First of all, this is not surprising – the same is being done by BernieBots.

second, I trust Nate Silver significantly, because he analyzes existing data, without bias, nor cherrypicking, and he is invariably CORRECT.

Turns out I’m not just imagining it: the media really is focusing on outlier polls to make the race look closer than it is

Join the Conversation


  1. “Meanwhile there’s been no reporting on South Carolina polls at all, despite that state also being a key early-primary battleground, because Hillary is winning there by twenty-plus points.

    But the bigger misdirection is the fact that the media keeps harping on single-state polls at all. Every national poll shows that Hillary Clinton is leading the democratic party primary by a comfortable margin nationwide.”

  2. What it comes down to, quite simply, is that Bernie Bots are either deliberately lying, or don’t bother to fact check what they are being fed, because of confirmation bias.

    Not sure which is worse – but, ultimately, neither matter.

  3. Ultimately: “Even if Hillary Clinton were losing in New Hampshire, which she isn’t, she’s still leading in the other forty-nine states. And nationwide she’s leading Bernie Sanders by 55% to 17%, a number which hasn’t changed in the past month.

    Every polling expert, including the guy at FiveThirtyEight who correctly called the last election, says that Bernie’s momentum is finished and he’s likely topped out at 17%. That is, not coincidentally, the same level of support that there always was for an Elizabeth Warren run. He’s simply been gradually inheriting her base as it’s become clear that she’s not running, and now that he has all of it, his national poll numbers have stopped moving.”

  4. Which wasn’t the full point. And you’re splitting hairs – If you look at the HuffPo chart, his number have topped out, and it remains that media is reporting on New Hampshire and isolated Iowa numbers, while ignoring the overwhelming lead that Clinton has (not to mention that she 452 delegates on her side, while Bernie has … 2).

  5. Valid question, Otto. My support is simply predicated on a couple of simple points, in no particular order:

    – Bernie would lose against a almost any Republican candidate, and we’d end up with a GOP candidate. Avoiding that is of paramount importance, I think you’d agree.
    – Bernie doesn’t have the numbers, quite simply.
    – Hillary brings a lot more WH and international experience to the table.
    – she has proven to be able to win significant elections in the past. Bernie’s numbers in that regard aren’t as impressive – he won mayoral elections with 6,000 votes, and roughly 100,000 Vermont voters voted for him, with some elections being uncontested, and others running against Libertarians.
    – she is most likely to continue the policies and initiatives of the past 8 years.
    – she has bigger balls than Obama when it comes to dealing with the GOP.
    – she brings along Bill Clinton, which is a HUGE factor, as I’m sure he will do more than pick out new wallpaper for the Lincoln Bedroom.
    – I see her as more likely to get something done, than Bernie Sanders.
    – she has the numbers on her side, as she understands how the system works.

    That’s pretty much it.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *