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

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
22. I'm unaware of these polls.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 02:47 PM
Nov 2015

I can certainly see how some big-scandal or revelation could make someone abandon a candidate they'd previously chosen. But it's difficult for me to imagine that the "bandwagon effect" would be able to have the same effect on someone who's already made a decision.

What seems more likely is that if someone is still undecided, at such a late date, then they're likely to be the type of voter who can be more easily persuaded by the bandwagon.

If someone can be influenced by the bandwagon effect, then that's a voter that likely sees both candidates as being equal in all ways. It's a voter that truly cannot make up their mind and the bandwagon effect is just enough to tip the scales.

Or, the other type of voter who's likely to be so influenced is the low-information voter who really hasn't been paying much attention. Lacking information on the candidates, this voter ALSO see the candidates as being comparatively "equal" (even though the voter hasn't actually done any comparison.)

As a result, this voter lets others decide for him/her. They're inclined to "choose" a candidate based on perceived electability and that candidate's most recent victory. Perhaps this voter is thinking "everyone likes a winner" and who doesn't want to be on the "winning team"?

Candidates who get early wins see a bump in the polls nationwide. HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #1
That can happen, certainly. MineralMan Nov 2015 #3
I just used Obama as an example. HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #10
Actually, I don't think those wins would have as large an MineralMan Nov 2015 #16
You're inserting personal preference into your calculations. Kentonio Nov 2015 #19
I suggest giving this a read. sleepyvoter Nov 2015 #63
This is not 2008. MineralMan Nov 2015 #66
Same script, different candidate this time. sleepyvoter Nov 2015 #106
From the belly of the beast... morningglory Nov 2015 #127
If you know the answer, why ask the question? Bernblu Nov 2015 #115
Because he has nothing else to do. Major Hogwash Nov 2015 #119
Is his campaign hoping for a bandwagon effect? NurseJackie Nov 2015 #2
Undecideds don't really make up a large enough group MineralMan Nov 2015 #4
You're thinking of elections as static rather than dynamic Bernblu Nov 2015 #116
It's not just undecideds that would be influenced. HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #11
I'm unaware of these polls. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #22
You being unaware does not mean they don't exist. jeff47 Nov 2015 #43
If my hastily worded subject line gave you that impression then Im heartily sorry for the confusion. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #49
And only my subject line was in response to your subject line. jeff47 Nov 2015 #52
You're very optimistic. But it doesn't seem to be very realistic to me. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #57
Well, if you were correct, 2008 was impossible. jeff47 Nov 2015 #59
It's not 2008. Sanders is not Obama. Webb & Chafee (and O'Malley) are not John Edwards. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #75
"Sanders is not Obama" is irrelevant to your analysis. jeff47 Nov 2015 #76
Yes, Sanders is not Obama is VERY relevant to the discussion . He was the transformative riversedge Nov 2015 #78
Not when the claim is voters do not change their mind. jeff47 Nov 2015 #83
Sanders has limited appeal. He's definitely not transformative. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #105
Yes, Sanders is not Obama but he has his own strengths as a candidate and is running on a Bernblu Nov 2015 #117
"People change their mind all the time" is irrelevant. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #79
So...despite your argument having zero historical precedent, you are right. jeff47 Nov 2015 #82
