CNN/WMUR-NH-BERNIE 60%, HILLARY 33%

[JerryArkansas]

Poll average from 2012.

The race got extremely tight after the first debate, you dolt.  Want to mention how they predicted Obama's margin precisely in the end?

The race moves from tied to Obama being up by five in one day.  The pollster is bad.  Sanders is up, but 27 points, no.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Poll average from 2012.

The race got extremely tight after the first debate, you dolt.  Want to mention how they predicted Obama's margin precisely in the end?

The race moves from tied to Obama being up by five in one day.  The pollster is bad.  Sanders is up, but 27 points, no.

No, of course not.  But you don't throw a +27 margin in the trash, which is what your original post seemed to do.  Your second had it right.

[JerryArkansas]

Poll average from 2012.

The race got extremely tight after the first debate, you dolt.  Want to mention how they predicted Obama's margin precisely in the end?

The race moves from tied to Obama being up by five in one day.  The pollster is bad.  Sanders is up, but 27 points, no.

No, of course not.  But you don't throw a +27 margin in the trash, which is what your original post seemed to do.  Your second had it right.

I mean like others have said, if this came from someone else, I would have had less of a just toss it completely out.  But they have a track record of producing headline "polls".  They have wild swings. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Poll average from 2012.

The race got extremely tight after the first debate, you dolt.  Want to mention how they predicted Obama's margin precisely in the end?

The race moves from tied to Obama being up by five in one day.  The pollster is bad.  Sanders is up, but 27 points, no.

No, of course not.  But you don't throw a +27 margin in the trash, which is what your original post seemed to do.  Your second had it right.

I mean like others have said, if this came from someone else, I would have had less of a just toss it completely out.  But they have a track record of producing headline "polls".  They have wild swings. 

Yes they do, but shades of gray.  Obama's largest margins in 2008 from these guys over Hillary?  15.  Largest over Romney in 2012?  15.  This nearly doubles that.  That's indicative of a race that is not close.

I used to say Hillary would sweep if she won Iowa.  Not anymore.  Sanders is likely to win NH regardless and push the contest past SC. 

[Lief 🗽]

Dean was leading Kerry by about this margin at about this time in 2003/04. Obama was leading by 10% the night before. We'll see what happens.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Dean was leading Kerry by about this margin at about this time in 2003/04. Obama was leading by 10% the night before. We'll see what happens.

Dean was leading everywhere, though, and the party panicked.  Kerry was in the single digits in Iowa if I recall.  Very unprecedented, and tragic what the party did to Dean so they could nominate that boring, old suit.  Once Kerry won Iowa, it was pretty easy for NH to just go with a known guy.

EDIT: And how can I forget the media's coverage of CRAZY DEAN'S SCREAM!  The early to mid 2000s might have been the all-time peak of cable news directing public opinion.    

[Phony Moderate]

As was the case with Corbyn, a Sanders nomination would say more about his opponents than it would about him. I mean the reasonable moderate TRUMP is trashing the hard right nutters on the GOP side right now, because he is actually a good politician.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Don't worry, it's University of NH. In 10 days they will show a tied race.

[This account no longer in use.]

Dean was leading Kerry by about this margin at about this time in 2003/04. Obama was leading by 10% the night before. We'll see what happens.

Dean was leading everywhere, though, and the party panicked.  Kerry was in the single digits in Iowa if I recall.  Very unprecedented, and tragic what the party did to Dean so they could nominate that boring, old suit.  Once Kerry won Iowa, it was pretty easy for NH to just go with a known guy.

EDIT: And how can I forget the media's coverage of CRAZY DEAN'S SCREAM!  The early to mid 2000s might have been the all-time peak of cable news directing public opinion.    

I agree. Dean deserved better from his party, that he later went on to effectively save. It says a lot that I still see Dean bumper stickers today.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sanders is clearly ahead in NH, but not by this much.

[The Other Castro]

I don't know if these were posted yet, but:

Men: Sanders leads 70-26
Women: Sanders leads 52-38

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

It's happening! Hillary is toast!

Wrong. Blacks and Latinos will never abandon her Sanders. You can't win a Dem primary without blacks and Latinos.

[Suburbia]

Bernie Sanders will win New Hampshire, Vermont,  D.C., Oregon. Period.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Bernie Sanders will win New Hampshire, Vermont,  D.C., Oregon. Period.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I don't know if these were posted yet, but:

Men: Sanders leads 70-26
Women: Sanders leads 52-38

The internals of this one are a little strange... frankly.

[The Free North]

Sure the poll might be a bit on the high end, but I dont think people can deny that Sanders is going to win NH barring some miraculous gaffe.

[henster]

Let's say Bernie wins IA and then NH by double digits, certainty not 60-33 but something like 55-44. I do think he would have a decent shot at NV then.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Bu bu buttt the New hampshire women??

[Sorenroy]

Full results: http://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/primary2016_demprimary011916.pdf

Well, this poll actually follows the general trend from this pollster, so you can't just say that it's a crazy outlier for them. I can't post their graph, but it is on the bottom of the third page. Last month they had Clinton at 40% and in September she was at 30%!

Also, Approval Ratings:

Candidate — Favorability-Unfavorability (Net)

Sanders — 91-7 (84)
Clinton — 65-26 (39)
O'Malley — 26-27 (-1)

Also a funny little thing: in their survey of who the people thought were the least honest, Clinton beat Sanders 55% to 2%. Obviously she still has a ways to go, at least in New Hampshire, to fix her image.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Bernie is not leading by 27% he probably is leading by 12-15% max

[YPestis25]

And so the New Hampshire polling rollercoaster continues.

He's clearly not ahead by 27, but this is being reported pretty widely. It got a shoutout on CBS tonight.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also a funny little thing: in their survey of who the people thought were the least honest, Clinton beat Sanders 55% to 2%. Obviously she still has a ways to go, at least in New Hampshire, to fix her image.

That 2% seems rather overrepresented on political forums.

[Adam Griffin]

Poll average from 2012.

Obviously this NH primary poll is an outlier, but what you've posted here doesn't prove that they're a bad pollster. What I'm seeing is that they had two outliers in 2012 in their polling. All of the rest were pretty damn spot-on to the final result and to what was likely happening on the ground at the time the polling was conducted. Likewise, that doesn't prove that UNH is a good pollster, but still, the graph itself doesn't prove that it's a bad one, either.

[Smash255]

Bernie is clearly  up in N.H, and likely pretty comfortably, but its not 27...

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

Now we have numbers people don't like.  Maybe it is that they're partisan hacks? I'm sure the truth behind the difference in performances is somewhere in the middle.