Poll Shows Hillary Clinton Maintaining Lead Over Bernie Sanders

[brooklynite]

Source: New York Times

Despite a month of sharpened attacks, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has failed to significantly dent Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lead in the Democratic presidential race, according to a New York Times/CBS News survey released on Thursday.

Mrs. Clinton has support from 52 percent of Democratic primary voters, while Mr. Sanders has backing from 33 percent, the poll found. In an early October CBS News poll, she led Mr. Sanders 56 percent to 32 percent.

...snip...

A third Democratic candidate, former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, will also take part in Saturday’s debate, but he is trailing far behind his rivals. He received 5 percent of the vote in the Times/CBS News poll.

...snip...

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Nov. 6 to 10 on cellphones and landlines with 418 Democratic primary voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus six percentage points. Additional findings from the full poll will be published on Thursday at 6:30 p.m.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/12/poll-shows-hillary-clinton-maintaining-lead-over-sanders/

[riversedge]

1. Nov 11, NYTimes/CBS new Dem poll: Clinton 52, Sanders 33, O'Malley 5%

Nov 11, NYTimes/CBS new Dem poll: Clinton 52, Sanders 33, O'Malley 5%


http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/12/poll-shows-hillary-clinton-maintaining-lead-over-sanders/


Poll Shows Hillary Clinton Maintaining Lead Over Bernie Sanders





Hillary Clinton speaking at Clark Atlanta University last month.Credit Kevin D. Liles for The New York Times

Despite a month of sharpened attacks, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has failed to significantly dent Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lead in the Democratic presidential race, according to a New York Times/CBS News survey released on Thursday.

Mrs. Clinton has support from 52 percent of Democratic primary voters, while Mr. Sanders has backing from 33 percent, the poll found. In an early October CBS News poll, she led Mr. Sanders 56 percent to 32 percent................


............But Mrs. Clinton enjoys a firmer base of voters than Mr. Sanders, according to the poll. Fifty-four percent of her supporters said their minds were completely made up, while 58 percent of Mr. Sanders’s supporters said they had not made a final decision.

And 43 percent of Democrats said they would enthusiastically support Mrs. Clinton as their presidential nominee, compared to 35 percent for Mr. Sanders. Slim majorities of women, nonwhites and older voters said they would enthusiastically back Mrs. Clinton as the party’s choice, while just three in 10 male Democrats said they would feel that way about her as their standard-bearer in 2016...........

[NurseJackie]

2. Oh, good.

Back to reality. This pleases me very much.

[RoccoR5955]

3. Both polls

from the bought and paid for Mainstream media, designed to see the results that they want!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

5. Unskew the polls!

How'd that work for Romney in 2012?

[Attorney in Texas]

20. Do you know what it means to "unskew" a poll? If you did, you would know that your comment is a non

sequitur.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

21. "Unskew the polls" refers to the Romney campaign in 2012.

They were claiming that the pollsters were in the bag for Obama, kind of like certain people here claiming that the pollsters are in the bag for Hillary.

https://www.google.com/search?q=unskew+the+polls&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[Attorney in Texas]

23. "Unskewing" a poll is a specific process whereby the poll results are reinterpreted after adjustment

is made in an attempt to make the polled population more accurately reflect an different assumption about the likely voter population.

No one is trying to "unskew" any polls. Suggesting otherwise implies that you are either making an unhelpful false attack or do not know the meaning of the words you type. Neither is particularly flattering.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

24. You are completely missing the point.

Everytime there is a positive poll for Hillary, there is a vocal segment who claims the polls are biased towards here. This SAME argument was used against Obama by the Romney camp. THAT is where "unskew the polls" comes from. It has nothing to do with the actual science behind polls, and everything to do with those who claim that the pollsters are all in the bag for Hillary.

You seem to not be getting it, but it's ok. You're new here. A cursory search of DU for "unskew the polls" will help you out.

[Dawgs]

4. Google? n/t

[daleo]

6. In the Canadian election, Justin Trudeau came from behind to win

He came back from a comparable deficit, so you never know.

[Nitram]

7. So is Sanders Barack Obama?

Or Justin Trudeau?

[SunSeeker]

9. He's Larry David.

[brooklynite]

10. No he didn't

The Liberals were neck and neck for a considerable period, and were never more than 5 points behind. Bernie has a long way to go to reach that status. Add to which, he stopped gaining on Clinton in mid-September.

[Nitram]

11. OK, stop with the reality check already.

Fiction is so much more fun.

[tabasco]

13. Yes, he did.

Two weeks before the election, he was behind (in the poll you posted, wherever it's from). But he won. Call it what you want but I call it "coming from behind to win."