Duck Season! NurseJackie Nov 2015 #84
Yes, when history disagrees with your gut, always go with your gut. (nt) jeff47 Nov 2015 #86
Duck Season! NurseJackie Nov 2015 #87
HRC being over 50% and there being no third candidate with meaningful support hack89 Nov 2015 #81
Yes, she did lose support. Do you really think we can't see polling from 8 years ago? jeff47 Nov 2015 #85
Her support remained relatively stable hack89 Nov 2015 #88
Yea, Edward's 11% really was responsible for Obama going up 30%. jeff47 Nov 2015 #90
So HRC dropped 5 points while Obama gained 25 points hack89 Nov 2015 #94
Good thing the topic wasn't "This is a carbon copy of 2008!!!" jeff47 Nov 2015 #95
If HRC's support in 2015 mirrors 2008, Bernie is fucked hack89 Nov 2015 #96
We'll see in a few months. (nt) jeff47 Nov 2015 #97
I will be glad when the primaries are over hack89 Nov 2015 #99
Anger! Yes, that's other the Kübler-Ross step I neglected to mention. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #93
Good effort, but, Bernies voters are so desperate for SOMETHING to cling to, NurseJackie Nov 2015 #91
No one is saying that Sanders is Obama CoffeeCat Nov 2015 #103
But there are also fundamental differences between 2008 and 2015 hack89 Nov 2015 #112
One key factor is now involved: We all know who HRC is, and she is not trustworthy. Floyd Steinberg Nov 2015 #133
Yet polls show her to be the overwhelming favorite of Democrats hack89 Nov 2015 #134
Uh, Hillary supporters are allowed to change their mind. Dawgs Nov 2015 #20
(Scroll up. See previous post. I've touched on that.) NurseJackie Nov 2015 #23
i think we need to keep in mind restorefreedom Nov 2015 #46
I'm so confused. Just recently I saw someone suggesting that Hillary had NurseJackie Nov 2015 #51
she looks quite wary. restorefreedom Nov 2015 #77
Sure all primary voting will be done on line upaloopa Nov 2015 #5
lol nt BootinUp Nov 2015 #6
LOL! Well, he's already winning all 50 primaries MineralMan Nov 2015 #7
+1 JustAnotherGen Nov 2015 #8
LOL leftofcool Nov 2015 #62
You can't even look at other state polls at this point... CoffeeCat Nov 2015 #9
Actually, you can look at polling in MineralMan Nov 2015 #13
Oh believe me...I am just as wonky as you... CoffeeCat Nov 2015 #34
Path? Plan? too much effort and too soon for that for me Jarqui Nov 2015 #12
If Sanders wins NH and Iowa Bernblu Nov 2015 #118
Who's"we"? 99Forever Nov 2015 #14
We all define it differently, I think. MineralMan Nov 2015 #15
Post this in 2007 and replace Sanders with Obama and you would know the answer. n/t Dawgs Nov 2015 #17
Sanders and Obama are not equivalents. MineralMan Nov 2015 #24
My point isn't that they're the same. It's that the election is far from over. Dawgs Nov 2015 #27
My "opinion don't mean shit..." MineralMan Nov 2015 #28
Uh no, they are not the same leftofcool Nov 2015 #65
Thankfully, yes. Dawgs Nov 2015 #73
You're correct. 99Forever Nov 2015 #98
I couldn't agree more tularetom Nov 2015 #53
He'll have no better luck than any Democrat with that. MineralMan Nov 2015 #55
That's certainly true but that wasn't your point tularetom Nov 2015 #64
The point is that Sanders does not appear to have a MineralMan Nov 2015 #69
"Post this in 2007 and replace Sanders with Obama and you would know the answer." NCTraveler Nov 2015 #45
Obama had one of the greatest ground games Codeine Nov 2015 #48
Sanders has a huge ground game across the country. Volunteers have set up weekly meetups and events peacebird Nov 2015 #56
Meetups, info tables, and reddits do not Codeine Nov 2015 #61
You missed the bit about phone banking? Oh, and yes door to door walk abouts too. peacebird Nov 2015 #67
You make a good point... CoffeeCat Nov 2015 #109
Conceeding those two primaries creates a route, because the people themselves will see Sanders Agnosticsherbet Nov 2015 #18
I think we can call the polling misleading and barge ahead if the MSM is hailing Clinton there must Todays_Illusion Nov 2015 #21
Giuliani tried that in 2007-2008. It didn't work well: Attorney in Texas Nov 2015 #25
