New Reuters Poll Shows Bernie Sanders Taking National Lead
Source: US Uncut
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday shows Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton by one point with registered Democratic voters.
The survey of 1,680 registered voters, 635 of whom identified as Democrats, was conducted between April 9 and April 13. Among all Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton by a 47-42 margin, with 11 percent of respondents saying they wouldnt vote for either candidate. Sanders beats Clinton by a narrow margin of 49-48 among registered Democrats, and he demolishes Clinton by 16 points among self-identified independents. The polls margin of error is 2.7 percent.
Among all respondents, 36 percent identify as Democrats, 28 percent affiliate with the Republican Party, and 12 percent listed themselves as independents, with 9 percent leaning toward Democrats, 5 percent toward Republican, and 7 percent favoring a third party. Finally, only 2 percent of those surveyed said they were unsure of their party affiliation.
This latest poll is the third to show Sanders leading Clinton this month. A poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Atlantic between March 30 and April 3 showed Sanders beating Clinton by one point, along with a McClatchy/Marist poll conducted between March 29 and March 31 that had Sanders up by two points.
Read more: http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-leads-new-national-poll/
FailureToCommunicate
(14,022 posts)people's campaign that it lavishes on Trump, Bernie could rise even faster in these polls.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,420 posts)Thanks for the thread, Bubzer.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)SunSeeker
(51,698 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)The article still doesn't match the numbers at your link when filtered to registered Democrats. Clinton leads 55.4% to 42.3% amongst registered Democrats.
It would be more interesting if there was a filter for states that haven't already been decided. Polling people who can no longer vote for their primary choice doesn't make any sense. Sanders needs to outperform Clinton by a not insignificant margin in the remaining contests just to pull even, much less getting a lead, in pledged delegates. And without a lead, the "superdelegates don't count" meme vanishes like a fart in the breeze.
Who creates these slanted stories, and gets the Sanders supporters all excited, only to dash their hopes so decisively?
If I had to guess, I'd say the GOP. This kind of shit has Karl Rove written all over it.
All it does is make them feel stupid and foolish. It's just mean. That US UNCUT (what a pervy sounding name) does the Sanders campaign no favors at all, which makes me wonder who, really, is paying for it. Time after time, they say things that turn out to be untrue.
navarth
(5,927 posts)You just can't beat honesty and integrity matched with guts and courage.
For all of Sec. Clinton's good qualities, she's done too many questionable things that she just can't avoid with non-answers. You heard it tonight.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)And she just got dismantled by someone who "is a terrible debater". What does that say about her I wonder?
You've asked an honest, sensible question about Hillary Clinton. That's no longer allowed. Instead, you're supposed to make sneering, cynical remarks about what a "f*cking disaster" it is that Bernie Sanders is going to attend a Vatican conference.
Get with the program.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)To all the Clintonites who accused US of handing the election to the Republicans by supporting a Democratic Socialist...well you all know what you can do with that opinion. Turns out according to the polls that it is you who could be jeopardizing a Democratic victory by supporting Hillary who most people dislike. Think about this for a minute...Trump will pivot to the center once selected...Rove is now supporting him...YOU could be throwing the election away and if we lose I guarantee your influence will be forever over as everyone will blame YOU for ruining a once in a lifetime opportunity in the name of ego and selfishness.
mak3cats
(1,573 posts)...if Clinton is our candidate we will lose the White House. Guaranteed.
appalachiablue
(41,171 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)All the shouting in the world doesn't change that fact.
still_one
(92,397 posts)the GE
That doesn't exclude him from being the next Pope though
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)still_one
(92,397 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Nyan
(1,192 posts)That's exactly what's happening right now.
There have been, what, like several dozen hypothetical GE match-up polls now? And Bernie CRUSHES republicans every single time.
Imagine for a moment, if there was one poll, even 1 poll, which shows Hillary doing better than Bernie against republicans. They would be screaming at the top of their lungs telling Bernie to drop out already. But you know what? There hasn't been one.
