HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » PPP poll Nov 14 Who Won D...

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:58 AM

PPP poll Nov 14 Who Won DEM Debate? Clinton 67%, Sanders 20%, O'M 7%

WONDERFUL WONDERFUL

PPP poll Nov 14 Who Won DEM Debate? Clinton 67%, Sanders 20%, O'M 7%

Nov 14, 2015

A Public Policy Polling survey of Democratic primary voters nationally who watched tonight’s debate finds that it reinforced Hillary Clinton’s front runner status. Viewers overwhelmingly think she won the debate, and particularly trust her over the rest of the Democratic field when it comes to issues of national security.

Key findings from the survey include:

-67% of voters think Clinton won the debate, to 20% for Bernie Sanders and 7% for Martin O’Malley. On a related note 63% of viewers said the debate gave them a more positive opinion of Clinton, compared to 41% who said it gave them a more positive opinion of Sanders, and 37% who said it gave them a more positive opinion of O’Malley.

-Clinton is by a wide margin the candidate debate watchers trust the most on national security issues. 75% say they have the most faith in Clinton on that front, compared to only 17% for Sanders, and 5% for O’Malley. National security issues were a primary focus tonight in the aftermath of yesterday’s tragedy in France, and Democratic voters by far and away trust Clinton the most on that issue.

-What’s particularly striking is how universal the sentiment that Clinton won the debate tonight is among all the different groups within the Democratic Party. 86% of African Americans, 73% of women, 70% of moderates, 69% of seniors, 67% of Hispanics, 65% of liberals, 61% of white voters, 58% of men, and 50% of younger voters all think that Clinton was the winner of tonight’s debate.

-Overall among those who watched the debate tonight, 67% say they plan to vote for Clinton in the primary to 25% for Sanders, and 4% for O’Malley.

Clinton came into tonight’s debate as the clear front runner for the Democrats and these numbers make it clear that the debate and particularly Clinton’s strength on national security issues just reinforced her front runner status....

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/11/democratic-voters-overwhelmingly-think-clinton-won-debate-particularly-strong-on-national-security-i.html via Public Policy Polling



96 replies, 4725 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 96 replies Author Time Post
Reply PPP poll Nov 14 Who Won DEM Debate? Clinton 67%, Sanders 20%, O'M 7% (Original post)
riversedge Nov 2015 OP
dlwickham Nov 2015 #1
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #37
tecelote Nov 2015 #79
RandySF Nov 2015 #2
Agschmid Nov 2015 #3
hill2016 Nov 2015 #4
brooklynite Nov 2015 #44
DURHAM D Nov 2015 #5
reformist2 Nov 2015 #6
brooklynite Nov 2015 #11
MrMickeysMom Nov 2015 #54
DURHAM D Nov 2015 #12
riversedge Nov 2015 #16
Cali_Democrat Nov 2015 #24
MineralMan Nov 2015 #93
yeoman6987 Nov 2015 #7
JimDandy Nov 2015 #15
brooklynite Nov 2015 #8
MADem Nov 2015 #9
hill2016 Nov 2015 #13
MADem Nov 2015 #22
DURHAM D Nov 2015 #14
riversedge Nov 2015 #20
MADem Nov 2015 #30
jeff47 Nov 2015 #10
jkbRN Nov 2015 #18
restorefreedom Nov 2015 #19
jeff47 Nov 2015 #26
restorefreedom Nov 2015 #34
jeff47 Nov 2015 #38
restorefreedom Nov 2015 #40
think Nov 2015 #21
beam me up scottie Nov 2015 #25
winter is coming Nov 2015 #47
Jarqui Nov 2015 #67
jkbRN Nov 2015 #17
riversedge Nov 2015 #23
jeff47 Nov 2015 #27
reformist2 Nov 2015 #28
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #31
EndElectoral Nov 2015 #42
MrMickeysMom Nov 2015 #55
winter is coming Nov 2015 #89
jfern Nov 2015 #29
MADem Nov 2015 #33
jeff47 Nov 2015 #35
MADem Nov 2015 #50
jeff47 Nov 2015 #53
MADem Nov 2015 #56
jeff47 Nov 2015 #60
MADem Nov 2015 #68
jeff47 Nov 2015 #69
MADem Nov 2015 #81
jeff47 Nov 2015 #83
restorefreedom Nov 2015 #36
jfern Nov 2015 #39
MADem Nov 2015 #49
jfern Nov 2015 #52
MADem Nov 2015 #57
jfern Nov 2015 #59
MADem Nov 2015 #61
jfern Nov 2015 #63
Weidman Nov 2015 #65
MADem Nov 2015 #82
lunamagica Nov 2015 #32
Cheese Sandwich Nov 2015 #41
jeff47 Nov 2015 #45
Cheese Sandwich Nov 2015 #48
MohRokTah Nov 2015 #71
Weidman Nov 2015 #73
MohRokTah Nov 2015 #84
Elmer S. E. Dump Nov 2015 #87
TM99 Nov 2015 #88
Jarqui Nov 2015 #43
reformist2 Nov 2015 #46
riversedge Nov 2015 #51
Weidman Nov 2015 #58
stevenleser Nov 2015 #64
jeff47 Nov 2015 #66
stevenleser Nov 2015 #70
jeff47 Nov 2015 #72
stevenleser Nov 2015 #76
jeff47 Nov 2015 #77
stevenleser Nov 2015 #78
jeff47 Nov 2015 #80
jfern Nov 2015 #75
Bread and Circus Nov 2015 #62
stevenleser Nov 2015 #74
Post removed Nov 2015 #85
Bread and Circus Nov 2015 #86
Sancho Nov 2015 #90
JaneyVee Nov 2015 #91
Sunlei Nov 2015 #92
DCBob Nov 2015 #94
Jarqui Nov 2015 #95
azurnoir Nov 2015 #96

Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:59 AM

1. but we know polls don't matter

right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:17 AM

37. Not when they're researched on behalf of a candidate's SuperPAC, like this one.

 

It may turn out that people really do believe that Hillary won the debate tonight, but let's wait for polls that aren't financed by supporters of one side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:29 AM

79. Kinda funny...

I'm going to say this once as a Clinton supporter: the sponsored PPP poll is bullshit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251810541

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:59 AM

2. k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:00 AM

3. Oh hey!

Good post.

I'll delete mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:00 AM

4. that was fast

 

it's only been an hour...

how did they do it so fast?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:25 AM

44. Answer - they prequalified the respondents and had them standing by for the followup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:01 AM

5. How can they do that so fast?

Love the numbers. Tough reality check for some DUers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:02 AM

6. It was an internet poll!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:03 AM

11. PPP interviewed 510 Democratic primary voters nationally by telephone

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:42 AM

54. Land line?

This is rich...

Who paid for it and was it similar to the DLC infested survey?

Well... that does it! Looks like Time and Fox were all wrong!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:03 AM

12. No it was not.

Got anything else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:05 AM

16. no dice for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:09 AM

24. That is an incorrect statement. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 11:04 AM

93. Uh, no, it wasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:02 AM

7. +1,000,000,000,000,000

 

She was so presidential tonight. The others.......well no comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:05 AM

15. They were prescreened on Thursday and Friday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:03 AM

8. Among "Very Liberal"...

60% had a more favorable opinion of Clinton after the debate vs 40% for Sanders

60% thought Clinton won the debate vs 33% for Sanders and 6% for O'Malley

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:03 AM

9. It wasn't even close. The Presidential one held the center podium.

Clinton looked alert and engaged, and her responses were substantive.

Her opponents were edgy and irritated, combative and annoyed, prickly and acerbic. In style and substance, she creamed 'em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:04 AM

13. I think you meant one of them

 

I thought the other was was actually quite calm and was someone I was willing to listen to. He did bring up some interesting ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:08 AM

22. Both Sanders and O'Malley were trying to land punches--they didn't do the job, though.

O'Malley was calmer than Sanders, but they both seemed nervous and high strung.

Clinton was SO rock-steady. She had it wired--style and substance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:04 AM

14. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:07 AM

20. They devoted their energies toward tag teaming Hillary and were not focused on the

golden ring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:12 AM

30. That's it, exactly. It was almost like they were more interested in chipping off a bit than

moving forward. It looked a little bit like a failed attempt at ganging up.

It was their undoing. If they'd taken a shot at one another, even slightly, it wouldn't have been quite so obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:03 AM

10. Gee...you forgot to quote this part from their report

This research was conducted on behalf of Correct The Record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:06 AM

18. Hahaha yesss

This is so pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:06 AM

19. last line of the article, too

almost like they don't want people to know who commissioned it.

nah, couldn't be that.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:10 AM

26. Didja also notice they did not mention rotating the candidates in the questions?

It's typical for pollsters to rotate the order in which they name the candidates, because the first candidate mentioned typically gets a better result.