You seem to know alot about previous Republican primaries. DCBob Nov 2015 #26
I know even more about Democratic primaries (with special emphasis on 2008) Attorney in Texas Nov 2015 #30
Should prove useful next time you advocate for Republicans here on du SwampG8r Nov 2015 #32
No kidding? Florida Democrats loves them a repentant Ed Suspicious Nov 2015 #36
yup tbis guy SwampG8r Nov 2015 #122
You are confused as usual.. Crist was running as an Independent. DCBob Nov 2015 #107
he never came near winning SwampG8r Nov 2015 #123
Had Democrats joined forces around the stronger candidate we could have beaten Rubio. DCBob Nov 2015 #124
had "democrats" supported meek the elected dem SwampG8r Nov 2015 #125
Do you not understand Florida state politics?? DCBob Nov 2015 #128
throwing it to the republican by supporti g the democrat? SwampG8r Nov 2015 #131
Your narrow mindset is what gave us Rubio. DCBob Nov 2015 #132
your advocacy for non democrats gave us rubio SwampG8r Nov 2015 #135
The problem with that is that Giuliani's numbers MineralMan Nov 2015 #29
Because as other campaigns were actively campaigning and getting news coverage, Giuliani was on the Attorney in Texas Nov 2015 #33
That would be a good start. Warren Stupidity Nov 2015 #31
I really hope you have the ear of someone important Ed Suspicious Nov 2015 #35
I know absolutely nobody in Clinton's campaign. MineralMan Nov 2015 #47
He would be relying on momentum firebrand80 Nov 2015 #37
I'm not happy about this: Betty Karlson Nov 2015 #38
Its just a discussion, speculation, jeebus. nt BootinUp Nov 2015 #41
Not going to concede that, lol! MoonRiver Nov 2015 #39
Yes. I think she'll win Iowa, too. I'm less sure of New Hampshire. MineralMan Nov 2015 #50
Her internal polling suggests she will win NH. leftofcool Nov 2015 #68
Too close to call for me. MineralMan Nov 2015 #74
Eric Cantor's internal polling suggested a lot of things, too. WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2015 #113
Agree with everything you said. MoonRiver Nov 2015 #89
"We" aren't conceding anything. LWolf Nov 2015 #40
If we had a simultaneous national election, you might have a point. jeff47 Nov 2015 #42
I know this doesn't follow your line of questioning. NCTraveler Nov 2015 #44
That could still happen, of course. MineralMan Nov 2015 #54
I think that is highly unlikely to happen. I think Bernie will do far better than you would like peacebird Nov 2015 #58
I think he could I just don't see it happening after the last two months we have witnessed. NCTraveler Nov 2015 #70
I think a clean sweep is very likely. leftofcool Nov 2015 #71
I'd like to see that too, Codeine Nov 2015 #72
LOL!! You mean the "meh" candidate that 30% of Democrats don't like. Dawgs Nov 2015 #92
There is no realistic plan or path for Bernie. Alfresco Nov 2015 #60
You can concede anything you like... sonofspy777 Nov 2015 #80
In 2008, President Obama outperformed Clinton in the Iowa caucus with superior organization Gothmog Nov 2015 #100
Long run. Super Tuesday is going to pretty much decide both nominations underpants Nov 2015 #101
I am not as sure about this for the GOP primary process Gothmog Nov 2015 #102
I didn't know that underpants Nov 2015 #104
Sanders is likely to win all the blue states. Kalidurga Nov 2015 #108
I won't concede any states to him BainsBane Nov 2015 #110
If Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire and survives Super Tuesday 72DejaVu Nov 2015 #111
I see no other states as possible wins. bravenak Nov 2015 #114
Pipe dream plans Alfresco Nov 2015 #120
You don't get it. And that's ok. berni_mccoy Nov 2015 #121
Not going to happen. :-) BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #126
All the gnashing of teeth and vitriol cannot change the 94% probability that Alfresco Nov 2015 #129
not willing to concede anything to Bernie at this point. Sheepshank Nov 2015 #130
Where's his path to a convention majority? What's his plan? Anyone know? Alfresco Nov 2015 #136
A reality kick Alfresco Dec 2015 #137
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»What if we concede the NH...»Reply #22