2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSeems like the Clinton camp has a long history of attacking Ann Selzer's Iowa Poll
I was wondering why we're seeing Clinton supporters attempting to discredit Ann Selzer's Iowa Poll. Some are posting misleading information. Selzer has been given an A+ rating by Nate Silver. A rating he's given only three times.
An article from Politico, in 2008--highlights how the Clinton camp (Mark Penn in particular) didn't appreciate Ann Selzer and her last Iowa Poll before the caucuses--that predicted that Barack Obama would handily win the Iowa caucuses due to strong support from Independents and first-time caucus goers.
Penn questioned Selzer's methods. Turns out, Selzer was incredibly accurate.
So, why are Clinton supporters AGAIN--in 2016--attempting to discredit or minimize The Iowa Poll? Could it be that they are afraid of what the results might be--and what they might mean, just as they were in 2008?
It's important to remember that Selzer dives deep with information she releases in this final Iowa Poll before the caucuses. Not only will she give us standard numbers, telling us where the race will be. She also will predict, based on her polling, how many Independents and first-time caucus goers will attend the Iowa caucuses.
Could it be that Hillary and her supporters are attempting to tamp down what this poll means, because they are afraid of what the numbers may show?
Very enlightening read about Mark Penn attempting to spin and discredit Selzer's final Iowa Poll before the 2008 caucuses.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pols-struggle-to-spin-final-iowa-polls
This is interesting too. Selzer talks about Judy Woodruff, using Clinton-camp talking points, trying to discredit her as well.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/selzer/
From the article:
"The interview starts with Woodruff questioning the methodology of Selzers Jan. 1 poll for the Des Moines Register, as Mark Penn, chief strategist for Hillary Clinton, had in a widely circulated email memo.
Woodruff: Todays Iowa poll, its out. Youre assuming that 60 percent of the voters in the Democratic caucuses will be first-time caucus attendees. How did you assume that? Why did you assume it?
Selzer: Well, actually, I assumed nothing. Thats what my data told me. We put our method in place, and we let the voters speak to us.
As Selzer speaks, the camera zooms in close, about the most dramatic shot employed by public television news, until youre staring directly into the auburn-framed face challenging the conventional wisdom of a Clinton dynasty.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)We will learn a lot when it is released today.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)DJ13
(23,671 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)1/3 full?
frylock
(34,825 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Notice the http PBS tag.
Only 200 at most showed up for the event.
Potemkin Village is more accurate than astro turfing in this case
Sorta like what Enron did
In 1998, the energy services company Enron built and maintained a fake trading floor on the 6th story of its downtown Houston headquarters. The trading floor was used to impress Wall Street analysts attending Enron's annual shareholders meeting and even included rehearsals conducted by Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling
Bill playing Golf with Kenneth Lay
from NBC news it says:
Enron did surprisingly well during the Clinton administration netting $1.2 Billion in Government loans
Clinton and Enron
http://talking_points.tripod.com/enron/id9.html
Divernan
(15,480 posts)so I can put it on my FB page. I can picture Hill's handlers like sheep dogs, herding this pathetic turnout into a tight group. "Jam em in there so a closeup makes it look like a crowd!" And typically, at least 50 of tjat "crowd" are Hill's campaign staff. What a pathetic farce her campaign is.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)on Drudgereport which despite its ills is still a good source for breaking news.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)That's just hillary*ous!
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)increasingly desperate. I'd be very surprised if Selzer's poll shows Clinton in the lead. I'm guessing Bernie will be leading by more than the MOE.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)then you can expect that Ann Selzer will be positioned as an imbalanced, unprofessional pollster and her Iowa Poll will be maligned as a tool of Satan.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)But she is very good. I will take her results very seriously, all the while noting that if she's wrong (I believe she was wrong in 2004) that polling is a very difficult and nuanced practice. I've done social research and it's not easy, and with something as volatile as the Iowa caucus, expecting 100% accuracy will only be a setup for failure.
However she is going to have a poll conducted to the highest known standards of social research. It will be a valuable data point, perhaps even more valuable than the current polling. Right now the aggregate of polling indicates a slim but comfortable (roughly 4 point) lead for Clinton. Selzer could match that, or she could say the race is tighter. She could also have Bernie in the lead or Hillary by a larger margin.
I do have to admit I'm worried the final momentum swing has gone in Hillary's favor. Something about the last few days have felt like a stallout, and the last few polls have leaned her way. But the only poll that matters is the one on Monday, and nobody should give up hope until the results for that one is in
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)She's been ahead in some polls too.
However, I fail to see how she has a lead right now. If anything, her campaign is tanking.
And aggregate polling in Iowa right now---would not be accurate. You can't look at polls from 2 and 3 weeks ago (and beyond) and aggregate them with a poll that comes out three days before the caucus--and expect that to tell you where you are NOW.