Here is a report from Gallup in October 2007:

The Democratic Race: Conditions Auspicious for Sen. Clinton to Win

Gallup’s 2007 national presidential polling strongly points to Clinton winning the 2008 Democratic nomination. Barring something unusual or otherwise unexpected, she is well positioned for the 2008 Democratic primaries. Obama has not been an insignificant rival: he came within single digits of tying Clinton for the lead at two points this spring. But he has recently lost ground and is now in the weakest position relative to Clinton that he has been in all year.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102277/gallup-election-review-october-2007.aspx

[brooklynite]

16. As has been mentioned endlessly, Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama...

He doesn't have the same campaign organization, the financial resources and the political support that Obama had, even this far out.

But if you disagree, tell me which States Sanders will be winning to assemble the delegates needed for the nomination? Because I can lay out a reasonable analysis of the States Clinton will be winning.

[tabasco]

17. I'm not here to argue absurdities.

I merely pointed out some historical facts.

[daleo]

30. Trudeau came from behind and increased his share of the popular vote, by a large amount

At the beginning of the campaign he was in 3rd place, polling at 25%. At the end, 1st place and 40%. That's a big shift. Big shifts happen, that's my point. It always looks impossible before they actually occur.

[SunSeeker]

8. K & R

[CoffeeCat]

12. Yes, Hillary led in all national polls in the 2008 primary too...

These national polls mean something. It's nice to be ahead in national polls. She benefits from name recognition and from the media ignoring Bernie Sanders.

However, these national polls mean virtually nothing.

Hillary was ahead in every single national poll, during this stage of our 2008 Democratic primary. She was beating Obama by 50+ points in some state polls.

And look what happened...Obama won.

[JoePhilly]

14. So is Bernie LIKE Obama, or NOT LIKE Obama?

It seems to change day by day.

[CoffeeCat]

18. Bernie is following a similar trajectory as Obama...

...was during the 2008 caucuses.

Obama was behind in Iowa by wide margins in 2008. Hillary was always ahead.

Then, as the Iowa caucuses approached, the gap between Hillary, Obama and Edwards lessened.

Then, Obama won the Iowa caucuses. Hillary came in third.

So yes--if you're looking at the trajectory of these candidates--during comparable times in the Democratic primary--Sanders is following a similar line that Obama did.

But there are a couple of distinctions: Bernie is doing better than Obama. Bernie was beating Hillary in Iowa late this summer. Obama never accomplished that feat. Secondly, the caucus isn't until Feb--and Bernie has narrowed the gap to within 15 points. Obama didn't have that advantage 8 weeks before the caucus.

The Iowa media is in the tank for Hillary, and clearly favors Hillary--and yet Bernie is doing very well. Plus, he's beating her in NH. Fantastic news.

Isn't that amazing?!

[JoePhilly]

19. Lol, ok.

[brooklynite]

28. But here's the difference...

Hillary's "trajectory" in 2007-2008 was consistently 40-45%; that meant Obama, WITH his financial resources AND his political support AND his campaign organization, was able to assemble a coalition of the majority non-Hillary voters.

Hillary's trajectory in 2005-2016 is consistently above 50%, and since mid-September has consistently not been dropping (currently rising). Sanders can try to pick up all the non-Hillary votes he wants; there aren't enough.

[Gregorian]

15. And the rich sigh a sigh of relief.

Wouldn't want to change to make a better society. She'll pacify the moderates, and do just fine keeping everything as it shouldn't be.

[Attorney in Texas]

22. Why are the live phone polls so much tighter than the goofy internet-based polls? Why are the likely

voter polls so much tighter than the registered voter polls or polls that do not even screen for voter registration?

Clearly, the live phone polls of likely voters is the best data, and obviously Clinton is leading substantially in these polls as well.

The interesting question is why does Clinton consistently do better in junk polls as compared to her margin in more reliable polls?

[Oneironaut]

25. Ok, Here's my dilemma with Sanders:

I think he is the best candidate. I really wish he would win. However, I don't think he can win.

"Socialist" is still an evil word in the U.S., and Bernie has already been pegged as one. I think he would lose in the general election. That's why I think Clinton, while being a worse candidate, is still the best chance we have to win the election.

I really don't want a Republican in the White House. It's a no-win situation. If Bernie goes third-party on us, I might rip my hair out.

[randys1]

26. Maybe it's just me but if I was running Hillary's campaign, this would be bad news.

Despite the non stop, 24/7, nationwide, media wide, internet wide, Democratic Underground wide attempt to smear Hillary and destroy her politically, she still leads, but for Bernie to get 33% this early on, is rather amazing.

Every week more and more people find out about him, hear what he has to say and that can only give him more support, not less.

But we will see.

What I am finding interesting is that pile of human dung David Vitter and his race with the veteran.

They are really going at it.

Vitter is hoping people dont know what "tracking" is, that all campaigns do it, as he attacks his opponent for doing it.

[Iliyah]

27. Vitter is hoping for a very low turn out coupled with keeping RWers from

jumping ship.

[Z_California]

29. There's no way she can lose now.

It's all over. Cancel the primaries. This thing is in the bag. Shhhh, just let it happen.