Around the same time,
another poll shows Clinton +29 in Iowa. At the very least, these two polls tell us to be wary of polls.
By no means am I touting one poll over the other. I'm more or less clueless as to where things stand.
Consider the media and Sanders campaign framing vs reality.
Sanders ignores the fact he has a limited demographic of supporters, notes he's getting more and more support and predicts he's the next Obama. He also predicts Clinton is
in big trouble.
The news media can't help themselves comparing Sanders to Obama based on a few variables like Iowa and New Hampshire poll results while ignoring the fact Obama had an appeal to a wide demographic and was a more eloquent campaigner than Sanders who keeps yelling about the evil rich individuals, bankers and corporations.
Not saying Sanders' cause isn't valid, it is. That's why he has the following he does. But it is a more narrow appeal than his supporters would like to believe.
Now, what about the narrative Clinton is in trouble? If instead of looking at the media hype where a small lead in Iowa is reported as a tie and a small lead in New Hampshire is reported as a Sanders' lead, and instead of looking at the headlines of a poll with a big Sanders' lead in Iowa as if it were a given and a clear trend, when there was, as you said, a poll taken at the same time which showed Clinton with a big lead in Iowa, you look at other factors.
Clinton endorsements are increasing. Of course even there you have to judge the validity of the framing.
Common Dreams frames it the way Sanders would like to see it.
Bernie Sanders Gets Group Endorsements When Members Decide; Hillary Clinton When Leaders Decide
That's bull. Are they claiming the unions endorsing Sanders took a vote and Every group endorsing Clinton was an executive decision? The chart in the article begs to differ.
The group endorsements of Sanders include MoveOn, Democracy for America, and Working Families Vote took online polls. All the rest including the union endorsements were by executive decisions.
One union endorsing Sanders, Communication Workers of America, collected member input into the decision. But so did 5 of the groups endorsing Clinton.
So unless an online member poll is more representative of membership than member polling and collecting member opinions, the framing of the article title is false. The data in the article completely refutes the article!
Compare the chart to the report:
For example, Clinton got an endorsement from the Human Rights Campaign this week. That decision was made not by a vote of HRC’s membership list but instead by a 32-member executive board that includes Mike Berman, the president of a lobbying firm that works for Pfizer, Comcast, and the health insurance lobby. Northrup Grumman is among its list of major corporate sponsors.
The Sanders campaign blasted the group as “establishment” and said that Sanders has a much stronger record on LGBT equality than Clinton. Outspoken gay activist Michaelangelo Signorile wrote that HRC had clearly traded its early endorsement for “access to the White House” for its leaders.
Common Dreams is reporting on the original article in
The Intercept which says the same thing but is longer. The longer article includes even more dubious information such as a single NEA member's unsupported claim:
“For either candidate to get real grassroots support from NEA members, an endorsement ought to be the result of an extended dialogue with members,” said Anthony Cody, an education blogger who was a member of the National Education Association for two decades. “Hillary Clinton has engaged in a few phone calls with NEA leaders, but the membership has been left out. “
The chart describes the NEA decision to back Clinton as an "Executive board and PAC council vote". The data in the chart cites this link:
Behind the Scenes of NEA's Endorsement: Which Affiliates Backed Clinton? It elaborates on the disgruntled [my framing] Anthony Cody.
Hillary Clinton spoke to the NEA Board of Directors before it voted.
So?
The union's PAC Council took a roll-call vote. Remember how I said this was unlikely? I was wrong. Usually, the union's endorsements are pretty pro-forma.This time, apparently, there was sufficient disagreement that someone demanded a roll-call vote. Kudos to Mike Antonucci, who posted the results on his blog. As he notes, the PAC Council approval came by a margin of 85 percent of votes cast, but there were a significant number of abstentions—more than 1,100 or 41 percent of available votes! Note also that certain states gain power because of the council's weighted voting structure. The Delaware affiliate has only 4 percent of the membership of NEA's largest affiliate, California, but it has 32 percent of California's PAC Council votes. That's because it raises a lot of cash per head for the NEA's PAC.
85% is a huge margin. The paragraph goes on to note there were 41% abstentions. So were they actual conscious abstentions or just 41% that didn't vote?
A gripe is made about weighted votes. Well, they represent more contributions to the PAC! Gee, so they get more votes as to what the PAC should do with the funds.
There is a chart with actual PAC council votes and the totals are 118 to endorse Clinton, 40 no votes, 8 abstentions and 4 absents.
That sounds like a strong Clinton endorsement to me with enough dissenters it's no surprise some are expressing their discontent.
To make this long rant short, look at the facts beneath the framing and Clinton has a surprisingly strong base of support you might not see from the news media and other framed reports.
