|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 11, 2020, 12:54:19 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls
  MN-PPP: Walker +1% over Trump, Clinton +18% over Sanders
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: MN-PPP: Walker +1% over Trump, Clinton +18% over Sanders  (Read 2928 times)
JRP1994
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,884


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 04, 2015, 02:15:27 pm »

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/walker-clinton-lead-in-minnesota-general-looks-like-2004.html
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,958
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.23, S: -7.48

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2015, 02:26:55 pm »

Walker has this Midwest advantage going for him.
Logged
#TheShadowyAbyss
LibertarianRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,578
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -3.64


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2015, 02:58:00 pm »

Deez Nuts.....wtf
Logged
Skye
yeah_93
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802
Venezuela


Political Matrix
E: 3.29, S: -1.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2015, 04:46:36 pm »

The fact that Walker is only up by 1 against Trump makes you wonder how good were his numbers before the Trump surged.
Logged
Deranged California Suburbanite
Fubart Solman
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,757
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2015, 06:48:27 pm »


Is it one of those things that they include in polls to see how much the top two are hated?

Also, 32% for Sanders is awesome.
Logged
Dr. RI, Trustbuster
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,422
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -0.39, S: 4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2015, 08:40:45 pm »


Is it one of those things that they include in polls to see how much the top two are hated?

No, there actually is a candidate by the name of "Deez Nuts" running for President.
Logged
Deranged California Suburbanite
Fubart Solman
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,757
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2015, 08:53:25 pm »


Oh dear God.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,895
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2015, 09:20:47 pm »

Walker 1% ahead of Trump here, huh?  I wonder where things stand in Iowa.  IIRC, our last poll from Iowa had Trump leading big, but it was Gravis.  I'd like to see a better pollster give us another Iowa poll soon.

EDIT: Just looked it up.  The last non-Gravis poll of Iowa was NBC/Marist, which was July 14-21, and had Walker up 2 over Trump.  We need a new one!
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,895
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2015, 09:24:29 pm »

On the GOP side, who leads among...?

moderate: Bush
somewhat conservative: Bush/Walker tie
very conservative: Walker
men: Trump
women: Walker
age 18-45: Trump
age 46-65: Walker
age 65+: Walker
Logged
Solidarity Forever
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2015, 04:38:46 am »

Trump is leading among young people - more evidence that they're all trolling the pollsters?
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,895
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2015, 04:51:07 am »

Trump is leading among young people - more evidence that they're all trolling the pollsters?

I think that's jumping to conclusions.  Trump doing better among younger than older primary voters seems plausible to me since 1) low information voters are probably disproportionately young, and 2) younger voters are less likely to value experience.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 43,591
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2015, 08:13:22 pm »
« Edited: August 05, 2015, 09:08:16 pm by Eraserhead »

If Clinton v. Sanders actually becomes competitive nationally, Sanders would crush it here of course for so many reasons.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,895
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2015, 08:57:47 pm »

If Clinton v. Sanders actually become competitive nationally, Sanders would crush it here of course for so many reasons.

One reason being that this is a caucus state.  Clinton seriously underperformed compared to the polls in caucus states back in 2008.

If Clinton vs. Sanders became competitive, Sanders would likely have the edge in low turnout caucuses, like MN and WA.  (Iowa's different because the turnout tends to be quite high by the standards of caucuses.)
Logged
mds32
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,083
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2015, 01:24:49 pm »

Sanders at 32% in Minnesota? I wonder what he gets in Wisconsin, at the convention he nearly beat Clinton in the Straw Poll so it is possible he is at 35% to 40% there.
Logged
Brewer
BrewerPaul
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,623


Political Matrix
E: -6.90, S: -6.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2015, 12:49:46 am »

If Clinton v. Sanders actually becomes competitive nationally, Sanders would crush it here of course for so many reasons.

Probably true and I weep because of it. Cry
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,021
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 09, 2015, 12:49:16 am »

If Clinton v. Sanders actually become competitive nationally, Sanders would crush it here of course for so many reasons.

One reason being that this is a caucus state.  Clinton seriously underperformed compared to the polls in caucus states back in 2008.

If Clinton vs. Sanders became competitive, Sanders would likely have the edge in low turnout caucuses, like MN and WA.  (Iowa's different because the turnout tends to be quite high by the standards of caucuses.)


I have taken part in two Minnesota presidential caucuses. They are caucuses in name only. They are basically just primaries where some people choose to hang around until the votes are counted. Clinton does poorly in Minnesota because Minnesota Democrats are very liberal, not because it's a caucus state.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,895
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 09, 2015, 01:04:16 am »

If Clinton v. Sanders actually become competitive nationally, Sanders would crush it here of course for so many reasons.

One reason being that this is a caucus state.  Clinton seriously underperformed compared to the polls in caucus states back in 2008.

If Clinton vs. Sanders became competitive, Sanders would likely have the edge in low turnout caucuses, like MN and WA.  (Iowa's different because the turnout tends to be quite high by the standards of caucuses.)


I have taken part in two Minnesota presidential caucuses. They are caucuses in name only. They are basically just primaries where some people choose to hang around until the votes are counted. Clinton does poorly in Minnesota because Minnesota Democrats are very liberal, not because it's a caucus state.

