Poll: Clinton 6 points ahead of Sanders in Iowa

[riversedge]

Source: cnn


Poll: Clinton 6 points ahead of Sanders in Iowa
Eric Bradner

By Eric Bradner, CNN

Updated 8:18 AM ET, Tue January 26, 2016



Des Moines, Iowa (CNN)Hillary Clinton has a 6 percentage point lead over Bernie Sanders in Iowa, a new poll out just one week before the state's caucuses shows.

The Fox News survey shows Clinton with 48% support to Sanders' 42% and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's 3%.

The poll is the first since mid-December that meet's CNN's polling standards and shows Clinton with a sizable lead over Sanders. It could signal that momentum is swinging back in Clinton's direction after Sanders surged into the lead in early January.

..........................

Clinton still holds significant advantages as the contest shifts from Iowa and New Hampshire to Nevada and South Carolina, two states with much larger minority populations -- among whom Clinton leads.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-iowa-fox-poll/

---

@HillaryClinton shaking hands with audience members tonight after #DemTownHall http://twitter.com/JDiamond1/status/691838119147130880/photo/1

[JackRiddler]

1. Go, FOXNEWS! Yes we can!

I thought the current Clintonista talking point was that Republican vehicles, Rove, etc., are secretly supporting Sanders? How does this fit? Wait, maybe FOX just did a straight unbiased poll, right? Ha ha ha.

[Bubzer]

4. +1

[karynnj]

7. Gee - does this mean we need to chime in that this is FOX secreting supporting HRC

in the last week before Iowa.

Or, do we simply say they commissioned a poll from professional pollsters and it is better news for HRC than some others. I kind of thing this is the right thing to say -- and to note that polling for a caucus is not easily done. The turnout model decided on really determines the winner in this close race. We won't know until the caucus, who actually comes out.

[JackRiddler]

13. Who knows?

I was just having fun with one of the recent bizarre claims from the HRC camp.

You make the larger point that polling for a caucus- for a primary, in fact- cannot be accurate. It's important for establishing who's in the single digits and who's contending, at best. It's used for momentum, so that's important. But unlike the accuracy with general elections, these endless primary and especially caucus polls tell very little. It's all about who is motivated on the day, a thousand intangibles. I like Sanders' chances, sure. That's about all one can say.

[LanternWaste]

12. Truly, yours is an analysis accurately illustrating the full width

Yours is a most creative spin. I especially enjoyed the petulant 'Clintonista' bit... it's overly-emotional and a bit shrill, yet still bemusing in your unique, Joe DeRita style of insight and keen perspicacity.

Truly, yours is an analysis accurately illustrating the full width of its own buffoonery.

[JackRiddler]

14. Oh, I am cut!

Bleeding, I tell ya! Put this momma's boy to bed! Gurgle splat!

[still_one]

16. Then I guess by your view Nate Silver must be wrong also

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/


In other words, if the poll results don't support your candidate, they must be fixed or wrong

Here is the fox poll details:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/01/25/fox-news-poll-sanders-narrows-gap-in-iowa/

It was conducted under the following direction:
The Fox News Poll is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R).

Fox News/Anderson Robbins Research/Shaw & Company Research is rated by Nate Silver a B

I would assume that you would feel the same way about this pollster in NH that has Sanders winning, huh

Perhaps, if some actually looked at the details of the pollster, instead of making conclusions based on bullshit, a more productive conversation might ensue.

[JackRiddler]

24. Nate Silver isn't god...

but I'm sure he'd agree that the value of polls in predicting close caucus results is close to nil. Me, I'm just having fun seeing how Foxnews is Bernie's friend if he's ahead in their poll, but if Clinton's ahead, then of course it's legit.

[still_one]

28. Of course he isn't, but he's been pretty good in his assessment. There is no doubt that Iowa is

close. In fact based on all the polls for Iowa and NH, I would say both states are close, and the volatility of the polls express that

[litlbilly]

43. Nate's polls are based on all the polls together. the problem with that is

it doesn't take into account any new voters. His methodology is outdated and I think he knows that.

