Michigan Dem Polls Wrong -WTF?

[August1991]

In the latest, important Dem Primary - Michigan, all the polls said that HRC (Rodham-Clinton) would win.

But the polls were wrong. Sanders won, barely.

Nate Silver and his 538.com posted this:

Bernie Sanders made folks like me eat a stack of humble pie on Tuesday night. He won the Michigan primary over Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 48 percent, when not a single poll taken over the last month had Clinton leading by less than 5 percentage points. In fact, many had her lead at 20 percentage points or higher. Sanders’s win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history.

Link

On the Dem websites, there was discussion about Michigan being an open primary where independents and even Republicans can cross-over and vote in the Democratic primary. (The argument: Rodham-Clinton did badly because of non-Democrats, young people etc, who voted for Sanders.)

=====

I had another thought: Hillary's numbers, and Nate Silver's numbers, may not be accurate in the general in November 2016.

Until proof to the contrary, I'm still going with current numbers: Trump vs Rodham-Clinton for the fall and she wins in November.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Charles Anthony
fixed mal-formed quote

[BC_chick]

Most of the southern states that she won were open primaries. Using your conspiracy theory, it's very possible that the landslide victories were from republican and independents who want to run against the flip-flopping, Wall Street loving establishment who may be indicted on charges before the convention. Maybe they're afraid of honesty and integrity of the Bern.

No, I'm just kidding actually, I really think it was an upset, or perhaps a shift in momentum.

We'll just have to wait and see.

[kimmy]

I read somebody suggest that Michigan has some regulation that polling be done on land-line phones, which would probably skew poll results heavily towards Clinton's direction (a poll of land-line users would be heavily weighted towards older people, as many younger people use cell-phones exclusively.)

I haven't confirmed that Michigan has such a rule, but if it does it could explain why Sanders was so highly underestimated.

The Michigan results aren't out of line with Sanders' results in other northern states. Outside the Deep South he has been very competitive. Sanders won Minnesota as well. Michigan has been battered by the loss of manufacturing jobs, and Clinton is a globe-trotting promoter of trade agreements that haven't worked out well for American workers in manufacturing jobs, so it's not entirely shocking that she wasn't that big of a hit in Michigan.

-k

[segnosaur]

I read somebody suggest that Michigan has some regulation that polling be done on land-line phones, which would probably skew poll results heavily towards Clinton's direction (a poll of land-line users would be heavily weighted towards older people, as many younger people use cell-phones exclusively.)

It is true that reliance on land lines for polling has the potential to skew results towards the 'older' demographics.

But, generally polling companies recognize the problem, and sometime take steps to adjust. (If, for example, it is found that a percentage of younger voters don't have a land line, they will take the percentage of voters in the same age group that do have a land-line, and give their polling opinions more 'weight' to account for the cell-phone non-responders. Its not perfect, but it at least partly fixes the problem.

[Topaz]

You know, those supporting Bernie may not support Clinton when it comes time for the election, especially if Trump is running against Clinton.

[segnosaur]

Depends on why they're supporting Sanders.

If they are supporting him because "He's an outsider" then some may migrate to Trump. But if they are supporting him for any reason related to policy, they'd be more likely to support Hillary than Trump.

[TimG]

If they are supporting him because "He's an outsider" then some may migrate to Trump. But if they are supporting him for any reason related to policy, they'd be more likely to support Hillary than Trump.

Trump is a protectionist/anti-free trade. That appeals to the big labour part of Democratic base. If opposition to free trade was a big thing for someone the Trump would be a better choice than Clinton.

[sharkman]

I read somebody suggest that Michigan has some regulation that polling be done on land-line phones, which would probably skew poll results heavily towards Clinton's direction (a poll of land-line users would be heavily weighted towards older people, as many younger people use cell-phones exclusively.)

I haven't confirmed that Michigan has such a rule, but if it does it could explain why Sanders was so highly underestimated.

The Michigan results aren't out of line with Sanders' results in other northern states. Outside the Deep South he has been very competitive. Sanders won Minnesota as well. Michigan has been battered by the loss of manufacturing jobs, and Clinton is a globe-trotting promoter of trade agreements that haven't worked out well for American workers in manufacturing jobs, so it's not entirely shocking that she wasn't that big of a hit in Michigan.

-k

Wouldn't polling organizations know about a cell phone/landline skewing of the numbers? I'm sure there are all kinds of different factors that can swing results. Time of day calling is done, phrasing of the questions asked as well as this land line factor. Now, I'm not suggesting anything, before you accuse me of something. I'm simply saying that organizations that poll people as their business would know about these and dozens of other factors.

That in spite of this they got it wrong, can't be easily explained away.

[segnosaur]

If they are supporting him because "He's an outsider" then some may migrate to Trump. But if they are supporting him for any reason related to policy, they'd be more likely to support Hillary than Trump.