All the questions had Clinton first.

Not to mention landlines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:14 AM

34. but its scientific!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:17 AM

38. They also forgot to publish the screening questions (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:18 AM

40. ! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:07 AM

21. Yep. Was surprised to see that. Kind of undermines the PPP brand realizing who bought

 

the poll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:10 AM

25. LMAO!

I love it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:27 AM

47. Wow, somebody's going to be the laughingstock of the twitterverse. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:00 AM

67. Finger on the scale ...

http://correctrecord.org/about/
Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks.


Ok. Now it makes sense on why it's so out of line with the other polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:05 AM

17. It was sponsored by Correct the Record....

LMAO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:08 AM

23. So?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:11 AM

27. Well, it would explain why they didn't run the poll properly

such as rotating the names of the candidates in the questions. Standard practice, since the first candidate mentioned gets a boost. Instead, they asked all questions with Clinton first.

Also, LOL @ landlines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:12 AM

28. David Brock's SUPERPAC paid for this poll? OMG! LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:13 AM

31. You know, one of the SuperPACs working for Hillary

 

Don't you think that's a bit of a conflict of interest?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #31)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:22 AM

42. For crying out loud...this is the kind of manipulative stuff that gives politics a bad name...lol...

One of the SuperPACS' working for her? Good God!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:43 AM

55. That's even more hilarious...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 08:01 AM

89. Should be Corrupt the Record. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:12 AM

29. "This research was conducted on behalf of Correct The Record."

Total garbage

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:14 AM

33. You're saying PPP is unreliable, then? OK, we'll disregard anything positive they have to say

about any other candidate in future, then!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:15 AM

35. Well, PPP didn't bother to publish the screening questions

and did not rotate the candidate's names in their questions, as is standard practice. (The first candidate mentioned always does better, and lo-and-behold Clinton was always first!)

Brock got what he paid for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:37 AM

50. How do you know they won't/didn't do that?

These are, obviously, quick results, and they are packaged to be of interest to a particular client--but that doesn't mean they are SKEWED.

What will you do if you learn that they do publish screening questions later, and that they did rotate the questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #50)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:39 AM

53. I read their report. Link's at the bottom of the press release quoted in the OP.

Also, the answer for Q1 looks kinda odd.

Q1 Did you watch the Democratic Presidential candidate debate tonight?
Yes 100%
No 0%

Absolutely no one in their sample had something else come up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #53)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:43 AM

56. That question tells me this--they didn't include

the results of anyone who didn't watch. If the person said NO, they went on to the next one.

Their "universe" was "People who watched the debate."

Why would they poll people who didn't watch, when they want to gauge how well the candidates did?

I mean, come on--that's basic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #56)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:48 AM

60. Except that wasn't in their methodology.

If the person said NO, they went on to the next one.

Except that was not in their methodology.

So either you're right and they're lying in their methodology, or I'm right and their sample is not at all random.

Why would they poll people who didn't watch, when they want to gauge how well the candidates did?

You handle that by saying in your methodology that you stopped asking questions after Q1 for people who didn't watch. And list two sample sizes, the overall sample and the debate-watching sample.

Btw, "randomly selected" doesn't appear in their methodology either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #60)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:03 AM

68. I think you're trying too hard to get down in the weeds on

fast results of a snapshot poll.

Look--you can disregard this information all you want. I'm sure you can find an "internet poll" that will give you the results you wish for, and that'll make you all happy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #68)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:05 AM

69. No, this isn't a "snapshot" poll. That would include a random sample.

This doesn't have a random sample. Nor did they publish their screening questions. And it was a poll sponsored by Correct the Record, and when you pay for a poll you get to specify the methodology.

Even Nate Silver is calling them out on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #69)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:39 AM

81. Well, is there a link from Nate with his objections? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #81)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:41 AM

83. It's in this thread, with a lot of the other problems with the poll

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251810541

As an added bonus, the OP supports Clinton. So clearly it's all sour grapes from Sanders supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:15 AM

36. i generally disregard all polls

they might be fun, but the only one that matters is election day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:17 AM

39. I'm saying that polls conducted for a candidates SuperPAC tend to be rather biased

for that candidate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #39)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:35 AM

49. And you know this, how? You're saying, then, that PPP is worthless

if they ever show Sanders getting a bump.

Your assumption that they would shade their results to satisfy a client isn't supported by any fact--only your say-so.