[Beacool]

38. Please, we all dislike FOX.

They are not in the business of helping Hillary, quite the contrary.

[JackRiddler]

44. Probably not.

But the current bullshit narrative of the Clinton camp on DU is that the Republicans want to help Sanders.

In any case, polls prior to caucuses mean very little.

[John Poet]

45. Looks like FOX NEWS wants Clinton to win in Iowa,

because she'll be easier for them to beat in the general election (and they would be right about that).

[SheenaR]

2. When Sanders supporters touted a recent Fox News Poll, they were laughed at n/t

[still_one]

17. This particular Fox poll directed by Robbins Research/Shaw & co, is rated "B" by Nate Silver

It isn't a bad poll.

The same pollster shows Sanders' ahead in NH. I wonder if they would say the same thing?

Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing.

[SheenaR]

36. And this is why I cannot deal with your side

I did not say it was a bad poll. I said that we were laughed at last time we touted a Fox poll. Because it was "right wing sponsored nonsense". Not for the methodology. Pump the brakes.

[still_one]

46. I never said you did, and the hypocrisy I addressed to "they", referring to those in the thread

who touted the very thing you just pointed out.

"YOUR SIDE"

LOL

[quickesst]

39. And Sanders supporters defended it

... vehemently.

[SheenaR]

40. You are correct

But missing my point. Why is it now ok for your side to tout this poll? You should be able to. Just like we were. Only we got shit for it. That is what you are missing.

[quickesst]

41. Because we're on the side...

... Of Truth, Justice, and the American Way!!

Seriously though, I believe you missed the point of my post. Given Bernie's supporters defense of said source, they should be applauding the result of this poll. Instead, they are tearing it down, which would render their defense of fox's positive polls and opinions regarding Bernie, a contradiction.

[George II]

3. Factoring in the geographic aspects of the Iowa caucuses and how delegates are earned....

....I'm sure she's further ahead than just six percent vote-wise.

I see her getting 24 or 25 of Iowa's 46 delegates.

[SheenaR]

6. I'll take a 24-22 or 25-21 loss

I do not believe Iowa is must win. I believe it is must "come out with momentum"

[karynnj]

9. That would be pretty much a tie --

Obviously not what was expected even last fall - and, as many have said, this is against a very surprising candidate. I suspect that this shows that there really was ample room for a strong, more mainstream not Hillary candidate - before the Bernie surge. I hope we don't regret that the entire power structure backed her starting in 2013 to preclude others from even considering it.

[SunSeeker]

5. K & R

[jeff47]

8. When Fox poll shows Sanders ahead, FOX BAD!! When Fox poll shows Clinton ahead.... (nt)

[FrenchieCat]

11. I think its possible that Fox just wants Bernie Supporters

to get even more revved up then they already are?

If your supporters saw you ahead and then drop back down....what would those supporters conclude: We really got to go in there and show them!....that's what I would do.

Just Saying....although I do support Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in these primaries.....

[jeff47]

21. Well, CNN didn't bother to provide any link to Fox's methodology

for this poll (the Fox link just goes to a video or something else Flash-based that I won't load). And I'd suspect methodology far more than a conspiracy to tweak the results. For example, one of the recent polls that was posted to DU had around 70% of the respondents over 60.

[still_one]

31. They did. I don't know if you hyperlinks are working, but it was here:

"Des Moines, Iowa (CNN)Hillary Clinton has a 6 percentage point lead over Bernie Sanders in Iowa, a new poll out just one week before the state's caucuses shows.

The Fox News survey shows Clinton with 48% support to Sanders' 42% and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's 3%"

where "The Fox News survey shows" was the hyperlink, colored in light blue, that when selected takes you to the details here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/01/25/fox-news-poll-sanders-narrows-gap-in-iowa/.

[jeff47]

32. That's the video/flash based thing I mentioned.

Flash is a horrific security hole. Don't use it.

