Reuters primary polling: tracking thread.

[Ebsy]

Clinton: 55
Sanders: 43

[Flake]

[Eraserhead]

Clinton: 55
Sanders: 43

Those numbers only include Democrats.

[Fusionmunster]

Clinton: 55
Sanders: 43

Those numbers only include Democrats.

No, those are the actual Ipsos numbers.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/ipsos-reuters-23740

[The Other Castro]

Clinton: 55
Sanders: 43

Those numbers only include Democrats.

No, those are the actual Ipsos numbers.

We both posted Ipsos numbers. These are just Democrats, while mine are Democrats and Independents.

[Eraserhead]

If the New Hampshire primary had only included Democrats, Sanders would have won by 4% instead of 22%+.

[IceSpear]

If the New Hampshire primary had only included Democrats, Sanders would have only won by 4%.

But Reuters doesn't narrow it down to "independents who plan to vote in the Democratic primary" or even "Democratic-leaning independents." It's just "independents." Which includes tons of right wingers who have no intention of voting in a Democratic primary. Typical from incompetent Reuters. That's probably why Pollster only uses the numbers among Democrats.

Also, there are a lot of closed primaries/caucuses.

[Ebsy]

If the New Hampshire primary had only included Democrats, Sanders would have only won by 4%.

I don't think Reuters polled New Hampshire, so I am not sure how you can compare it.

[Mike Thick]

[Mehmentum]

The change since last poll numbers I added were actually incorrect, my bad. It's actually:

Clinton - 46% (-1)
Sanders - 44% (+6)

Also, these include Independents.

Conducted Feb. 2-5 following the Iowa caucus:

48% Hillary
45% Bernie

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSMTZSAPEC253J02S1

I don't understand.

[The Other Castro]

The change since last poll numbers I added were actually incorrect, my bad. It's actually:

Clinton - 46% (-1)
Sanders - 44% (+6)

Also, these include Independents.

Conducted Feb. 2-5 following the Iowa caucus:

48% Hillary
45% Bernie

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSMTZSAPEC253J02S1

I don't understand.

I used the most recently published pdf on HuffPost Pollster. Reuters is confusing since they have tracking polls as well as periodically published articles.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/2016Reutersipsos.pdf

[Eraserhead]

If the New Hampshire primary had only included Democrats, Sanders would have only won by 4%.

But Reuters doesn't narrow it down to "independents who plan to vote in the Democratic primary" or even "Democratic-leaning independents." It's just "independents." Which includes tons of right wingers who have no intention of voting in a Democratic primary. Typical from incompetent Reuters. That's probably why Pollster only uses the numbers among Democrats.

Also, there are a lot of closed primaries/caucuses.

Well, a poll that includes only registered Democrats is even less helpful since many of the primaries and caucuses are open or semi-open.

[Mehmentum]

The change since last poll numbers I added were actually incorrect, my bad. It's actually:

Clinton - 46% (-1)
Sanders - 44% (+6)

Also, these include Independents.

Conducted Feb. 2-5 following the Iowa caucus:

48% Hillary
45% Bernie

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSMTZSAPEC253J02S1

I don't understand.

I used the most recently published pdf on HuffPost Pollster. Reuters is confusing since they have tracking polls as well as periodically published articles.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/2016Reutersipsos.pdf

Ah, okay I see my confusion.  The previous pdf was published pre-Iowa, but Tender's post was using the numbers post Iowa.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Clinton: 55
Sanders: 43

Those numbers only include Democrats.

And I'm not terribly discouraged by them...

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Clinton: 55
Sanders: 43

Those numbers only include Democrats.

And I'm not terribly discouraged by them...

Great numbers for Sanders! As much as democrats don't like counting independants they are going to vote for the one that isn't bought.

[Shadows]

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/12/1484385/-Bernie-Surges-12-Clinton-Falls-11-in-Reuters-LV-Tracking-Poll-Sanders-Gains-13-With-Af-Ams
Reuters’ “likely democratic primary voter” screen excludes all self-identified independents, even though self identified independents made up about 24% of the electorate in the 2008 primaries. Even in a state with ultra-closed primaries like New York, exit polls say that self-identified Independents made up 12% of the electorate (with another 1% self-identified Republicans).

This is what the data in the polls say -

Sanders Gains 12% Nationally
Clinton looses 11% Nationally
Total Swing - 20%
Clinton leads Sanders by 8%

African Americans
Sanders Gains 13%
Clinton Looses 11%
Total Swings - 24%
Clinton leads 21%

Don't know how authentic but these are great numbers for Bernie, huge improvement & this does not consider independents. With independents, imagine what the figure would look like

[Zanas]

Clinton 54
Sanders 46

Among Blacks :
Clinton 58
Sanders 37

If this is anywhere near the reality, the race just went full Tossup, and Clinton will soon be facing the "2008 all over again" narrative. She needs to win SC big.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Clinton 54
Sanders 46

Among Blacks :
Clinton 58
Sanders 37

If this is anywhere near the reality, the race just went full Tossup, and Clinton will soon be facing the "2008 all over again" narrative. She needs to win SC big.

What's a big win in SC?  I think if Sanders keeps it to within 15% that he walks away relatively unscathed and it's off to Super Tuesday to make a run at Texas.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Clinton 54
Sanders 46

Among Blacks :
Clinton 58
Sanders 37

If this is anywhere near the reality, the race just went full Tossup, and Clinton will soon be facing the "2008 all over again" narrative. She needs to win SC big.

Amazing numbers for Sanders if true. With Sanders lead among whites this could change everything.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bernie leads women 51.0-40.6!

LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Bernie leads women 51.0-40.6!

LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

As if that isn't enough evidence that this poll is nonsense. But you'll grasp at whatever straws you can.

[Holmes]

Bernie leads women 51.0-40.6!

LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

At least you have Reuters to cling to. Good for you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bernie leads women 51.0-40.6!

LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

At least you have Reuters to cling to. Good for you.

I don't actually think Bernie has a double digit lead with women. But still cool.

[Ebsy]

Reuters won't help you in South Carolina.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Looks like Clinton is collapsing.

Sanders 47%
Clinton 44%