There was a lot made from a quinnipac poll today, and how Hillary is losing by 7 to 8 points among

[still_one]

bush, rubio, and Walker.

Here is another poll released today from PPP which has slightly different perspective:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_72215.pdf

"On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton leads with 57% to 22% for Bernie Sanders, 5% for Jim Webb, 3% for Lincoln Chafee, and 2% for Martin O'Malley. This does represent some tightening compared to a month ago- Clinton's gone from 65% to 57%, with Sanders gaining from 9% to 22%. Martin O'Malley's announcement bump has also faded, with his support dropping from 5% to 2%.
Clinton may be up by 35 points instead of 56 this month, but she's still pretty dominant across demographic lines. She is polling over 60% with liberals and seniors, and over 5o% with moderates, men, women, whites, and younger voters. Her area of greatest strength though is with African Americans, where she gets 82% to 6% for Sanders and 3% for Webb.
Clinton is in pretty good shape when it comes to potential general election match ups as well. She leads all of the potential Republican candidates by anywhere from 3 to 13 points, comparable to a month ago when her advantages over them ranged from 3 to 7 points. The Republican who comes closest to Clinton is Rand Paul, who trails by 3 at 45/42. Also coming close are Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker all of whom trail by an identical 5 point margin at 46/41."

We also tested Bernie Sanders against the key Republicans and he trails all of them except Trump. His deficits are 7 points against Jeb Bush (44/37), 5 points against Marco Rubio (41/36), and 1 point against Scott Walker (40/39). Against Trump, Sanders leads 47/37. On average Sanders does 8 points worse than Clinton against the Republicans in these head to head match ups.
Public Policy Polling surveyed 1,087 voters nationally, including 524 Republican primary voters and 496 Democratic primary voters, on July 20th and 21st. The margin of error for the overall survey is +/-3.0%, for the Republicans it’s +/-4.3%, and for the Democrats it’s +/-4.4%. 80% of participants responded via the phone, while 20% of respondents who did not have landlines conducted the survey over the internet.

Since there seems to be a pissing contest going on between the Hillary and Bernie camps let me add a little more information:

Here is the breakdown from quinnipac poll in Colorado:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ps/sco07222015_demos_Sg86de.pdf

Here is the breakdown from quinnipac poll in Iowa:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ps/sia07222015_demos_Sg86de.pdf

Here is the breakdown from quinnipac poll in Virginia:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ps/sva07222015_demos_Sg86de.pdf

Another interesting piece of data is that in Virginia the poll indicated those surveyed did not know enough about Webb or Gilmore. I find that actually quite amazing since both Webb and Gilmore are from Virginia, and ran for elected office in that state.

So here we have two pollsters with different results around the same time frame.

Incidentally PPP was one of the most accurate of the pollsters in 2012:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/266615-study-finds-ppp-kos-the-most-accurate-pollsters-in-2012

To add more fuel to the fire, from the DailyKOS in 2014 they questioned the accuracy of Quinnipac:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/17/1330418/-Why-you-shouldn-t-freak-out-about-Quinnipiac-s-new-polls#

For those that don't remember that election:

Gov. John Hickenlooper defeats Bob Beauprez to claim re-election victory. The Democrat won.

In Iowa it was a different story however:

Quinnipiac has Republican Joni Ernst up 50-44 on Democrat Bruce Braley, and Ernst did win.

So we had one right and one wrong. Anyone have a coin.

So PPP rated as the most accurate in 2012.

However, in 2014, quinnipiac was rated quite well for accuracy.

So here is my suggestion:

Bernie supporters, swear by quinnipiac, and for Hillary supporters swear by PPP, until of course the next poll results behave differently, and then choose accordingly.

I hope I made myself clear?????????

[Kalidurga]

1. Bernie supporters, swear by quinnipiac, and for Hillary supporters swear by PPP

It's rather early to care about any poll. At this point all of them should carry a disclaimer *for entertainment purposes only*

[still_one]

2. Agreed, but it won't stop each side

[Kalidurga]

3. Yeah I know

everyone is too busy acting out rage issues lately to talk to each other. But, they will post polls cuz "WINNING".

[BlueMTexpat]

4. I'm certainly not letting any early polls

get under my skin, however they show my preferred candidate doing.

But thanks for posting these links. It's is interesting to see what they say.

[jeff47]

5. If you really want to talk about nuances of polling, pointing out one poll is national

and one poll is swing states would be pretty important.

Clinton winning by more in NY and Sanders losing by more in AL aren't going to swing the general election.

Yes, polls this early are going to be wrong. The only meaning they really have is to show the current trend. The difference between results in the same poll tell you who appears to be moving up or down. But this far from the election, there is plenty of time to reverse any trend.

But if one group is going to base their argument on "my candidate is winning RIGHT NOW", then the results of individual polls are going to be thrown about to support that argument.

[still_one]

8. I agree, you just articulated my point much better. However, I cannot believe than anyone who is

saying they will vote for bush, rubio, or walker, in a poll is going to vote for ANY Democrat.

What also was amusing to me anyway, was that Virginia respondents indicated they didn't know enough about Webb or Gilmore.

I found that unbelievable since those candidates have been elected to state wide office in Virginia. At least in Virginia, it sure isn't very complementary toward the Virginians polled.

[jeff47]

9. Senate is not Presidency.

One-of-99 is an entirely different situation than one-of-one. What Webb did/would do in the Senate is not the same as what he would do in the White House.

It's still the same guy, but the jobs are extremely different. And Webb's campaign isn't exactly getting a lot of media coverage to get the word out on what he would do in the White House.

[still_one]

10. It is a state wide election, like the election for a presidency, except it directly effect the state

I know exactly where MY senators on the issues, and they are not covered everyday in the MSM.

If they cannot determine within their state, where elected officials from that state are coming from they are NOT a very informed group. You and I will disagree on this one.

[jeff47]

11. You know where your senators are on the issues _in the Senate_.

That isn't necessarily the same as the issues in the White House. The White House gig is much broader, does not allow for specialization, and allows for much more effect on "steering" policy than being one of 100 Senators. Slight variations on position in the Senate get "normalized" just by having 99 other people also voting.

If either of my Senators ran for the White House, I would have a lot more policy questions*. Because the difference in the job means things that are minor nuances in the Senate become big changes.

(* Well, I would if they weren't both Republicans)

[still_one]

12. They cross over. In fact the Iran hearings are a perfect example of that. We just disagree

[WI_DEM]

6. I'm no big Hillary fan but that Q-poll demographic was overly

favorable to the GOP.

[still_one]

7. It did have a slight bias in more republican called, but my point was is that I am quite skeptical

all the polls

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. That Q poll was bad for Democrats period

All of the Republicans were leading in those states. I'm personally calling it an outlier unless other polls start to trend in the same direction.