So, fine--under the bus with PPP--you can never look to them for even the slightest improvement in the fortunes of your candidate!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #49)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:39 AM

52. Polling paid for by a candidate is never taken very seriously

Except by Hillary supporters, appearently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #52)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:44 AM

57. Where's Bernie's glowing internal poll, then?

Hmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #57)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:46 AM

59. Bernie doesn't have a SuperPAC paying for biased polls

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #59)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:48 AM

61. He didn't have "campaign advisers" either...until he did. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #61)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:50 AM

63. That's a non sequitor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #57)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:51 AM

65. His internal polls is for Bernie's eyes only.

 

It's currently sealed in Locker A-352 in the Grand Central Terminal, key is in one of those hair color gels at Tish and Snooky's Manic Panic at Long Island City. Now quickly get it before someone buys the gels!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weidman (Reply #65)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:40 AM

82. Nyuck, nyuck!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:13 AM

32. WHOO HOO!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:21 AM

41. Why wasn't there an immediate poll after the first debate

 

We had to sit through a couple days of spin before any major polls were released.

This time it's instant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #41)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:25 AM

45. Because Clinton didn't pay for one. She paid for one tonight.

This research was conducted on behalf of Correct The Record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:31 AM

48. OMG

 



Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:13 AM

71. That's a blatant falsehood.

 

Coordination between Correct the Record and Hillary Clinton's campaign would be illegal and you know it.

Correct the Record is a Super PAC and is not Hillary Clinton or her campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:15 AM

73. Hey pal, if you really believe that..

 

I got a real neat mountain that nobody's using in my backyard that you can buy for a cool million.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weidman (Reply #73)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:51 AM

84. Are you actually inferring a Democratic candidate committed a felony?????????

 

You might want to delete that post before MIRT sees it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #84)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 05:25 AM

87. Some would say at least one. Not me though...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #84)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 07:44 AM

88. The only reason this is not illegal

 

is because of the 'internet loophole'. They coordinate with her campaign but do it only online. If they did this shit elsewhere, yes, they would be busted for FEC violations.

To try and defend this shit speaks volumes to your character and that of your candidate. Fuck it...as long as it is not 'illegal' then go for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:23 AM

43. How could that poll say she won it handily and all these polls say the opposite?

Straw Poll from Drake Univesity in Iowa

Sanders 116 (67%)
Clinton 36 (21%)
O'Malley 20 (12%)

TIME
http://time.com/4110860/democratic-debate-poll-who-won/
Sanders 81%
Clinton 14%
O'Malley 5%

CBS Local
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/11/14/poll-who-do-you-think-won-the-second-democratic-presidential-debate/
Sanders 94%
Clinton 4%
O'Malley 2%

http://www.enstarz.com/articles/119894/20151114/who-won-democratic-debate-did-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-or-martin-omalley-impress-you-poll.htm
Sanders 90%
Clinton 6%
O'Malley 4%

Slate
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/democratic_presidential_debate_who_won_vote_in_our_poll.html
Sanders 80%
Clinton 14%
O'Malley 3%

Syracuse.com
http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/11/poll_who_won_saturdays_democratic_2016_presidential_debate.html
Sanders 92%
Clinton 5%
O'Malley 3%

Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/polls/2015/nov/14/who-won-2nd-democratic-debate/
Sanders 95%
Clinton 4%
O'Malley 3%

Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/democrats/11996604/Democratic-debate-who-won.html
Sanders 87%
Clinton 7%
O'Malley 5%

FOX
http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/11/14/poll-who-won-the-2nd-democratic-debate/
Sanders 88%
Clinton 9%
O'Malley 3%

CSPAN
https://www.facebook.com/CSPAN?_rdr=p
Sanders 80%
Clinton 16%
O'Malley 4%

I realize the above are online and not scientific but that far off? I have my doubts

(updated all poll results above at 12:35am Nov 15 - nothing materially changed)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #43)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:26 AM

46. When every website has a poll showing that Bernie won by a 70 point margin, it's absurd to ignore it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #46)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:39 AM

51. oh yeah--those internet polls!!