Trump is a protectionist/anti-free trade. That appeals to the big labour part of Democratic base. If opposition to free trade was a big thing for someone the Trump would be a better choice than Clinton.

Trump is a protectionist who wears Italian suits and outsources manufacture of his clothing line to other countries. He claims hes for "free trade" but wants to implement huge tariffs.

Trump gets his support largely by appealing to the demographic of people who ate lead paint chips as children. His policies are often incoherent and often contradictory, both within themselves and with his past actions.

Edited March 11, 2016 by segnosaur

[August1991]

The Michigan results aren't out of line with Sanders' results in other northern states. Outside the Deep South he has been very competitive....

Kimmy, that's not my point.

You know, those supporting Bernie may not support Clinton when it comes time for the election, especially if Trump is running against Clinton.

Topaz gets my OP.

=====

The question is not whether the Michigan Democratic primary implies that Sanders may defeat Rodham-Clinton, and become the Democrat's candidate for president in November 2016.

My OP is about current polls suggesting that Sanders or Rodham-Clinton will defeat Trump.

The opening post in this thread wondered that if Sanders can defeat Rodham-Clinton in Michigan (despite polls, cross-overs or whatever), then Trump can possibly defeat any Democrat in November - despite what polls suggest now.

Edited March 12, 2016 by August1991

[eyeball]

Trump gets his support largely by appealing to the demographic of people who ate lead paint chips as children.

To be fair though it's more likely they were poisoned by the very corporations that buggered offshore with most of the economy - the thing that's got them so riled up. There'll probably be a time when people come to see that was actually a blessing but a long long time I suspect.

I sure feel for the poor bastards in the even more mal-governed regions of the world that Trump and Clinton's buddies set up shop.

Edited March 18, 2016 by eyeball

[segnosaur]

Trump gets his support largely by appealing to the demographic of people who ate lead paint chips as children.

To be fair though it's more likely they were poisoned by the very corporations that buggered offshore with most of the economy - the thing that's got them so riled up. There'll probably be a time when people come to see that was actually a blessing but a long long time I suspect.

I sure feel for the poor bastards in the even more mal-governed regions of the world that Trump and Clinton's buddies set up shop.

I think you misunderstood my point. Or I'm misunderstanding yours.

My initial response was to the claim that left-wing supporters might flock to Trump if Sanders leaves the race because Trump was anti-free trade.

When I brought up 'eating lead paint chips', I wasn't talking about environmental problems. I was talking about stupidity. As in Trump tends to attract supporters who are not very smart. I could have also said "Trump attracts supporters who's parents were brother and sister and who can play the banjo very well".

Trump's opinions on free trade are all over the place.... he claims he's for free trade, but suggests ending various trade deals. He complains about job loss, yet he outsourced his own work to other countries. Anyone on the political left who isn't an idiot, and is anti-free trade, will probably look at Trump's policies with a bit more skepticism than "Hey he wants to end NAFTA! Lets vote for him".

[Topaz]

IF I were an American, I wouldn't trust anyone working under GW's government, so the Ohio Governor is out and we all know the activities that happen under Bill Clinton and what went down under Hilary, so they are out, so that just leaves who ever wins the GOP and if that's Trump, so be it. The Congress has the power there, so perhaps won't be able to do many of the things he said.

[Lerxst]

Greetings from the US by the way....

Depends on why they're supporting Sanders.

If they are supporting him because "He's an outsider" then some may migrate to Trump. But if they are supporting him for any reason related to policy, they'd be more likely to support Hillary than Trump.

Us Sanders supporters support Sanders. Period. At least many of us do, especially those that followed his career prior to his candidacy. Clinton is pro-everything-that's-wrong-with-this-country. She wants to keep Obama's torch burning, even though the torch was made up of wet towels.

People here call Obama a "socialist". They will also call Clinton a "socialist", even though her policies are even more Conservative than Obama's. Our extreme Right-Wing that has taken over much of our Congress doesn't understand the difference between Socialist and not.. or at least pretends not to in order to appeal to their constituency.

A lot of us see Clinton as more damaging to the country than Trump, for she will just continue us down the same road and we'll be like the frog slowly boiled in a pot of water.

With Sanders, we have a chance to push the "reset" button on our politics and finally have something of a reasonable government, that this country hasn't seen since FDR or even Eisenhower was in office.

If he loses to Clinton, the only other "reset" button we have is Trump. He will inflame so many people that could otherwise care less about politics, that people will be forced to "do something" about him. You'll have Republicans and Democrats working together for the first time in decades, against a common enemy. And you'll have rioters in the street rallying against Trump.

Either way, we'll get our "reset" button, one is just a bit more ambiguous than the other.

Or, going back to the frog for a moment - you can either remove it from the water to end it's suffering pleasantly, or you can flash fry it to end its suffering violently.

According to some later polls, about 30% of us will NOT vote for Clinton if she chea...lie...steal... wins the nomination.