IL-WeAskAmerica: Clinton+37, Trump+13

[RJEvans]

The most credible explanation about the Michigan polling debacle that I read was by the Votemaster at electoral-vote.com.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Mar10.html#item-8

The polls for the Michigan Republican primary were spot on, but those for the Democratic primary showed Hillary Clinton winning by 20 points. She lost by 1.6%. Why? The Washington Post has figured it out. Short answer: The likely voter screen was botched on account of 2008.

Long answer: It goes back to 2008. In that year, Michigan violated the rules and, like Florida, moved its primary to January. Then-chairman of the DNC, Howard Dean, announced that as punishment for violating the rules, Michigan's delegates wouldn't be seated. Barack Obama supported Dean and didn't file to be on the ballot. Hillary Clinton filed and, naturally, won although only 600,000 people voted since voters knew the results didn't matter. This year (and every year), the pollsters try to figure out who is likely to vote, the so-called "likely voter screen." One of the questions they ask is: Did you vote in the last contested Democratic primary? That was 2008 and was anomalous because the DNC said it wouldn't count. Thus the pollsters were way off in guessing who would vote.


As long as the 3/15 states didn't have any similar problems then there is no reason for pollsters to do the same mistake again.
Granted, Florida was punished too in 2008. But Obama and Edwards were on the ballot and their voters had the chance to go and pull the lever for them, and most of them they did.

I too think MI polls were wrong because of the faulty voter screen, but that's beyond my area of expertise. If it is because of the faulty voter screen that the polls going forward should be relatively accurate.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Before Michigan...throw in the trash.

[RJEvans]

Sabato projection and 538 benchmarks are further reason why I don't think this is a 30-40 point Clinton race.

[Ebsy]

Before Michigan...throw in the trash.

I mean, this poll is WAA so it is junk, but how would a pollster conduct a poll between now (Thursday Evening) and Wednesday morning?

[IceSpear]

Well, at least if Bernie outperforms the polls by 20 again she still wins by double digits!

[The Other Castro]

Well, at least if Bernie outperforms the polls by 20 again she still wins by double digits!

He outperformed the average of polls by 20, but outperformed the worst poll (Mitchell) by 37. Looks like we have toss-up

[Wiz in Wis]

Sabato projection and 538 benchmarks are further reason why I don't think this is a 30-40 point Clinton race.

Very true, but I don't think that Michigan and Illinois are as similar as say, Michigan and Ohio. Chicago is far more vital for Illinois, and the machine in that city is totally behind Hillary. Also, Illinois has never been as dependent on manufacturing for it's economy, and the suburbs around Chicago tend to be richer than the ones around Detroit and Cleveland. Hillary grew up there as well.

Not expecting a blow out, but 15 points wouldn't be surprising either.

[Mr. Morden]

Chicago: Trump +12 over Kasich
Suburban Cook: Trump +12 over Cruz
Collar: Trump +12 over Kasich
Downstate: Trump +11 over Cruz

[izixs]

I think the most telling thing about the dem side on this is the cross tabs. As Illinois is more diverse than Michigan, can't quite take the gender break down as the full story. The racial breakdown is a bit more interesting. They have Clinton at 50-35 for hispanics, but 58-30 for whites. As everyone around here has been shouting since Nevada, Clinton did well with them there, so why would Clinton be doing worse with hispanics in Illinois than with white people? Perhaps its small number margin of error stuff of course, but it does kind of raise one red flag. Second, is that Clinton is shown as being up with whites so solidly. If Illinois' white population is closer to Iowa's on the average, you'd expect closer to even instead of a 28 point spread. If instead Illinois' white population is closer to Michigan, that number would be even worse. So, second red flag. Both these again might just be due to small number statistics, as will the third flag: geographical break down. Sanders has been doing very well in ruralish areas outside the south so far. It makes no sense he'd be losing down state Illinois, which is much more rural than Cook count or the collar areas by far, by thirty points. If this is true, you'd expect a similar blow out in Missouri, which love it or hate it, a couple recent polls are suggesting isn't going to be the case.

