Why Every Poll About Bernie Sanders is Wrong

Washington D.C. is atwitter about Bernie Sanders-AOC’s pole position in the latest Des Moines Register poll of a little more than 700 likely voters, which has a conventionally measured margin of error rate of 3.4%. That poll is wrong, as is all the FiveThirtyEight’s polling and RealClearPolitics polling because every one of those polls surveys likely voters (which is exactly what pollsters are supposed to do) because those are the voters who actually go and vote, as opposed to polling people whose views literally don’t count because they do not vote, and they pre-set the under-40 turnout vote at about 20% to 25% lower than the 60 and over voter turnout.

And yes, this Morning Consult poll explaining that despite Biden’s follies on the campaign trail, he is the best option to face Trump, is also wrong:

It is all based on the wrong assumptions about the under-40 turnout for Sanders-AOC, and it is based on not counting any non-voters. Even though, they are doing exactly what polls are supposed to do to be accurate.

Except for this: three weeks before the election of AOC, Crowley (her opponent) polls showed him up 36 points.

Then he lost.

There is bad polling but no way any polling, especially done by professionals who had been accurate in the past, could be that far off.

What happened?

Crowley lost because AOC as a candidate achieved two extraordinary, unprecedented goals that all the political professionals, including vast swaths of now sitting Senators and current U.S. House Representatives members, thought (and still think) was/is impossible:

• AOC’s under 40-year-old voter turnout equaled her 60-year-old and over voter turnout, which depending on the election, the under 40-year-old turnout is about 20-25 points lower, meaning that even though there are more under-40-year-old voters, their turnout means there always are more 60 or over votes actually cast — that is, until AOC’s election.
• AOC’s next unprecedented achievement was to have 68% of her voters go from being non-voters to voters. Put it another way, almost 70% of her voters were non-voters, right up until they voted. They would be considered new voters, or as AOC herself says, they went from “non-voter to voter.”

This means that every single poll counting likely voters would have missed AOC’s 68% new voter surge, ergo, the establishment and political class had credible polls in hand showing Crowley, AOC’s Dem House leadership opponent, showing him ahead by 36 points. But, alas, he was not. He lost.

Every poll we are reading about Iowa or New Hampshire or Nevada or South Carolina or any state or nationally, has a standard, pre-set lower vote margin for the under 40 vote. Why? Because it is predictable, proven voter behavior, the under 40-year-old turnout is 20% to 25% less than the 60-year-old and older. It’s predictable — just like the sun coming up, regardless of the candidate or geographic location — right up until it wasn’t, on AOC’s election night.

And if you watch the 8-minute video and read the Intercept article linked in the last sentence of my blog predicting Bernie will win Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, then you will see that this strategy of equalizing the under-40 turn out with the 60-and-over turnout, and bringing a wave of new voters out to caucus or vote, are key, central strategies of the Sanders-AOC campaign.

Therefore, all these polls have a built-in bias against the Sanders-AOC campaign strategy.

Since the pollsters are not polling non-voters, they can’t count these Bernie supporters. Therefore, all current pollsters are undercounting Bernie’s support by a significant margin.

How big is that margin?

The only way to determine how big that margin is would be to poll non-voters and under-40 voters in the three early primary states, to determine what percentage of non-voters are Sanders-AOC supporters, change the under-40 turnout for Sanders, and then add the percentage of non-voters found to be backing Sanders, to the Sanders polling totals.

That will give an accurate picture of where the Sanders-AOC campaign is now.

And AOC is convinced, and so is Bernie, if AOC did it once, she can do it again.

So they built their entire campaign around finding non-voters who will become Sanders-AOC voters.

And in the Establishment halls of Democratic party power, they are having a collective, who-moved-my-cheese moment.

Change is scary. Change is difficult. If AOC and Bernie strategy of equalizing the under 40 turnout with the 60 and over, and bring in waves of new voters works, then it means every single thing will change for the Democrats.

It is also why AOC just told the Democratic Party leadership she will not be giving the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (the DCCC) any money and will be funding candidates challenging Democratic party, U.S. House incumbents.

The Democratic Establishment knows perfectly well about AOCs turnout and new voter achievements. They know because she has been telling them until she has been blue-in-the-face that the party should adopt her strategy, and change the way Dem politics work.

But the Dem leadership does not want innovation or electoral risk, they want predictable, they don’t want uncertainty.

“Sometimes the question comes: ‘Do you want to be in a majority or do you want to be in the minority?'” Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., told Fox News, when asked about AOC’s stance. “And do you want to be part of a team?” (Ironic that Meeks is telling Fox News this.)

AOC is saying to the Dem leadership, let’s grow our vote and under 40 turnout.

And the Dem leadership tells AOC she is not a team player, when all AOC is trying to do is help them. They see it more as a wholesale take over under which Pelosi et all would not farewell, and ultimately, leave.

Meeks either refuses to believe AOC can recreate her turnout and non-voter to voter achievement elsewhere or thinks she should disarm herself politically and play on the likely voter field, which Meeks and crew understand and can control.

If AOC just told the Democratic House leadership that she is not giving them a dime, despite AOC being the best fundraiser there is — all before Bernie-AOC crushes the ball in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, with their 5th column of voters that pollsters can’t, and refuse to change their methodology, to actually see — then imagine what AOC’s demands and actions will be after the Sanders-AOC wins in the early primary states?

In other words, I wonder what change cometh when Sanders-AOC wins the first three states and the Democratic establishment is really challenged?

My guess is the Dem Establishment look around for a life ring, whose name will be, I predict, Michael Bloomberg, who just mentioned he’s open to spending $1 billion to defeat Trump.

This, of course, will only strengthen the Sanders-AOC appeal to the under-40 and non-voter (soon to be) voter.

P.S. After a hard-core, top veteran, elite GOP campaign operator read this, he sent back:

J(o)EB(iden)