which case national polling will reflect that change

My point is that national polling is as valid as trying to act each state's individual results to figure out where things stand. And nationally Sanders had gone up; the question is can he break beyond his very liberal homogeneous base.

[sabrina 1]

23. That question is better applies to Hillary. Bernie is already attracting people from across

the political spectrum. Eg, he is even getting Republicans to sign up, Libertarians, Independents who are now the largest voting bloc in the country as people flee both parties and are not likely to come back to vote for what they fled from.

And he is going after non-voters who have given up on the status quo completely. I, eg, have already signed up one non voter without even trying. Just asking why don't you vote, then telling her about Bernie and she is so excited she plans to sign up as a Dem for the first time in years.

the polls are not reflecting all these demographics because in open primary states, many are not even registered yet, or are registered as Independents still.

So I believe Bernie will attract far more cross over voters than any of the Status Quo candidates. Bernie eg, is already beating the top three Repubs by several points even without the name recognition he will need to win the nomination.

And then there's the other factor. Few of his supporters, he is attracting young voters in very large numbers, own landlines and these polls are still polling mostly people with landlines.

[hedda_foil]

17. Look at that NH poll again. It's the aggregate of 3 polls.

Gravis is one of the three.

[Godhumor]

19. Gravis is the individual poll the OP is referencing

Based on the numbers he referenced. The aggregate is a wider spread.

[hedda_foil]

24. The aggregate spread is not that wide. The widest margin is Hillary+10.

So what I'm seeing is your picking out one poll that is closest to the numbers remembered by the OP and trying to discredit that single data point while ignoring the other 2 polls in the RCP average, as well as the fact that the aggregate is very close to the numbers the OP mentioned.

[Godhumor]

25. I'm not discrediting anything. He asked for which poll is 39-43. Gravis is 39-43

That's it.

[HereSince1628]

2. The running avg of Nat'l polls at RCP has Clinton up ~35%

Some of the state polls have shown things closer.

There was a post of a poll among readers of TPM that had a number similar to that...but when I went to TPM I couldn't find it.

[KingCharlemagne]

4. Thanks for replying. I may have been engaged in some wishful thinking. I neglected

to bookmark it and am now regretting my earlier lassitude.

Ah well, lesson learned.

[SonderWoman]

6. Perhaps New Hampshire?

[Godhumor]

8. The poll is the Gravis Marketing poll for NH

You can see it in the link Fawke supplied.

[hedda_foil]

20. Again, that is an aggregate of 3 polls of which Gravis is one.

[Godhumor]

22. No, Gravis is the individual poll the OP referenced. The aggregate spread is wider

Gravis fits the spread the OP asked for.

[DCBob]

10. Oregon.

The July 25-27 survey by Portland-based DHM Research shows Clinton, the former secretary of state, leading the Democratic primary in Oregon with 44 percent of the vote to 39 percent for Sanders, a Vermont senator.

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2015/08/oregon_presidential_poll_hilla.html

[Godhumor]

11. Yeah, best to ignore that one

So utterly unscientific and with massive sampling issues that aggregating sites didn't even bother to include it. Really hope the OP was thinking of the NH poll instead.

[sabrina 1]

15. Most of them are unscientific now since they haven't caught up with tech and

are mostly polling people with landlines. Who has a landline anymore? I know a few of them are adding some cell phone polls, but mostly still polling on landlines.

[Godhumor]

21. No, the Oregon poll was the statistical definition of unscientific

Sample of 200 people, MoE of+/-7, internet poll with respondents only invited from previous polling.

Seriously, there is a reason the Oregon poll wasn't picked up nationally or included in aggregates. It was a faux report designed to drum up publicity for the marketing firm and paper that commissioned it.

[Adrahil]

16. Yeah, you have the link now. NH Poll.

It shows Bernie higher than other recent polls, but it's not so high as to be unrealistic.