Selzer/DMR/Bloomberg FINAL IOWA POLL: Trump +5, Clinton +3

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Lol it's a 3 point lead Shillarys calm down.

So now you know what people look like freaking out about Overtime. Except, you know, this lot know Iowa and it's still important. But it's still IA and no one knows how this BS will turn out.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As a reminder, DMR's final pre-Iowa poll in 2012:

Romney 24
Paul 22
Santorum 15
Gingirch 12
Perry 11
Bachmann 7
Huntsman 2

"Gold standard"

Actually, they do a three day set of polling and it showed Santorum's last minute surge. But the headlines for 2012 presented the three-days worth of data, not the day by day data.

The Clinton enthusiasm number is important. And it'll be a huge test of their organisation.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'll ask again, since no one answered the first time: Have they released the full crosstabs for this poll?  Because all I can find is this:

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/r1OvZ1NeDjnY

which includes results on a number of questions, but doesn't tell you how each demographic group is breaking.

The one I have seen was Hillary with a 12% lead among women or something? But... that doesn't seem like enough.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I can't find the crosstabs for the polls, however I found this in the officially released numbers:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As such, as long as the numbers for this year match up with elections in the past, this should be pretty accurate.
http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/r1OvZ1NeDjnY

I also have a fairly significant question regarding the meaning of late Jan-16 and early Jan-16. All of the polls have that weird wording to them when they are compared to the polls conducted earlier in the campaign cycle (all of those have specific dates). I do not question that these polls were conducted over the period of the 26th to the 29th, but what does that wording even mean?

She conducted two polls in January, 2016. To differentiate them, she termed the first one "early Jan 16" and the second one "late Jan 16."

Thank you. I guess I'm more tired than I thought (1:45 AM here); I thought it was referring to January 16th 2016...

Anyway, to add something new here, they polled more than just the three people running for president of the Democratic side for favorabilities. Here's a full list:

Person — Favorable-Unfavorable (Net)

Barack Obama — 90-9 (+81)
Bill Clinton — 86-11 (+75)
Bernie Sanders — 82-12 (+70)
Joe Biden — 81-11 (+70)
Hillary Clinton — 81-17 (+64)
John Kerry — 65-18 (+47)
Elizabeth Warren — 47-7 (+40)
Martin O'Malley — 46-13 (+33)
Michael Bloomberg — 17-26 (-9)

Obama is so widely liked, I wonder if his endorsement would be able to shift voters away from Sanders.

Edit: I emphasized the word "would" to make it clear that although he has not endorsed anyone (yet), I think that that endorsement would have an impact.

Obama has done everything short of endorsing Clinton, because it's pretty poor form for a sitting president to endorse in the middle of the primary of their own party.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think we just witnessed the death of the Sanders campaign. jfern actually turning a poll that shows a 3 point lead for Clinton into a 4 point win for Sanders. :whew:

If Clinton is leading +3 vs Sanders among the REGISTERED voters with a 12% Undecided votebank (including O Malley whose supporters prefer Sanders 2-1), this does not look VERY GOOD for Clinton.

This does not capture the new voters who will register & Sanders camp have clearly said they don't want new voters to double work & register early & are focused on bringing them on the day as Reg can be done anytime.

+3 among registered guys ONLY with 12% undecided is in noways a MAJOR positive for Clinton

I agree that there is some elements that could be problematic for Clinton but this is a MASSIVE test for the machines and how they get their people out in the right places and in the right numbers. This isn't about pure raw voters, but where they are.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Scanning through the thread, I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but they also polled a hypothetical 2-man race on the GOP side.  If it was just Cruz and Trump running, then you get:

Cruz 53%
Trump 35%

Well it just illustrates that this is, in so many ways, a mess of the GOPs own making.