OINK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:45 AM

58. Apparently sponsored by Correct the Record.

 

This poll is no good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weidman (Reply #58)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:50 AM

64. Conducted by PPP who are the most accurate.

 

You can try and throw mud at the poll but it's likely accurate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #64)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:55 AM

66. Read the report.

1) Their methodology does not say how they got a random sample....heavily implying they did not get one.
2) They did not publish their screening questions.
3) They did not rotate the candidate's names. That's standard practice since the first name always does better.
4) The answer for Q1 is really weird. 100% of their sample watched the debate. No one had something else come up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #66)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:11 AM

70. In other words, you don't have any evidence there is something wrong with the poll

 

As I've always said, although it's usually to Republicans like the Unskewed polls folks, if your candidate Is in such bad shape that you resort to attacking scientific polls you are in trouble.

The easy way to resolve this is to call and email the number PPP provides at the bottom of the poll. They probably won't respond until Monday.

it makes no sense at all that the most accurate polling agency out there would risk their reputation over a post debate poll. But those kind of accusations are to what Bernistas are reduced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #70)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:14 AM

72. Uh, those are problems with the poll.

Even Nate Silver is calling them out on it.

The easy way to resolve this is to call and email the number PPP provides at the bottom of the poll. They probably won't respond until Monday.

So...they lied in their own report linked from the press release?

And we're supposed to believe them after they admit to lying?

it makes no sense at all that the most accurate polling agency out there would risk their reputation over a post debate poll. But those kind of accusations are to what Bernistas are reduced.

Psst...Here's a Clinton supporter who started a thread saying the same thing:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251810541

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #72)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:19 AM

76. Those are not problems with the poll, they are lack of documentation so far

 

That may have well resulted from getting it out so quickly.

Again, you have no evidence there is something wrong with the poll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #76)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:22 AM

77. Because PPP doesn't know how to describe polling methodology in their reports?

THAT is the bullshit you are hanging your hat on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #77)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:29 AM

78. No the bullshit is desperately attacking the most reliable agency because you

 

Don't like the results. That's all this is.

Don't pretend there is anything more to it than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #78)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:33 AM

80. No, that's not all this is. Read the damn report yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #70)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:18 AM

75. So if a Republican pays for a poll, you'd trust it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:48 AM

62. That is not reality. No fucking way. If anything it was O'Malley

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:17 AM

74. That's about what I would have guessed after watching the debate.

 

This performance is about as bad as I have seen Sanders in terms of looking non-Presidential. He didn't look contained, he didn't look poised, and Hillary looked both of those things. And O'Malley has this odd affect to him that seems non-genuine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #74)


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 03:32 AM

86. b.s. 99% of those polled love 199% of what Clinton had to say and love supreme leader Kim Il Jong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 08:10 AM

90. The one inevitable post on DGP is that polls that folks don't agree with are bad polls....

PPP used as valid a method as possible - calling people who watched the debate and asking relevant questions. Those participants are most likely going to vote!! No one knew the results until they were published. Professional pollsters often report who paid for the poll for transparency, which is a sign of their neutrality and professionalism. It increases confidence, because the pollster is being upfront.

College students, for example, love to be active on line and will attend a rally because there's free pizza and a social opportunity. They also don't register and don't vote; at least that's the case in recent elections. Adults watching a debate at home instead of a ballgame or Downton Abbey are going to vote.

So far, the polls have been pretty good - they reflect regional and demographic expectations, have some variability due to sampling, and show changes over time as candidates campaign. As the email story was put to rest, Hillary looked better. When Biden dropped out, Hillary gained. In fact, when O'Malley quits Hilary will gain again.

Bernie has tried and failed, so far, to get any traction with minority and immigrant populations. Last night's debate and poll didn't change the picture. Hillary has more international experience and it showed. With "likely voter" Democrats who watched the debate; most thought Hillary provided the best answers. That makes sense because of the situation in France and emphasis on international affairs. Hillary did a good job last night.

"It's a poor workman who blames their tools."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 08:40 AM

91. K AND R!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 11:00 AM

92. I gave Sanders the win for $15 Federal minimum wage hike, Mrs. Clintons $12 is NOT enough.

Should have been $12 in 2008, that was the last time Mrs. Clinton had some influence and we only got $7.25 back then.

Minimum was only about $5.00 when 9-11 happened, another time when both Mrs. Clinton and Sanders had some influence on the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:38 PM

94. Supported by CBS poll.

Hillary won the debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 05:58 PM

95. Part of the problem with this poll's accuracy I might suggest is the age demographics:

Age 2012 2016 Debate
18-45 51% 19%
45-64 35% 47%
65+ 14% 34%

under 45, where Sanders does better is very under represented.

Doesn't explain all of the discrepancy with the online polls but I would say on that basis alone, the poll significantly overstates Clinton's debate performance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread