Bernie's base remains largely male; Biden draws in African Americans

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

Off course Biden's still leading the poll's, how original!

Hillary Clinton had bengazhi, her husband and her emails, Biden has his son.

Choose Biden and the democrats will lose.

Bernie is surging in all other polls except the MSM polls

CNN released a poll yesterday were Bernie Sanders was at 21% Warren at 19% and Biden at 15%, when they reported it they flipped it Warren was at 21%.

The only poll which is very accurate is the emmerson polling.

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

7 minutes ago, Whispering said:

They are historically pragmatic voters, who vote in a block. They vote for who they know and who has spent time building a relationship with their communities. They will switch only if it looks like another candidate is gaining ground and is going to be the nominee for sure. 

History agrees with you, but I just want to point out that this part I've bolded is true, but crucially not very reflective of Joe Biden's relationship with the black community and race, certainly not in this primary. He is essentially floating on a cloud of Obama era relationship building, which is why I think he could still lose this support, especially if he manages to lose not only early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, but even longer into the primary season. That's why Harris IMO got such a big chunk of support after she attacked Biden on racial issues in that debate (she flopped afterwards, but I was hoping she'd do more damage because hes truly so vulnerable)

Biden is hemoragging in financial support on hand, making almost a third in donations to what Sanders and Warren made - and they've both sworn off PAC money. He will need to actually try to do the bolded IMO if he wants to maintain that support. If Warren for example pulls ahead in superdelegate count (she could be close already if everything goes her way), I suspect they will change over to her. Similarly, there are many people who i could see changing over to Sanders if he overperforms not only again in these early 4 states but later in the season as well. As I said in another thread, this race is still Biden's to lose for sure, even as it seems less likely every day because of the way the DNC is shielding him arbitrarily.

[KleinGa 18,177]

12 minutes ago, Lilmonzter said:

Off course Biden's still leading the poll's, how original!

Hillary Clinton had bengazhi, her husband and her emails, Biden has his son.

Choose Biden and the democrats will lose.

Bernie is surging in all other polls except the MSM polls

CNN released a poll yesterday were Bernie Sanders was at 21% Warren at 19% and Biden at 15%, when they reported it they flipped it Warren was at 21%.

The only poll which is very accurate is the emmerson polling.

 

What makes the Emerson poll more accurate?

Can you explain what you mean when you say CNN flipped the poll? And provide an article?

 

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

42 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

It's two things.

1) This means of polling has the potential (and often the history of, which is why I brought up 2016) to underrepresent potential voters and should be taken with a grain of salt specifically for Bernie who is running a campaign of grassroots outreach towards people that will be invisible in this kind of polling. The amount as to which is impossible to determine, but the existence is definitely confirmable, ala his massive overperformance in almost every place in the primary season last election cycle, especially in the places where he was expected to lose big.

2) Your framing isn't accurate even if we accept this poll as entirely correct.

You could have just as easily said "Biden's base remains largely old, Bernie draws in young people and strong Latinx communities" if you wanted to and that would also be evident in the data. That's why this article in WSJ is titled "The Voting blocs propelling Biden, Warren and Sanders" - its more responsible framing.

When you couple that with your own personal excerpts like "he (Bernie) struggles significantly with the African American block and Women" you're in the ballpark of misrepresenting things and it fits a certain narrative whether you mean for it to or not.  Bernie does not struggle significantly with African American voters, he has been since the beginning of his campaign the 2nd highest in approval and support with that group of people across the board, with the key distinction being correctly identified in this article of Age. That's why I pointed out the quote I did, your current post could lead people to make the assumption that this is not true, especially if it is the popular conception of the Sanders demographic.

 Secondly, many polling demographic breakdowns have put Bernie ahead in the women vote compared to Warren, again depending on age even recently. This one for example only has a difference between them of 6 points - This is a landline poll, but lets say its 100% accurate. That would still mean that he is is effectively  only 3 points outside of the margin of error behind Warren in support of women. In this case, a better title to address Sanders support amongst Women would be to say that he may be waning slightly, not that "he struggles significantly" or that his support  is therefore  "largely male" 

Even better, the graphics in this polling are wonky. Unless I'm misreading something, the divided pie chart would show that Bernie has 21% support of Democratic Men right now, but later in the article they say he also has 21% support of Women ("Despite Mr. Sanders’s appeal among younger voters, more women under age 55 say they support Ms. Warren than Mr. Sanders, 27% to 21%) yet this is depicted as being a less significant number. Why does this not reflect reality? If Bernie has 21% support among Democratic men AND women, why are we taking away "Bernie's support is mostly male" when this exact poll says otherwise? Why shouldn't it read :

 "Bernie has almost equal support of women and men, despite losing some ground with women recently to Warren" (as in, his previous polling would indicate he had stronger support from women than men, but this poll identifies that Warren is pulling away self identified liberal women with college degrees in the 18-39 bloc)

It's because of framing. I wish I could find the direct polling data this article pulls from but I can't seem to find their source beyond their reporting of the source, so I am pulling entirely from the article itself.

... If you want to look at "significant struggle" then talk about Pete Buttigieg's abysmal 0-1% approval with the black community across all ages, education levels, etc. Just to give an example of a fair, consistent polling # that is worth mentioning. Biden's coalition of support is mostly unenthusiastic or reluctant, and overwhelmingly old. You could say that it is "diverse" in the sense that its not only old *white* people, but there are more metrics to note when we see voting blocs that are frequently discounted in the grand scheme of things. This group of people are registered and intend to vote per WSJ's reporting, but that doesn't mean they will, we know that from exit polling etc. after every election.

TL;DR:

Bernie's support is not "largely" male and a large chunk of his support comes from people that are fundamentally underrepresented in this style of polling method (that is landline polls towards only registered voters that *intend* to vote), so we should be careful to make headlines like this that misrepresent reality, otherwise we should expect this polling won't be entirely accurate if it maintains this methodology when voting actually starts. 

Corporate media will do everything they can to misrepresent and smear Bernie. It shows in the kind of coverage he gets while they give glowing press attention to “Strong Fourth Place Pete”.

Bernie was dragged to hell and back for having majority white men supporting him in 2016. Now that he has more of a diverse group of supporters, corporate media is questioning whether they are “too urban”. Meanwhile Pete’s support is mostly white and I have yet to hear how that will be a problem for him that will devastate his chances for the nomination. Mainstream media is biased against Bernie and it’s been that way since 2016.

[President Biden 5,898]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

This headline misses some important points present even in that article, but I get its probably supposed to be a huge gotcha to Bernie fans or invitation for his detractors...  However, its not because we generally pay attention to the news more intently than some other groups, not gonna lie.  Bernie's base is increasingly a young to middle age and diverse working class group of people. That's been pretty consistent for months now. It's not this all male, all white coalition that some people love to tout as "Bernie Bros"  

Bernie generally leads massively to moderately among young voters. It's not fair to say or even imply that Joe Biden has an informed coalition of black people who generally believe his vision is the best for (black) America evident in his support when his supporters are overwhelmingly  people above the age of 55 who are only mildly engaged politically if at all.

"Mr. Biden’s relatively weak hold on younger voters is apparent even among African-Americans. A substantial two-thirds of older African-Americans, those age 55 and above, say they back Mr. Biden in the Democratic primary, compared with about one-third of blacks under age 55." (emphasis added)

Many believe the elderly vote to be the most likely or important vote, and many polls systematically underrepresent the opinions of young people for this bias, true or not. However, this is  part of the how and why Bernie that was able to vastly overperform in 2016 against all of these kinds of polls and later went on to win or narrowly miss many primary states against Hillary Clinton who was at times polling with 40-60% approval at the beginning of the primary season after her announcing, almost double at times to what Joe Biden is polling in comparison. Yes, the field was essentially two people. Here, a big part of what is keeping Joe Biden insulated against criticism and falls is the size of the field, of which the DNC seems to have no vested interest in narrowing when it comes to debate thresholds... I'm no conspiracy theorist, but the fact is this is helping Joe Biden unduly.

