MN-PPP: Walker +1% over Trump, Clinton +18% over Sanders

[Mr. Morden]

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!

[Mr. Morden]

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

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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.)

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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.