[still_one]

34. That may be, but my point was the hyperlink was there, and it took you here

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/01/25/fox-news-poll-sanders-narrows-gap-in-iowa/

[FrenchieCat]

42. Of course polls are manipulated all of the time

Last edited Tue Jan 26, 2016, 04:35 PM - Edit history (1)

including the ones that shows Bernie Sanders beating some Republicans, before even a single primary vote is cast and before he is actually vetted, in the way that he will be.

They had John McCain beating Barack Obama by +6 to +12 right prior to the Iowa caucus in 2008. So yes I agree with you, polls are certainly manipulate it, and I read that it has to do with who they call and when they call and where those folks reside.

[stonecutter357]

10. K&R!

[Lorien]

15. Who the hell are they polling, and what's the sample size?

one hundred "Democrats" who donated to the DNC does not an honest poll make.

[still_one]

19. It is an accurate pollster. You don't like it because you don't like the results

Here is Nate Silvers' take on Iowa:


http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/


In other words, if the poll results don't support your candidate, they must be fixed or wrong

Here is the fox poll details:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/01/25/fox-news-poll-sanders-narrows-gap-in-iowa/

It was conducted under the following direction:
The Fox News Poll is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R).

Fox News/Anderson Robbins Research/Shaw & Company Research is rated by Nate Silver a B

I would assume that you would feel the same way about this pollster in NH that has Sanders winning, huh

[jeff47]

22. It's such an accurate pollster...the OP didn't link to them.

Instead, using a CNN story about Fox's poll.

[still_one]

26. and I provided the appropriate links to the details, including Nate Silvers' rating of a B. The

reason the OP linked CNN, which you can follow their links to the fox poll details, is because the story he read was reported by CNN.

Does that bother you?

Then I guess the same will go with Nate Silvers' analysis, and any poll that doesn't agree with what you want.

Thanks for making me laugh today, I needed it

[jeff47]

29. No, what bothers me is the obvious hypocrisy.

This particular poster has attacked Fox lots and lots in the past. Now they use a CNN story in an attempt to de-Fox a Fox poll.

The CNN story included the link to the Fox poll, so the OP could have easily posted the actual poll instead of a story about the poll. Instead, they made sure their post would say "Source: CNN" instead of "Source Fox News".

[brooklynite]

18. I am willing to stipulate that the Iowa race will be close...

...and will depend on turnout operations. That's why I'm comfortable that Clinton will finish first.

[still_one]

23. Of course it will be close

[redstateblues]

20. The Comeback Kid

[hoosierlib]

25. Context

The polling data is over a week old and was conducted using random dailing of numbers from the active voter list with a specific geographic breakdown (i.e. a computer dialed numbers until it got enough responses from a specific area and then it moved onto the next). Take it with a grain of salt...

[jeff47]

27. Computer dial = zero cell phones.

And if they didn't have live operators to actually ask the questions, that's even worse.

[hoosierlib]

30. Supposedly...

It was 70% land line and 30% cell phone...how they can claim to get an accurate geographic sample using cell numbers is beyond me...

[jeff47]

33. Then they broke federal law.

You can't have a computer dial a cell phone. A human has to type in the numbers.

[FloridaBlues]

35. i bet she will win Iowa by 6-7 points easily

Than she will close the gap in NH but BS will eek out that state.
Than its all over but the crying for the Bern going into rest of primary season.
He went rather negitive last night which probably didn't help him with Iowa voters there were a few groans in the audience when he did that last night

[Beacool]

37. Frankly, I don't think that anyone knows who's going to win in IA.

It's a notoriously hard state to poll. At this point, I think that it can go either way.

Of the two candidates, I think that Sanders needs the state the most because it would make him a viable candidate who could extend the primaries for some time. Hillary needs it less, but would like to win to stop Sanders' momentum. O'Malley has zero chance of winning anywhere.

In the long run, barring some eventuality, I still am of the opinion that Hillary will be the nominee.

[still_one]

47. of course not. This is typical political sparing. I also agree with your assessment of how things

will final be determined for the nomination

[riversedge]

48. yes, I rather

agree with you. Polls are up and down in Iowa