That's ridiculous. Iowans vote in three days. A highly reliable, accurate poll will give you a good idea of where the race is.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of junk polling out there. It is disheartening. I've seen polling data (from Monmoth, Loras, etc.) that is so obviously flawed and ridiculous. There are some lazy pollsters out there. I've kind of grown wearing of reading into the tall weeds, when a poll is released.
That's why it's so refreshing to find someone like Selzer who is following science-based methodologies and making an attempt to be a professional. That's why I'm looking forward to her findings.
Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #9)
Name removed Message auto-removed
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)These were found after a ten second Google search. There are others out there.
Why would you say, "False" without, at least, doing a simple Google search?
Quinnipiac poll released on Tuesday, January 26. Clinton 49, Sanders 45 (Bernie ahead by 4)
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2319
CBS poll released Monday, January 25--Sanders 47, Clinton 46 (Bernie ahead by 1)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-sanders-catches-clinton-in-iowa-leads-big-in-new-hampshire/
CNN poll released on Sunday, January 24. Sanders 51, Clinton 43 (Bernie ahead by 8)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/iowa-poll-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-ted-cruz/
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Last four polls show Hillary Clinton in the lead, according to Real Clear Politics
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-iowa-presidential-democratic-caucus
Last four polls show Hillary Clinton in the lead, according to Huffington Post
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/#polls-only
Last four polls show Hillary Clinton in the lead, according to 538
BTW, in aggregate polling only the most recent polls are included in the average, the older ones drop off.
Response to CoffeeCat (Original post)
CobaltBlue This message was self-deleted by its author.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)But when you look at the history, I think they are afraid of the results. And who knows, maybe the results will show Clinton winning. Maybe their fears are unfounded.
It appears that accuracy and science-based polling methods is cause for alarm. Concerted alarm.
I find that telling.
I also found Mark Penn's attack on Selzer very telling. After Selzer released her 2008 Iowa Poll--which showed Obama defeating Clinton with a surge of Independent voters and first-time caucus goers--Penn attempted to discredit Selzer. Turns out, Selzer's 2008 caucus predictions were practically prescient.
The Clinton campaign appears to be turning on the same Selzer/Iowa Poll attacks, even before the numbers are released.
I think that's telling--probably for a multitude of reasons.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I haven't seen much of that in all the polling that goes on.
So the numbers are getting released TODAY?? I don't see them anywhere on DU yet.
do you know what time the release is slated for?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Results of the final Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll before the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses will be released at 5:45 p.m. Saturday.
The most recent Iowa Poll, conducted in early January, showed neck-and-neck races between Republicans Ted Cruz and Donald Trump and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in their quests for their partys presidential nominations.
The results will be available at DesMoinesRegister.com and in Sundays editions of the Register.
Des MoinesRegister.com viewers also can watch a livestream at 5:30 p.m. Saturday in which J. Ann Selzer, who conducts the Iowa Poll, will discuss general findings of the poll before horse-race results are announced at 5:45 p.m.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)the skies have opened and this poll came down from heaven and only fools and Hillary fans would dare dispute it.
If it shows Hillary in the lead, its an obvious conspiracy against Bernie and only fools and Hillary fans would believe such an clear pack of lies!
Is that about it?
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)I will view the result as an excellent (but not perfect) snapshot of the race--very close to what it actually is in Iowa.
And I've said multiple times--I have no idea what the result will be. The polls are all over the map right now. Selzer had Clinton ahead by 2 in her last poll, which was released in early January.
I will accept her result as the most scientifically accurate and sound snapshot of the race in Iowa. She's just that accurate.
I'm nervous about this poll being released.
I don't know where your snark is coming from. No one, including myself, has given any indication that if Hillary is winning in the Iowa Poll that the results will be touted; and if Bernie is losing the poll will be dismissed.
I've said the opposite, in fact.
I consider her findings to be sound--regardless of the outcome for Hillary or Sanders.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I'm a lot more cynical than I used to be a few months ago.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)tensions are high right now and the caucuses are about to happen.
We're all a little snarky right now, for sure.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)This poll then the caucus on monday...the tension is getting thick around here eh?
rurallib
(62,411 posts)so am quite interested.
There is a question of some looming weather Monday which could really upset the apple cart.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Looks like we're supposed to get a bit of snow on Sunday and some ice that could make for tricky travel conditions on Sunday.
Then, clear on Monday. No precipitation.
However, sometime on Tuesday a big snowstorm hits. Snow is forecast for Tuesday into Wednesday.
I think the Iowa caucuses dodged a significant bullet with the snow in Iowa!!
http://www.kcci.com/weather/tracking-tuesday-storm-system/37706018
TUESDAY STORM:
The storm everyone is watching is forecast Tuesday through Wednesday morning.
National Weather Service forecasters said moderate to heavy snowfall and strong winds are forecast.
The latest forecast models show at least 1-3 inches across most of Iowa with 6-10 inches possible in some areas, but projected snow totals are still taking shape in the models.
Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)About a 100% increase in voter turnout. Does that sound likely?
An increase in democratic voters that large would mean it wouldn't matter who runs.
Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)nt