Sanders leads Clinton in new NH poll….

In a new Franklin Pierce University/Boston Herald poll  Bernie Sanders now leads Hillary Clinton 44 to 37%….

The poll is small, 442 people and has a high margin of error, 4.7%….But it IS the first poll to show Sanders ahead of Clinton….

We’ll see what other polls say….

The Vermont Senator has been gaining steadily on Clinton in neigboring New Hampshire…

A stunning new poll has Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) beating presumptive Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire.

Sanders has eclipsed Clinton by a 44 to 37 percent margin, according to a new Franklin Pierce University/Boston Herald poll that was first reported by the Boston newspaper Tuesday evening.

The previous FPU/Herald poll taken in March had Sanders trailing Clinton 44 to 8.

Today’s poll is the first to show Sanders, whose liberal policies are popular with the Democratic base, ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire….

More….

Correction….The original number of people listed for the poll

BY ME was 4,442…. That is incorrect…The corrected number is 442 respondents……

Democratic Socialist Dave
Guest
It all depends on how closed a party’s primary or caucus-tree is. If unaffiliated/unenrolled/decline-to-state voters are allowed to vote in partisan primaries, or if they’re allowed to switch to a party close to primary election day and then vote in that party’s primary, then you want to include unaffiliated voters in your sample; in fact you’d be skewing your sample and results by excluding such voters. If on the other hand it’s hard for unaffiliated voters to vote in partisan primaries, then it would be… Read more »
Democratic Socialist Dave
Guest
I glanced at Wednesday’s Boston Herald and it said 442 (we all know what it’s like to hit a key too long or once too often). That’s a reasonable number, especially since it was asking Democrats in NH, and compares with the samples taken in Rhode Island, with a similar population and the same number of Congressional seats (2). With over 400, you can conveniently allocate the sample to about 200 in each C.D. for district results with a higher margin of error, but one… Read more »
Zreebs
Guest

the lead is statistically significant.

Zreebs
Guest

Ok – that makes much more sense.

Zreebs
Guest

Ultimately, I don’t think too many people will vote against someone because she/he erased emails. I’d bet there will be bigger issues by next November.

Manila Calling!
Guest

New Hampshire is a giant killer some times.

Her ads are phony log cabin stuff.

Nasty problem those E mails too.

Still lots of time.

Zreebs
Guest

Yeah, I’m actually surprised that with that sample size, the margin of error is so high. I don’t have my old stats text available, but I assume that the survey is “correcting” for some sampling bias.

Democratic Socialist Dave
Guest
It may not be intuitive, James, but 4,442 is a huge sample for a state the size of New Hampshire. I think that when I took the California Poll for Field Research Corp. in the early 1980’s, the sample for the whole Golden State was about 3,000, and if you look at the national samples at PollingReport.com, they seem to be about the same size. I’m no good at calculus or statistics, but this where the margin of error and the 95% confidence level for… Read more »