CT - Emerson: Trump +24, Clinton +6

[Landslide Lyndon]

ITT: Clinton hacks trash another poster for suggesting this poll might be biased toward Clinton based on flimsy evidence, and then go on to assert that it's biased toward Sanders, based on flimsy evidence.

This happened?

Closed primary = always bad for Sanders, exaggerating demographic advantage for Clinton, etc.

Well, that's a fact. Except when the primary is full of conservative Dixiecrats who vote Sanders only because they want to stick it to Obama.

So the evidence is the Southern primaries, and Oklahoma doesn't count? That doesn't really give us much basis to predict the NE contests, and it certainly isn't what I would consider solid evidence for predicting that Clinton will significantly beat her poll numbers.

Arizona was closed too.

[Xing]

ITT: Clinton hacks trash another poster for suggesting this poll might be biased toward Clinton based on flimsy evidence, and then go on to assert that it's biased toward Sanders, based on flimsy evidence.

This happened?

Closed primary = always bad for Sanders, exaggerating demographic advantage for Clinton, etc.

Well, that's a fact. Except when the primary is full of conservative Dixiecrats who vote Sanders only because they want to stick it to Obama.

So the evidence is the Southern primaries, and Oklahoma doesn't count? That doesn't really give us much basis to predict the NE contests, and it certainly isn't what I would consider solid evidence for predicting that Clinton will significantly beat her poll numbers.

Arizona was closed too.

That's true, although Clinton actually slightly underperformed her polls there. Note that I'm not saying that I think Sanders will win CT, I just don't think that the fact that it's a closed primary means that Clinton will overperform her polls. Let's see what happens in NY.

[Boston Bread]

I guess a Sanders win here is possible after all.

[Holmes]

ITT: Clinton hacks trash another poster for suggesting this poll might be biased toward Clinton based on flimsy evidence, and then go on to assert that it's biased toward Sanders, based on flimsy evidence.

This happened?

Closed primary = always bad for Sanders, exaggerating demographic advantage for Clinton, etc.

But no one said the poll is biased towards Sanders.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Arizona was closed too.

That's true, although Clinton actually slightly underperformed her polls there.

Nope. There were no polls before the primary, at least from any reputable firm.

[Oakvale]

The reason people think a closed primary is better for Clinton is because she pretty consistently dominates with Democrats as opposed to Independents (not counting racists who are still registered Dems but always vote Republican). It's not complicated.

[Maxwell]

Man if that's Trumps numbers in Connecticut, I can't wait til Rhode Island - he may cross 60% over there!

[Shadows]

I mean, for all the sh**t it gets, wasn't Emerson the most accurate in Wisconsin? And Lief is right, it's closed, going to be 20%+ non-white, and 65%+ over the age of 45. And Sanders is sh**tting the bed with the gun issue right now. But because it's in New England, it all leads to a comfortable single digit win for Clinton.

You Clinton hacks would do anything to get your point of view - Like Clinton lies are a very convenient opinion for you. And that sh**ting the bed is subjective, I think Clinton is sh**ting her bed with stupid opinions of guns.

Anyways, in WI, Emerson had Clinton winning by 6 points according to a thread posted in this forum.

And Sanders won by 13-14% points. Emerson has been biased & Bernie makes up numbers as time goes on in states he heavily competes. If Clinton is +6 now with Emerson, CT would be competitive