I understand that the process isn't very caucus-like, but don't the MN caucuses tend to have turnout which is lower than most primary states, and more similar to what you see in caucus states?  Clinton did underperform her pre-election polling in caucus states, including Minnesota, back in 2008, and I'm assuming that part of the reason is that turnout in caucus states is so low, making the polling less reliable.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,021
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 09, 2015, 01:42:47 am »

If Clinton v. Sanders actually become competitive nationally, Sanders would crush it here of course for so many reasons.

One reason being that this is a caucus state.  Clinton seriously underperformed compared to the polls in caucus states back in 2008.

If Clinton vs. Sanders became competitive, Sanders would likely have the edge in low turnout caucuses, like MN and WA.  (Iowa's different because the turnout tends to be quite high by the standards of caucuses.)


I have taken part in two Minnesota presidential caucuses. They are caucuses in name only. They are basically just primaries where some people choose to hang around until the votes are counted. Clinton does poorly in Minnesota because Minnesota Democrats are very liberal, not because it's a caucus state.

I understand that the process isn't very caucus-like, but don't the MN caucuses tend to have turnout which is lower than most primary states, and more similar to what you see in caucus states?  Clinton did underperform her pre-election polling in caucus states, including Minnesota, back in 2008, and I'm assuming that part of the reason is that turnout in caucus states is so low, making the polling less reliable.


Just look at the vote totals and you can see that it's not a caucus. In the 2008 Iowa caucus, Obama's winning total was 940. In the 2008 Minnesota "caucus", it was 142,109. The later is obviously based on individual votes not precincts or state delegates.

Minnesota does appear to have much lower turnout than some other states, Wisconsin for example. Wisconsin had about a million votes in the 2008 primary while Minnesota had only about 200,000.

I have no idea why that is.

I just have vivid memories of Hillary apologists in 2008 blaming her loss in Minnesota on it being a caucus and I was like "lol no".
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,895
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 09, 2015, 01:55:48 am »

Just look at the vote totals and you can see that it's not a caucus. In the 2008 Iowa caucus, Obama's winning total was 940. In the 2008 Minnesota "caucus", it was 142,109. The later is obviously based on individual votes not precincts or state delegates.

I understand that the procedure is more like a primary than a caucus.  But the turnout is still more caucus-like, as far as I can tell.  Yes, the Iowa caucus #s are state delegates rather than votes.  The actual turnout for Iowa caucuses is actually pretty high, by the standards of caucuses (presumably because Iowa is first and it gets tons of media attention).  That's why the polls there are actually not that bad.  But the polls in other caucus states are usually pretty terrible, and I think it's largely because the turnout is terrible.  It's hard to model turnout when the universe of likely caucus-goers is such a small %age of the total adult population.
Logged
Adriano Chiká
AdrianoChika
Rookie
**
Posts: 64
Brazil


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 09, 2015, 09:36:04 am »

Perhaps the debate has changed this in favor of Trump. The Walker's performance did not seem a good performance.
Logged
RJEvans
MasterRegal
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 496
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2015, 12:34:24 pm »

If Clinton v. Sanders actually become competitive nationally, Sanders would crush it here of course for so many reasons.

One reason being that this is a caucus state.  Clinton seriously underperformed compared to the polls in caucus states back in 2008.

If Clinton vs. Sanders became competitive, Sanders would likely have the edge in low turnout caucuses, like MN and WA.  (Iowa's different because the turnout tends to be quite high by the standards of caucuses.)


I have taken part in two Minnesota presidential caucuses. They are caucuses in name only. They are basically just primaries where some people choose to hang around until the votes are counted. Clinton does poorly in Minnesota because Minnesota Democrats are very liberal, not because it's a caucus state.

I understand that the process isn't very caucus-like, but don't the MN caucuses tend to have turnout which is lower than most primary states, and more similar to what you see in caucus states?  Clinton did underperform her pre-election polling in caucus states, including Minnesota, back in 2008, and I'm assuming that part of the reason is that turnout in caucus states is so low, making the polling less reliable.


Just look at the vote totals and you can see that it's not a caucus. In the 2008 Iowa caucus, Obama's winning total was 940. In the 2008 Minnesota "caucus", it was 142,109. The later is obviously based on individual votes not precincts or state delegates.

Minnesota does appear to have much lower turnout than some other states, Wisconsin for example. Wisconsin had about a million votes in the 2008 primary while Minnesota had only about 200,000.

I have no idea why that is.

I just have vivid memories of Hillary apologists in 2008 blaming her loss in Minnesota on it being a caucus and I was like "lol no".

214,000 voted in the MN caucus in 2008. An estimated 239,000 voted in the Iowa caucus and Iowa has about 3/5 the population of MN. My conclusion, MN is a low-turnout state with the caucus electorate dominated by the liberal base, hence why it went for Obama by such large margins in 2008 and why she will lose it in 2016.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,021
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 09, 2015, 12:48:42 pm »

Why does it have a caucus electorate even though it doesn't have a caucus system though? Most people stand in line, cast their vote, then leave, just like any other election.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.178 seconds with 14 queries.