At this point, Bernie, Warren, and *maybe* even Buttigieg could win Iowa. Joe could certainly lose it, and go on to only win South Carolina, while Bernie could take New Hampshire, Liz Nevada, and Buttigieg Iowa. (I don't think Buttigieg will win Iowa, but he has no chance at the nomination either way) I do think Joe needs to be taken down a peg, but smartly, but this race is still his to lose for sure.

Nevada polls are either Biden or Bernie dominated. Liz had yet to lead one.

 

Also to your comment about age, the fact of the matter is that voter turnout among 55+ voters is a lot higher than among millennials. So its no surprise they dominate polling, as polling is meant to be an accurate snapshot of predicted voters

[President Biden 5,898]

6 minutes ago, Marilyn MonHoe said:

Corporate media will do everything they can to misrepresent and smear Bernie. It shows in the kind of coverage he gets while they give glowing press attention to “Strong Fourth Place Pete”.

Bernie was dragged to hell and back for having majority white men supporting him in 2016. Now that he has more of a diverse group of supporters, corporate media is questioning whether they are “too urban”. Meanwhile Pete’s support is mostly white and I have yet to hear how that will be a problem for him that will devastate his chances for the nomination. Mainstream media is biased against Bernie and it’s been that way since 2016.

The mainstream media’s selected candidate (especially MSNBC) is Liz, not Pete or Joe. So

[Whispering 18,865]

37 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

History agrees with you, but I just want to point out that this part I've bolded is true, but crucially not very reflective of Joe Biden's relationship with the black community and race, certainly not in this primary. He is essentially floating on a cloud of Obama era relationship building, which is why I think he could still lose this support, especially if he manages to lose not only early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, but even longer into the primary season. That's why Harris IMO got such a big chunk of support after she attacked Biden on racial issues in that debate (she flopped afterwards, but I was hoping she'd do more damage because hes truly so vulnerable)

Biden is hemoragging in financial support on hand, making almost a third in donations to what Sanders and Warren made - and they've both sworn off PAC money. He will need to actually try to do the bolded IMO if he wants to maintain that support. If Warren for example pulls ahead in superdelegate count (she could be close already if everything goes her way), I suspect they will change over to her. Similarly, there are many people who i could see changing over to Sanders if he overperforms not only again in these early 4 states but later in the season as well. As I said in another thread, this race is still Biden's to lose for sure, even as it seems less likely every day because of the way the DNC is shielding him arbitrarily.

Not true about South Carolina. The Bidens have adopted that state as a second home for years. Also, Biden has been around in politics for long enough that people feel like they know him. He’s campaigned for Presidential races through many of these southern states for the third time now. He was a VP for eight years, going to events in these states, going to events and speaking engagements after he was VP. Biden has a long history of meeting people in communities across much of the US. 

African Americans over the age of 45 “tend to be more risk-averse in how they exercise their vote. These older black voters, particularly in the South, tend to favor more conservative candidates because they perceive such candidates as being more electable than unyielding progressives.

And black voters old enough to recall the terrors of Jim Crow, have “a sense that the vote is too important to exercise based on gut instinct and ... a dream of what you would love to happen if the world were perfect.”

This theory guided many black S.C. voters in 2008, when Obama was seen as too much of a risk compared to Hillary Clinton. Once white voters rallied behind Obama in the Iowa Caucus, black South Carolinians delivered him the state’s primary election.

The stakes feel higher for many black voters now than they did in 2008, seeing in Trump a president they believe does not deliver policies that help the African American community.

“African Americans understand that they have so much to lose with the re-election of President Trump,” said U.S. Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., “You’re not just talking about Roe v. Wade. You’re talking about a Supreme Court that could roll back Brown v. Board of Education, race used in college admissions. … There’s a bunch of things that are hanging out there that could decimate the African American community.”

The guiding fear is another four years of Trump...and that’s the same for most Democrats and Independents. This election, the stakes are higher, for everyone. 

 

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

51 minutes ago, KleinGa said:

What makes the Emerson poll more accurate?

Can you explain what you mean when you say CNN flipped the poll? And provide an article?

