CT - Emerson: Trump +24, Clinton +6

[Holmes]

[Holmes]

If that helps you sleep at night.

[Holmes]

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.

[Holmes]

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.

It's amazing how, aside from Michigan, the polling and the demographics almost always predict the right winner, and the margin, within a few points. Bernie fans expecting a double digit win in CT are deluded.

Demographics have been even more accurate than polling. Even in Michigan most demographic models were predicting a modest Sanders lead.

Do you have any links to these models? I'd like to see what they were based on because Michigan hadn't had a competitive Democratic primary in a long time.

[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?

[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.