PRRI national poll: D: Clinton 48% Sanders 46%; R: Trump 36% Cruz 32% Kasich 21%

[Mr. Morden]

Public Religion Research Institute national poll, conducted March 30 - April 3:

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PRRI-The-Atlantic-Poll-Topline-FINAL.pdf

Dems

Clinton 48%
Sanders 46%

GOP

Trump 36%
Cruz 32%
Kasich 21%

[Sir Mohamed]

Obviously both numbers are a little junk. Bernie is not so close behind Hillary.

[Eraserhead]

I hope everyone understands that it's entirely possible that the states that voted already are more pro-Sanders now than they were when they voted. It seems pretty obvious that the race is very close now on a national level, not that it matters much since we don't have a national primary.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

[Landslide Lyndon]

This poll shows that a majority of Republicans (among whom half of TRUMP's voters) oppose his Muslim ban.
But the exit polls have consistently shown that 2/3ds of Republicans support such a measure.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

I don't "pick" polls. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that the PPP poll was an outlier.

[BundouYMB]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

I don't "pick" polls. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that the PPP poll was an outlier.

Except for the Fox News poll with Clinton +13, the Monmouth poll with Clinton +18, CNN/ORC poll with Clinton +17, the Rasmussen Reports poll with Clinton +22, the Reuters tracker which has showed her up between 10-15 this past week... do you know what the word outlier means?

[/]

NO WAY SANDERS IS THAT CLOSE TRASH POLL

[Maxwell]

Kasich's number is fishy considering he only got 14% in a state where he seems, on the outset, pretty favorable.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

I don't "pick" polls. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that the PPP poll was an outlier.

Except for the Fox News poll with Clinton +13, the Monmouth poll with Clinton +18, CNN/ORC poll with Clinton +17, the Rasmussen Reports poll with Clinton +22, the Reuters tracker which has showed her up between 10-15 this past week... do you know what the word outlier means?

A few of your numbers are a bit off. The most recent poll on RCP from CNN is Clinton +7 (You probably just added the 1) the Rasmussen was done in Feb and the Monmouth poll was done after Clinton's 3/15 sweep. So really you were only right about Fox News which i could argue being another outlier as well. RCP is at +5.9% Clinton so obviously you need to find another source.

[BundouYMB]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

I don't "pick" polls. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that the PPP poll was an outlier.

Except for the Fox News poll with Clinton +13, the Monmouth poll with Clinton +18, CNN/ORC poll with Clinton +17, the Rasmussen Reports poll with Clinton +22, the Reuters tracker which has showed her up between 10-15 this past week... do you know what the word outlier means?

A few of your numbers are a bit off. The most recent poll on RCP from CNN is Clinton +7 (You probably just added the 1) the Rasmussen was done in Feb and the Monmouth poll was done after Clinton's 3/15 sweep. So really you were only right about Fox News which i could argue being another outlier as well. RCP is at +5.9% Clinton so obviously you need to find another source.

No, here's the CNN poll I was referencing: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/02/29/rel4a.-.2016.primaries.pdf

It's true the most recent CNN poll, taken a week later, showed Clinton +7 but that's not relevant to my point (which is that the PPP poll wasn't an outlier by the actual definition of the word.)

Since you continue to insist on using the word outlier even though you clearly haven't even bothered to google the word to see what it means, here's the definition:

"a person or thing differing from all other members of a particular group or set."

My point is that plenty of other polls have shown Clinton with leads that big so it's not an outlier. That also doesn't make it accurate, but it's not an outlier. In reality the polls have been all over the map nationally (such as CNN showing Clinton +17 one week and +7 the next -- if you think the race moved 10 points that week, I have a bridge to sell you) and I don't know why that is, but there's definitely no consistent pattern to the national polls and there have been plenty of polls showing the race tied to close to it and with Clinton having a big lead -- neither are "outliers."

"Outlier" is not a synonym for "wrong" (as if any of us have a way of telling if a poll is wrong anyways) or "different from the average" so please stop trying to use it like it is.

Morning Consultant has also shown Clinton with leads that big btw, RCP just doesn't include them for some reason and I was too lazy to get them since the polls I did point out more than prove my point about the PPP poll not being an outlier.

[RFayette]

Kasich's number is fishy considering he only got 14% in a state where he seems, on the outset, pretty favorable.