 

CNNsucks

Emmerson has A- rating

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

[KleinGa 18,177]

12 minutes ago, Lilmonzter said:

CNNsucks

Emmerson has A- rating

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

While I'm in no means a CNN supporter, as a response to the video: they can't make a headline saying Sanders is leading because it violates press guidelines 

Additionally, the polls that were allegedly "switched" were two different polls. They were showing different numbers because they were not the same polls. Even the dates vary. 

12 minutes ago, Lilmonzter said:

Emmerson has A- rating

Other polls have just as high ratings, why do you trust Emmerson over all of them? Is it because that's one of the few showing Bernie in the lead over Warren?

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

50 minutes ago, Halsey said:

The mainstream media’s selected candidate (especially MSNBC) is Liz, not Pete or Joe. So

First it was Joe, then it was Harris, Pete and now Warren. And throughout all of that they’ve been smearing and downplaying Bernie. So

[Whispering 18,865]

Just now, Marilyn MonHoe said:

First it was Joe, then it was Harris, Pete and now Warren. And throughout all of that they’ve been smearing and downplaying Bernie. So

That’s just BS. Biden has received the most tv media attention, and plenty of it has been negative. He’s also been ahead in the polls since he has declared. Bernie was second for a while, but now he is third. I just saw a positive news spot on MSNBC about Bernie being in Iowa and talking about his Green New Deal. 

The victim complex isn’t a good look. It’s whiney and simply not accurate. 

[HeavyCapiLover 4,389]

What is the american definition of "liberal" because I think it's very different from some other countries. In France we define "liberals" as persons mostly from the right, it's about economy and they stand for less socialism and for free market (they stand for policies like privatization).  But I've heard that in America, being a liberal means being for social progressism with values like equality for all. Am I right?

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

That’s just BS. Biden has received the most tv media attention, and plenty of it has been negative. He’s also been ahead in the polls since he has declared. Bernie was second for a while, but now he is third. I just saw a positive news spot on MSNBC about Bernie being in Iowa and talking about his Green New Deal. 

The victim complex isn’t a good look. It’s whiney and simply not accurate. 

 There are a multitude of ways that corporate media not only smears Bernie but is actively trying to erase him from the conversation (it'll never work).

Here is a video showing their bias in action:

Spoiler

 

Here are a whole bunch of instances where corporate media is clearly against Bernie:

Spoiler

Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign alleged Monday that corporate media outlets are intentionally ignoring—and attempting to undermine—the Vermont senator's significant gains in recent polls with "cartoonishly inaccurate" reporting and headlines.

"In the last week, a wave of polls has emerged showing a genuine, full-on Bernie surge—but you might not know that if you tuned into cable TV or read the headlines from the national press corps," Sanders speechwriter David Sirota wrote in the campaign's Bern Notice newsletter. "In fact, you might not even know Bernie is running for president."

The polls, Sirota noted, show Sanders is leading in New Hampshire, in second place and gaining momentum (pdf) in Iowa, in second place and surging in the key battleground state of Michigan, and the only 2020 Democrat leading President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

"Despite all this data, many in the national press corps continued to both inaccurately report the polling results—and also pretend Bernie doesn't exist," wrote Sirota, who pointed to several flagrant examples that he said are part of a pattern of media outlets attempting to "ignore and derail" the Sanders campaign's momentum.

"In a report about its own poll showing Bernie in first place in New Hampshire," Sirota wrote. "CNN put an inaccurate graphic up showing Bernie in second place."

The Intercept's Ryan Grim highlighted the error on Twitter:

 

Sirota also cited a report by the New York Times claiming that South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg "eclipsed" Sanders—despite the poll the story was based showing Sanders in second place ahead of Buttigieg.

On other occasions, corporate media outlets like CNN and the Times have simply left Sanders out of the conversation—a phenomenon the Sanders campaign has described as the "Bernie Blackout."

Journalist Ken Klippenstein noted the phenomenon on Monday in response to the Times poll that showed Warren and Sanders—given the margin of error—statistically tied. The newspaper's push notification tellingly left Sanders' name out entirely.

