IBD/TIPP is one of those pollsters that’s on my personal watch list for having produced outlying results. At the end of September, they had Trump’s support at 17%, for instance, which is at least four points lower than anyone else has had it since mid-August. So I pretty much only trust them as corroboration for other polls, and take a wait-and-see attitude towards any unusual or outlying results they publish.
Polling a two-horse race is a whole lot different to the bogus GOP nonsense.
Kind of interesting HRC started to slide at the same time vs. Obama: the erstwhile disengaged starting to be drawn in a little?
THe national poll wouldn’t mean much even if it was accurate. What does matter is Iowa, and Sanders is starting to look like he could win Iowa again. If he wins Iowa, he wins NH, and then what happens in Nevada and South Carolina? Do voters behave differently from past behavior and ignore the Big Mo?
It’s potentially indicative of a trend. At least I think that’s the discussion.
Definitely a trend:
Her last four polls were 43, 54, 46, and 50
Prior to that, she was 61, 56, 56, 59, 59, 56, 52, 56,51, 58, 60
Even without the IBD poll she’s definitely lost a few points nationally and in the early primary states.
I think he wants to do as much as he can to get the policies he likes into place. At the time he entered the race, he probably expected that this would just be tugging the party leftward, as you say, but he’s been doing better than expected, such that actually winning is looking plausible, albeit at a long shot.
“Sucking Koch Cock No Luck For Cucks” would be the headline.
Neoliberal circles may have acquired the term from MRA & PUA communities, but that’s where it was first popularized, as a synonym for losers.
Now that’s a bit more solid.
But yeah, I basically downweight Rasmussen, ARG, Gravis, IBD/TIPP, and any pollster that suddenly appears without any apparent history. And I’m still waiting on Iowa to see whether the conventional polls or the online polls have a better idea of what Trump’s support looks like, but that’s a discussion best suited for one of the GOP race threads.
major banks and Wall Street houses have invested hundreds of millions in HRC’s campaign-they want a good return on their investment. Sanders will not win-that is for sure.
I don’t think he will either, but if the Democratic voters don’t want Clinton, they don’t want Clinton. That’s why O’Malley’s hanging out I think. He figures if Clinton becomes unelectable that he’s the only guy the party can turn to. So it probably won’t be Sanders, but the party might find a way to avoid nominating Sanders. But if they make a move, it has to be before Super Tuesday. If Sanders wins IA and NH, but Clinton wins NV and SC convincingly, okay, we’re still on schedule for a Clinton nomination. But if Sanders’ momentum gets him a win in NV ,or Clinton only narrowly beats him in both of those states(10 points or less), then the party’s got a problem.
O’Malley is a low-energy loser and a shill-very few of Sanders’s supporters are going to want him even over Clinton. Sanders isn’t going to win Iowa either.
Neoliberal circles? Don’t you mean anti-neoliberal, populist circles?
Bernie’s gains might have something to do with the recent revelation that the FBI is investigating Hillary for possible public corruption charges. This is in addition to the e-mail invesigation, and involves the Clinton Foundation.
Honestly, do you Dems really want to put up with another 4 years of this crap? Seriously, what makes her so uniquely desirable as a president that it’s worth putting up with the considerable baggage she brings along with her?
Thank you for your concern, Diceman. It’s nice to know that conservatives are so concerned about all the possible problems a Hillary nomination will cause for the Democrats. I mean, any day now one of these scandals is bound to stick to her, right? We’ve had 20 years of phony Hillary scandals that haven’t stuck to her, so she’s overdue.
You don’t call her low approval rating “sticking”?
From the article:“three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News”. Same old shit, different day.
What is uniquely desirable (and this is said as someone who doesn’t even strongly support her) is her ability to drive the GOP insane. Watching 8 years of failed “scandal” after “scandal” is the primary reason I support her.
When she’s actually indicted for something, let me know.
She may drive us insane, but she’s still a Clinton. We can do business with Clinton. Last time we cut the federal workforce, cut welfare, cut overall spending, made free trade agreements, and deregulated several major industries. Heck, we even got him to agree to sell gays down the river!
And that was a skilled politician. Imagine what we can do with the less skilled Clinton.
Chelsea’s out there saying that Bernie Sanders “wants to dismantle Obamacare, CHIP, and Medicare”
I see the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree when it comes to easily spouting untruths.