Indeed.  And Kasich couldn't even break 30% in Dane County, Wisconsin.  If he can't even win college towns against a fundamentalist mega-conservative and a nationalist populist, he's in real trouble.

[Eraserhead]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

I don't "pick" polls. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that the PPP poll was an outlier.

Except for the Fox News poll with Clinton +13, the Monmouth poll with Clinton +18, CNN/ORC poll with Clinton +17, the Rasmussen Reports poll with Clinton +22, the Reuters tracker which has showed her up between 10-15 this past week... do you know what the word outlier means?

Most polls are showing a close race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

[BundouYMB]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

I don't "pick" polls. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that the PPP poll was an outlier.

Except for the Fox News poll with Clinton +13, the Monmouth poll with Clinton +18, CNN/ORC poll with Clinton +17, the Rasmussen Reports poll with Clinton +22, the Reuters tracker which has showed her up between 10-15 this past week... do you know what the word outlier means?

Most polls are showing a close race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

... that has no bearing on my point whatsoever though?

[Mr. Morden]

Kasich's number is fishy considering he only got 14% in a state where he seems, on the outset, pretty favorable.

Here's the trendline from all national polls:



Kasich's at ~20% in most national polls these days.  In Wisconsin, Cruz had a unified party establishment behind him, and many potential Kasich voters probably tactically voted for Cruz.  A national poll isn't going to pick up tactical voting.

[Eraserhead]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

I don't "pick" polls. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that the PPP poll was an outlier.

Except for the Fox News poll with Clinton +13, the Monmouth poll with Clinton +18, CNN/ORC poll with Clinton +17, the Rasmussen Reports poll with Clinton +22, the Reuters tracker which has showed her up between 10-15 this past week... do you know what the word outlier means?

Most polls are showing a close race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

... that has no bearing on my point whatsoever though?

And your point is what exactly? That there are still a few polls showing a large Clinton lead? I thought we weren't trying to cherry pick polls here which is why I posted a polling average.

[BundouYMB]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

I don't "pick" polls. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that the PPP poll was an outlier.

Except for the Fox News poll with Clinton +13, the Monmouth poll with Clinton +18, CNN/ORC poll with Clinton +17, the Rasmussen Reports poll with Clinton +22, the Reuters tracker which has showed her up between 10-15 this past week... do you know what the word outlier means?

Most polls are showing a close race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

... that has no bearing on my point whatsoever though?

And your point is what exactly? That there are still a few polls showing a large Clinton lead? I thought we weren't trying to cherry pick polls here which is why I posted a polling average.

If you actually read what I wrote, my point was that there have been multiple polls with a large Clinton lead so it's not an "outlier." I didn't say that most polls had a large Clinton lead (I actually pointed out the polls have been all over the map), or that the polling average showed a large Clinton lead. I was objecting to people abusing the word outlier without having any idea what it actually means. Did you actually read my comments, or what?

[Eraserhead]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

I don't "pick" polls. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that the PPP poll was an outlier.

Except for the Fox News poll with Clinton +13, the Monmouth poll with Clinton +18, CNN/ORC poll with Clinton +17, the Rasmussen Reports poll with Clinton +22, the Reuters tracker which has showed her up between 10-15 this past week... do you know what the word outlier means?

Most polls are showing a close race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

... that has no bearing on my point whatsoever though?

And your point is what exactly? That there are still a few polls showing a large Clinton lead? I thought we weren't trying to cherry pick polls here which is why I posted a polling average.

If you actually read what I wrote, my point was that there have been multiple polls with a large Clinton lead so it's not an "outlier." I didn't say that most polls had a large Clinton lead (I actually pointed out the polls have been all over the map), or that the polling average showed a large Clinton lead. I was objecting to people abusing the word outlier without having any idea what it actually means. Did you actually read my comments, or what?

Except the vast majority of recent polls are showing a much closer race than PPP, so it does in fact stick out as a potential outlier.

Btw the CNN poll you're citing is Clinton +7, not Clinton +17 and the Rasmussen poll is from February which makes it completely irrelevant. 

[BundouYMB]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

I don't "pick" polls. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that the PPP poll was an outlier.

Except for the Fox News poll with Clinton +13, the Monmouth poll with Clinton +18, CNN/ORC poll with Clinton +17, the Rasmussen Reports poll with Clinton +22, the Reuters tracker which has showed her up between 10-15 this past week... do you know what the word outlier means?

Most polls are showing a close race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

... that has no bearing on my point whatsoever though?

And your point is what exactly? That there are still a few polls showing a large Clinton lead? I thought we weren't trying to cherry pick polls here which is why I posted a polling average.

If you actually read what I wrote, my point was that there have been multiple polls with a large Clinton lead so it's not an "outlier." I didn't say that most polls had a large Clinton lead (I actually pointed out the polls have been all over the map), or that the polling average showed a large Clinton lead. I was objecting to people abusing the word outlier without having any idea what it actually means. Did you actually read my comments, or what?

Except the vast majority of recent polls are showing a much closer race than PPP, so it does in fact stick out as a potential outlier.

Btw the CNN poll you're citing is Clinton +7, not Clinton +17.

I'm totally convinced now that you haven't actually read anything I wrote, and that's baffling because they're all short comments. I linked that CNN +17 poll and I even posted the definition of the word outlier in one comment, because some people (you among them, apparently) are too lazy to even type it into google before misusing it.

[Eraserhead]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

I don't "pick" polls. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that the PPP poll was an outlier.

Except for the Fox News poll with Clinton +13, the Monmouth poll with Clinton +18, CNN/ORC poll with Clinton +17, the Rasmussen Reports poll with Clinton +22, the Reuters tracker which has showed her up between 10-15 this past week... do you know what the word outlier means?

Most polls are showing a close race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

... that has no bearing on my point whatsoever though?

And your point is what exactly? That there are still a few polls showing a large Clinton lead? I thought we weren't trying to cherry pick polls here which is why I posted a polling average.

If you actually read what I wrote, my point was that there have been multiple polls with a large Clinton lead so it's not an "outlier." I didn't say that most polls had a large Clinton lead (I actually pointed out the polls have been all over the map), or that the polling average showed a large Clinton lead. I was objecting to people abusing the word outlier without having any idea what it actually means. Did you actually read my comments, or what?

Except the vast majority of recent polls are showing a much closer race than PPP, so it does in fact stick out as a potential outlier.

Btw the CNN poll you're citing is Clinton +7, not Clinton +17.

Now I'm totally convinced you haven't actually read anything I wrote, and that's baffling because they're all short comments. I linked that CNN +17 poll and I even posted the definition of the word outlier in one comment, because some people (you among them, apparently) are too lazy to even type in into google before misusing it.

Ah, so you are citing a CNN poll from February over the most recent one which is Clinton +7. That makes sense...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2773296-rel5a-2016.html

[BundouYMB]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

I don't "pick" polls. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that the PPP poll was an outlier.

Except for the Fox News poll with Clinton +13, the Monmouth poll with Clinton +18, CNN/ORC poll with Clinton +17, the Rasmussen Reports poll with Clinton +22, the Reuters tracker which has showed her up between 10-15 this past week... do you know what the word outlier means?

Most polls are showing a close race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

... that has no bearing on my point whatsoever though?

And your point is what exactly? That there are still a few polls showing a large Clinton lead? I thought we weren't trying to cherry pick polls here which is why I posted a polling average.

If you actually read what I wrote, my point was that there have been multiple polls with a large Clinton lead so it's not an "outlier." I didn't say that most polls had a large Clinton lead (I actually pointed out the polls have been all over the map), or that the polling average showed a large Clinton lead. I was objecting to people abusing the word outlier without having any idea what it actually means. Did you actually read my comments, or what?

Except the vast majority of recent polls are showing a much closer race than PPP, so it does in fact stick out as a potential outlier.

Btw the CNN poll you're citing is Clinton +7, not Clinton +17.

Now I'm totally convinced you haven't actually read anything I wrote, and that's baffling because they're all short comments. I linked that CNN +17 poll and I even posted the definition of the word outlier in one comment, because some people (you among them, apparently) are too lazy to even type in into google before misusing it.

Ah, so you are citing a CNN poll from February over the most recent one which is Clinton +7. That makes sense...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2773296-rel5a-2016.html

Yes, and if you actually, you know, read my comments you might, you know, actually understand the point I was making. It wasn't complex either, so again we're back to the fact that you've obviously read nothing I wrote and thus naturally have zero comprehension of what I'm saying.

Instead, you just keep posting these argumentative non-sequiturs that in no way contradict anything I said. Baffling.

[Eraserhead]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

I don't "pick" polls. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that the PPP poll was an outlier.

Except for the Fox News poll with Clinton +13, the Monmouth poll with Clinton +18, CNN/ORC poll with Clinton +17, the Rasmussen Reports poll with Clinton +22, the Reuters tracker which has showed her up between 10-15 this past week... do you know what the word outlier means?

Most polls are showing a close race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

... that has no bearing on my point whatsoever though?

And your point is what exactly? That there are still a few polls showing a large Clinton lead? I thought we weren't trying to cherry pick polls here which is why I posted a polling average.

If you actually read what I wrote, my point was that there have been multiple polls with a large Clinton lead so it's not an "outlier." I didn't say that most polls had a large Clinton lead (I actually pointed out the polls have been all over the map), or that the polling average showed a large Clinton lead. I was objecting to people abusing the word outlier without having any idea what it actually means. Did you actually read my comments, or what?

Except the vast majority of recent polls are showing a much closer race than PPP, so it does in fact stick out as a potential outlier.

Btw the CNN poll you're citing is Clinton +7, not Clinton +17.

Now I'm totally convinced you haven't actually read anything I wrote, and that's baffling because they're all short comments. I linked that CNN +17 poll and I even posted the definition of the word outlier in one comment, because some people (you among them, apparently) are too lazy to even type in into google before misusing it.

Ah, so you are citing a CNN poll from February over the most recent one which is Clinton +7. That makes sense...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2773296-rel5a-2016.html

Yes, and if you actually, you know, read my comments you might, you know, actually understand the point I was making. It wasn't complex either, so again we're back to the fact that you've obviously read nothing I wrote and thus naturally have zero comprehension of what I'm saying.

Instead, you just keep posting these argumentative non-sequiturs that in no way contradict anything I said. Baffling.

What's baffling is that you're using outdated polls to make some sort of strange argument. Sad!

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Can we now call the PPP national poll trash that had it at Clinton +18?

Can we now call you trash that selectively picks whichever polls are favorable to Bernie?

Where is Wainwright Analytics when you need them?

I don't "pick" polls. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact that the PPP poll was an outlier.

Except for the Fox News poll with Clinton +13, the Monmouth poll with Clinton +18, CNN/ORC poll with Clinton +17, the Rasmussen Reports poll with Clinton +22, the Reuters tracker which has showed her up between 10-15 this past week... do you know what the word outlier means?

Most polls are showing a close race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

... that has no bearing on my point whatsoever though?

And your point is what exactly? That there are still a few polls showing a large Clinton lead? I thought we weren't trying to cherry pick polls here which is why I posted a polling average.

If you actually read what I wrote, my point was that there have been multiple polls with a large Clinton lead so it's not an "outlier." I didn't say that most polls had a large Clinton lead (I actually pointed out the polls have been all over the map), or that the polling average showed a large Clinton lead. I was objecting to people abusing the word outlier without having any idea what it actually means. Did you actually read my comments, or what?

Except the vast majority of recent polls are showing a much closer race than PPP, so it does in fact stick out as a potential outlier.

Btw the CNN poll you're citing is Clinton +7, not Clinton +17.

Now I'm totally convinced you haven't actually read anything I wrote, and that's baffling because they're all short comments. I linked that CNN +17 poll and I even posted the definition of the word outlier in one comment, because some people (you among them, apparently) are too lazy to even type in into google before misusing it.

Ah, so you are citing a CNN poll from February over the most recent one which is Clinton +7. That makes sense...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2773296-rel5a-2016.html

Yes, and if you actually, you know, read my comments you might, you know, actually understand the point I was making. It wasn't complex either, so again we're back to the fact that you've obviously read nothing I wrote and thus naturally have zero comprehension of what I'm saying.

Instead, you just keep posting these argumentative non-sequiturs that in no way contradict anything I said. Baffling.

Just say oops my bad I was wrong because you were. You said recent polls but you showed old polls.

[Adam Griffin]

Are you guys arguing with a semantics hack here?

"OMG GUYS DON'T YOU KNOW THAT 'OUTLIER' CAN MEAN LITERALLY ONLY ONE?!?"



This is almost as good as that time Wulfric thought he was being clever by suggesting that citing two polls that added up to 101 was wrong!

Aggregate polling from multiple sources shows a 5-point race; within most margins of error. There's a clear trend in the latest round of polling. I'm not sure why everybody is getting their panties in a wad over other silly stuff.