 

Last week, Grim highlighted CNN's decision not to give Sanders the headline for its latest Iowa state poll even though he came out on top:

 

As the patchwork of evidence mounts, critical observers of the corporate media's treatment of Sanders have now made efforts to compile examples of the behavior:

 

"All of these examples are no accident," Sirota tweeted late Monday. "This is a deliberate attempt to erase Bernie Sanders. But here's some news: We're not being erased. We're going to win."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/05/examples-mount-sanders-campaign-accuses-corporate-media-deliberate-attempt-erase

 

Dozens of examples for the Washington Post's bias against Bernie:

https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/the-washington-posts-well-documented-bias-against-bernie-sanders-be808aca8c94

 

Example of the Washington Post blatantly lying about Bernie's proposals:

Spoiler

Bernie Sanders recently announced his Workplace Democracy Plan, a sweeping labor platform that would double union membership, ban “right to work” laws, give federal workers the right to strike, and institute sectoral-wide bargaining, to name just a few highlights. It’s possibly the boldest, most comprehensive labor platform ever released by a US presidential candidate.

But if you rely on the Washington Post for your news, you wouldn’t know any of this.

The headline of their sole report on the platform: “Sen. Bernie Sanders Changes Medicare-for-All Plan in Face of Opposition by Organized Labor.” To justify such a spin, the paper seized on just one detail from the plan — a mandate that employers raise employee wages with savings from Sanders’s separate Medicare-for-All bill — and framed it as a flip-flop on Medicare for All, rather than what it actually was: a clear win for the labor movement that’s in line with everything Sanders has argued for his entire political life.

The headline (which has since been slightly edited) was a blatant lie. Sanders didn’t alter a word of his health-care plan, on which he’s campaigned consistently for years. His labor platform simply concretized the labor-friendly side effects of Medicare for All, which has always been far better for workers than any competing proposal.

As a stand-alone occurrence, this would have been an upsetting, but forgettable, case of biased reporting. But it continues a disturbing trend in the Washington Post’s 2020 coverage. Here are some of the worst examples.

Shortly following the release of his labor platform, Sanders unveiled his fourteen-thousand-word Green New Deal plan — far and away the most comprehensive climate change platform of any presidential candidate. The Post published four negative opinion pieces about the plan (including one from the editorial board claiming “Sanders’s climate plan will take us nowhere,” and another calling it, incredibly, worse than Trump’s border wall promise). To counter this, the paper published only one positive opinion piece.

When Kamala Harris actually flip-flopped on health care by abandoning Sanders’s Medicare-for-All bill in favor of a plan to permanently preserve private insurance, the Post rewarded her with an editorial board op-ed framing her proposal as a favorable alternative to Sanders’s. They claimed Sanders’s bill is “disruptive, expensive,” and “unrealistic,” while baselessly claiming Harris’s plan is “equally, if not more, serious” about achieving universal coverage. (To clarify the facts: Sanders has an actual legislative bill that would guarantee universal coverage in four years. Harris has a Medium post that aims to get there in ten.)

To support the counterfactual narrative that unions are opposed to Medicare for All, the Post gathered quotes from union leaders who oppose the policy. Among those quoted was Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants. “When we’re able to hang on to the health plan we have, that’s considered a massive win,” she said. The Post cut her quote here, suggesting that she was speaking out against Medicare for All. The problem: Nelson and her union strongly support the single-payer policy, as would have been made clear had the Post included the rest of her quote: “But it’s a huge drag on our bargaining. So our message is: Get it off the table.” (The article has since been corrected.)

The Post’s “fact-checker” Glenn Kessler has repeatedly lied about Medicare for All while presenting himself as the arbiter of objectivity. In a particularly bad example, he made three false claims in a single article while arguing that it was dishonest for Sanders to claim that Medicare for All would save the United States $2 trillion. (In fact, Sanders was correctly citing a conservative study on his bill. More recent studies have shown it would save over $5 trillion.)

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/08/washington-post-bernie-sanders-media-2020-coverage

 

MSNBC's ire for Bernie:

Spoiler

The mounting tension between a leading progressive presidential campaign and a leading progressive cable news network has reached a new peak.   

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and MSNBC have always had a complicated relationship. Sanders, a top-tier contender for the Democratic nomination, has long questioned the news media’s biases, while pundits have taken fresh shots at the Vermont senator this cycle. But officials in Sanders’ campaign contend that leading up to the 2020 election, the network is one of several cable news outlets directly contributing to a media climate where false claims go unchecked and requests for progressive voices on-air are frequently turned down. 

