Latest New York Poll states the obvious: Clinton leading Sanders by double digit numbers one week pr - Polidicks

Worth noting, Michigan was polling 60-40 in favor of Hillary right up to the primaries, and was a 50-48 win for Bernie. The polls have been wrong before. It's possible, albeit unlikely, that they could be wrong about New York as well.

[QUOTE=Last or First;50118728]"You'd be bad at campaigning too if your husband was the president for 2 terms and you had previous experience campaigning yourself!"[/QUOTE] The sell on this throughout the campaign has been so cringy. She is praised constantly throughout the media as giving amazing speeches and incredible debate performance, she's said to be fantastic at fundraising and reaching a huge swathe of demographics of voters But then they also say that she is bad at campaigning whenever there's a hiccup. [editline]12th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=gman003-main;50118742]Worth noting, Michigan was polling 60-40 in favor of Hillary right up to the primaries, and was a 50-48 win for Bernie. The polls have been wrong before. It's possible, albeit unlikely, that they could be wrong about New York as well.[/QUOTE] Problem is Michigan was an open primary, and the polling error was largely due to focusing on "Likely democratic voters"

[QUOTE=Yadda;50118741]You mean to say that news networks are immune to cherrypicking? Let's consider that for a moment, every single poll conducted in New York with regards to the Democratic Primaries has been conducted with a sample size less than 1000. [img]https://i.imgur.com/59qXeRr.png[/img] Clearly this must be a gold standard in polling, for a State that houses 8.4 MILLION people, wouldn't you say?[/QUOTE] You don't need a ridiculously large sample for a poll. That's why margins of error exist. Go back to statistics class, if you ever took it.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;50118742]Worth noting, Michigan was polling 60-40 in favor of Hillary right up to the primaries, and was a 50-48 win for Bernie. The polls have been wrong before. It's possible, albeit unlikely, that they could be wrong about New York as well.[/QUOTE] While polls have been wrong, they're the exception not the rule. Most polls have been fairly accurate.

I'm only paying only slight attention to the polls. I'm waiting until his debate with Hilary in New York is over before i'll start putting a lot more weighting on them. A good sum of votes (~20%) doesn't decide who they're voting for until a few days before the Primary.

Poll is landline. Potential democratic voters narrow it to 44-51.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50118421]Because she's a minority (woman). Plus she's had a long term relation with building up minority votes as her core. Along side the fact that most minorities are fairly conservative Democrats, which is what Clinton is.[/QUOTE] She's also presenting herself as the heir to the Obama legacy (which is so laughable since half of Obama's achievements involved rolling back Clinton policies).

[QUOTE=cody8295;50118480]because they're low information voters[/QUOTE] it's good to have contempt for your fellow americans

[QUOTE=SGTSpartans;50118409]Why do minorities vote for Hillary?[/QUOTE] Aside from other reasons mentioned, some of them just like Hillary's stances/policies better. I know there are people out there who aren't fans of Bernie's stances on certain things, such as nuclear energy, GMOs, or free trade, as well as people who don't think his tax, health care, or college plans are economically sound (personally, I don't agree, but that's beside the point). There are likely to be low-information minorities voting for her, but I think it's just as likely there are informed minorities who genuinely think Hillary is a better candidate than Bernie.

[QUOTE=sb27;50118508]Is this a way of trying to imply that minorities are less-intelligent than Caucasians, and you're correlating intelligence with voting for Sanders? That's not very nice of you.[/QUOTE] congrats on trying to take the high horse accusatory card but [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter"]he's talking about an actual thing[/URL] if you'd like to have a discussion about why so many minority voters are low information voters then we can have us a little discussion about socioeconomic status in relation to education and free time

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50118687]I'm talking about a minority in terms of cultural disenfranchisement, not in population numbers. Keep in mind that it was less than a hundred years ago women were given the right to vote. There's wage gaps for women, women historically were barred from certain occupations due to their gender, etc.[/QUOTE] Yeah the problem is that's not the definition for minority at all. Disenfranchisement is associated with being a minority but you can't be a minority without being a small subset of the population no matter how disenfranchised you are.

[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;50119257]congrats on trying to take the high horse accusatory card but [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter"]he's talking about an actual thing[/URL] if you'd like to have a discussion about why so many minority voters are low information voters then we can have us a little discussion about socioeconomic status in relation to education and free time[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] A study performed using logistic regression analysis on data from the 1986 through 1994 American National Election Studies found that low-information voters tend to assume female and black candidates are more liberal than male and white candidates of the same party[/QUOTE] Son of a bitch.

[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;50119257]congrats on trying to take the high horse accusatory card but [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter"]he's talking about an actual thing[/URL] if you'd like to have a discussion about why so many minority voters are low information voters then we can have us a little discussion about socioeconomic status in relation to education and free time[/QUOTE] Blown the FUCK out

[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;50119257]congrats on trying to take the high horse accusatory card but [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter"]he's talking about an actual thing[/URL] if you'd like to have a discussion about why so many minority voters are low information voters then we can have us a little discussion about socioeconomic status in relation to education and free time[/QUOTE] Nowhere in that article does it claim that ethnic minorities are low-information voters. It doesn't even indirectly make the claim by implying poorer socioeconomic classes are low-information voters. Nowhere at all. In fact, the article states, according to one definition of low-information voter: [quote]Low-information voters can be doctors. Low-information voters can be scientists. They can be among all walks of life[/quote] And it's reasonable to assume that doctors and scientists are of higher socioeconomic classes, and therefore most likely not an ethnic minority, isn't it? Another problem is that there is no single definition of what a low-information voter is. One person argues that it's mainly used by liberals to refer to people who vote Republican. Another person argues that supporters of Obama are low-information voters. Another person makes the conspiracy that Republicans deliberately pander to a low-information electorate. If Republicans are doing just that, shouldn't all of these 'low information' ethnic minorities be supporting the Republicans? So why do they heavily support the Democrats?

[QUOTE=sb27;50121912]Nowhere in that article does it claim that ethnic minorities are low-information voters. It doesn't even indirectly make the claim by implying poorer socioeconomic classes are low-information voters. Nowhere at all. In fact, the article states, according to one definition of low-information voter: And it's reasonable to assume that doctors and scientists are of higher socioeconomic classes, and therefore most likely not an ethnic minority, isn't it?[/QUOTE] it doesn't need to be about minorities it doesn't need to be about doctors it doesn't need to be about scientists low-info voters aren't any specific people, it's just people who fall prey to the phenomenon of voting for apolitical or vaguely pseudo-political reasons, which, based upon the reasoning for hillary's popularity with minorities, particularly black voters, they fall under nobody's calling them stupid or unintelligent uninformed, maybe, but that's, like i said, explained by socioeconomic reasons [quote]Another problem is that there is no single definition of what a low-information voter is. One person argues that it's mainly used by liberals to refer to people who vote Republican. Another person argues that supporters of Obama are low-information voters. Another person makes the conspiracy that Republicans deliberately pander to a low-information electorate. If Republicans are doing just that, shouldn't all of these 'low information' ethnic minorities be supporting the Republicans? So why do they heavily support the Democrats?[/quote] there isn't one murky blob of the "low info voter" demographic there's low information republican voters just like there's low information democratic voters it's not as specific a term as you seem to think

[QUOTE=SGTSpartans;50118409]Why do minorities vote for Hillary?[/QUOTE] Because they've never heard of Bernie Sanders and have no idea what he did for them.