So yes, this poll doesn't make much sense unless three different sub groups (hispanics, whites, down state) are all wildly off at the same time given other data and past results.

[RINO Tom]

You can't dismiss every poll because of what happened in Michigan. The Cook County suburbs are much wealthier than the Detroit suburbs and they aren't going to vote for someone who wants to raise taxes through the roof. It's an entirely different ballgame in Illinois.

Kind of irrelevant, as they'll be voting in the GOP primaries.

[RFayette]

You can't dismiss every poll because of what happened in Michigan. The Cook County suburbs are much wealthier than the Detroit suburbs and they aren't going to vote for someone who wants to raise taxes through the roof. It's an entirely different ballgame in Illinois.

Kind of irrelevant, as they'll be voting in the GOP primaries.

The rich liberal Protestants, Catholics, and Evangelicals will be voting in the GOP primaries, but the rich Jews and atheists/agnostics will for the most part vote in the Dem primary.  I remember in Mr. Illini's map series how there were very wealthy parts of suburban Chicago that voted for Pat Quinn, and usually it was tightly correlated with Jewish population.  I think it'll hurt Sanders a little bit, but not as much as Invisible Obama is suggesting.

[DS0816]

Sabato projection and 538 benchmarks are further reason why I don't think this is a 30-40 point Clinton race.

Very true, but I don't think that Michigan and Illinois are as similar as say, Michigan and Ohio. Chicago is far more vital for Illinois, and the machine in that city is totally behind Hillary. Also, Illinois has never been as dependent on manufacturing for it's economy, and the suburbs around Chicago tend to be richer than the ones around Detroit and Cleveland. Hillary grew up there as well.

Not expecting a blow out, but 15 points wouldn't be surprising either.

Is Rahm Emanuel in Hillary Clinton's corner?

I hear he's really popular as mayor of Chicago, Illinois.

[psychprofessor]

Sabato projection and 538 benchmarks are further reason why I don't think this is a 30-40 point Clinton race.

Very true, but I don't think that Michigan and Illinois are as similar as say, Michigan and Ohio. Chicago is far more vital for Illinois, and the machine in that city is totally behind Hillary. Also, Illinois has never been as dependent on manufacturing for it's economy, and the suburbs around Chicago tend to be richer than the ones around Detroit and Cleveland. Hillary grew up there as well.

Not expecting a blow out, but 15 points wouldn't be surprising either.

Is Rahm Emanuel in Hillary Clinton's corner?

I hear he's really popular as mayor of Chicago, Illinois.

Looking at 2008, Cook County supplied over 1 million votes in the primary; the rest of the state, 800k. Whoever wins Cook, wins the state. That's why Sanders is going to have a tough time here.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Garbage pollster, unfortunately. Simon Institute is better.

With that being said, hopefully Kasich doesn't do well enough here to start gaining momentum.

[Mr. Illini]

You can't dismiss every poll because of what happened in Michigan. The Cook County suburbs are much wealthier than the Detroit suburbs and they aren't going to vote for someone who wants to raise taxes through the roof. It's an entirely different ballgame in Illinois.

Kind of irrelevant, as they'll be voting in the GOP primaries.

The rich liberal Protestants, Catholics, and Evangelicals will be voting in the GOP primaries, but the rich Jews and atheists/agnostics will for the most part vote in the Dem primary.  I remember in Mr. Illini's map series how there were very wealthy parts of suburban Chicago that voted for Pat Quinn, and usually it was tightly correlated with Jewish population.  I think it'll hurt Sanders a little bit, but not as much as Invisible Obama is suggesting.

Indeed, RINO Tom, Chicagoland is not Peoria. In fact, if you totaled the precincts of Chicago's North Shore, the wealthiest area in the Midwest, you would find that Obama won a majority of the votes both times.

Expect the entire North Shore to be solid Clinton territory in the Democratic Primary. Expect Kasich to perform well there on the other side.