“More often than not these commentators are injecting their opinion without any policy discussions,” Nina Turner, the national co-chair of Sanders’ campaign, told The Daily Beast. “They’re not there to tell the gospel truth.”

The backlash from Sanders-world reached a new high on Sunday, when MSNBC analyst Mimi Rocah, a former assistant U.S attorney for the Southern District of New York and occasional contributor to The Daily Beast, launched a personal critique of Sanders during a segment with host David Gura, saying that he makes her “skin crawl” and that he’s not a “pro-woman candidate.”  

“Bernie Sanders makes my skin crawl,” Rocah started when discussing the lineup for the upcoming Democratic debate in Detroit, where Sanders will share a stage with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). “I can’t even identify for you what exactly it is. But I see him as sort of a not pro-woman candidate,” she continued. "So, having the two of them there—like, I don’t understand young women who support him. And I’m hoping having him next to her will help highlight that.”

Rocah’s comments—which multiple campaign officials contended went too far—were part of a larger issue they see brewing, where the fact-checking process appears to be largely removed from the day-to-day political discourse among some commentators and hosts.  

“It takes a certain kind of woman to ignore that education, healthcare, and the economy are women’s issues too. #privilegedmuch? This is not what intersectional feminism looks like. It’s corporate feminism at its finest. Full stop,” Sanders’ national press secretary Briahna Joy Gray wrote on Twitter.

“Here we go again.. It is so belittling to constantly tell young women that they HAVE TO vote for someone JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE A WOMAN. Mam, we have brains, we're voting on policy and a candidates vision + work, not their sex. This is #WhiteFeminism at its finest,” Belén Sisa, Sanders’ Latino press secretary, tweeted.

For all the campaign’s gripes with the left-leaning news network, there’s early indication that his message is going over better with an ideologically opposite cable news network. A recent Morning Consult poll found that Fox News viewers are more likely to support Sanders than those who prefer to watch MSNBC. According to the survey, 22 percent of Fox News viewers who identified as possible Democratic primary voters said they would back Sanders, as opposed to 13 percent of MSNBC viewers. That statistic was bolstered further by Sanders’ ratings during his own town hall appearance on Fox News, where more than 2.5 million viewers tuned in to hear Sanders make his case, according to Nielsen data. 

A source with direct knowledge told The Daily Beast that Sanders recently called Morning Joe co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski to have an off-the-record talk.  

This comes as the top MSNBC hosts said Sanders’ Democratic socialist platform would give Trump an upper hand in a possible match-up. 

“My God if you’re afraid to say you’re a capitalist,” Scarborough, who recently criticized Sanders’ general tone and temperament, said. “Let me let you in on a little secret. If that is a crisis for your party, you’re gonna lose in 2020.”

Addressing Scarborough’s comments directly, frequent MSNBC guest Donny Deutsch said he wanted to “take it one step further” with his own hypothesis: “A socialist candidate is more dangerous to this country as far as the strength and wellbeing of our country than Donald Trump,” he said.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-war-between-bernie-sanders-and-msnbc-reaches-a-new-peak

 

There is so much more than that by the way but I am not going to sit here for hours just to try and prove a point to someone who is obtuse or is being intentionally ignorant. Not a good look.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

2 hours ago, KleinGa said:

While I'm in no means a CNN supporter, as a response to the video: they can't make a headline saying Sanders is leading because it violates press guidelines 

Additionally, the polls that were allegedly "switched" were two different polls. They were showing different numbers because they were not the same polls. Even the dates vary. 

Other polls have just as high ratings, why do you trust Emmerson over all of them? Is it because that's one of the few showing Bernie in the lead over Warren?

It may take me a while to dig the info up but Emerson was more accurate in 2016 primary between Bernie and Hillary because their polling methodology is unique. 

[KleinGa 18,177]

49 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

It may take me a while to dig the info up but Emerson was more accurate in 2016 primary between Bernie and Hillary because their polling methodology is unique. 

Would love to see this data.