AllyCat
(16,222 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Shame on her!
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:45 AM - Edit history (1)
according to the pollster: "Statistical margins of error are not applicable to online polls."
538's averages of national polls puts Hillary 9% ahead of Bernie.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/national-primary-polls/democratic/
ON EDIT: The real poll is on 538. The REAL Reuters poll puts Hillary 19 points ahead, 59 to 40. I don't have a lot of faith in online polls, but if you're going to post one, at least post an official one. Not whatever snippet you posted.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/national-primary-polls/democratic/
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Stop that now, ya hear?
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,192 posts)reACTIONary
(5,771 posts)TexasTowelie
(112,422 posts)Thanks for the actual data. It undermines the credibility of the USUncut nonsense that has been posted here.
Ford_Prefect
(7,919 posts)Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,085 posts)It is probably the new definition of the will of the people instead of the popular vote.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)you seem a little confused about what matters
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)It's beyond important that Bernie be elected. For that to happen, at this point, he needs delegates.
Condescend much?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)down down down
enjoy the trip
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I don't feel this is doing anything to help Bernie.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I'm a rabid Bernie supporter. Without delegates he doesn't get to the next step.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)And Bernie supporters shouldn't be rude.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)If you believe otherwise, please explain.
C Moon
(12,221 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,085 posts)At least pledged delegates can't be stolen like they can on the Republican side.
Sandersdemocrat2020
(91 posts)National Polls are interesting, but the reality of the nomination is in the States and the Electoral College. Personally, I would like to see the Nomination Process changed as part of Campaign Reform. The system of Electoral College Delegates is archaic and outmoded. I am not suggesting a Parlimentary type system, but would rather see candidates directly elected by votes rather than delegates. Direct elections would skew more populist, whereas the Electoral System tends to nominate technocrats who know how to manipulate the arcane system that we have now. It is too complicated and protracted a system, and alienates more casual voters, I think.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)instead of whatever this thing is that you found on US uncut?
Here it is. Hillary's 59 and Bernie's 40, among likely Democratic voters.
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR131/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20160201-20160412/type/smallest
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)phazed0
(745 posts)on the reuters site only lists the last poll on the 12th, while the US uncut site is listing Thursday, the 14th's poll. Clear as day if you care for reading.
Someone owe's an apology. Doh!
RAFisher
(466 posts)The poll OP is referring to is definitely legitimate.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/ipsos-reuters-24278
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/2016ReuterTracking4132016.pdf
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)why it isn't posted on 538 or RCP.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Everyone loves hotdogs, everyone knows that.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)because she's learned not to let people see her eating.
Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #44)
Post removed
madokie
(51,076 posts)what worries me more than anything is she barely has the strength to make it all the way to the top, then falls on her face. Either she's way out of shape or she's on meds that have those side effects.
Bernie on the other hand was a long distance runner who seems to be in pretty good shape yet.
Tanuki
(14,920 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)LOL
I might have to trot off to bed on that one. LOL
merrily
(45,251 posts)Tanuki
(14,920 posts)a hot dog in another post on this thread!
merrily
(45,251 posts)Is someone somewhere giving lessons about posting massively false equivalencies? How about DIY lessons on how to make the most lame, farfetched claims of sexism conceivable?
Sure seems like it sometimes.
Please enlighten me how ordering something other than the only food for which Nathan's Famous is famous, given she didn't intend to eat what she ordered anyway, is a sex-linked or gender-linked trait.
Charges like discrimination, harassment, etc. are serious. People don't get hired. They get fired. Sometimes, they even get killed. Throwing charges around over things like your claim about my hot dog post or false claims about kitten heels vs. flats trivializes the charges and, IMO, that does hurt women.
merrily
(45,251 posts)reads as it does.
I don't care that you edited. In fact, I'm glad you did. and I edit all the time. I'm just explaining why my first reply reads as it does.
As far as thinking people, as opposed to people who post just to bash: IMO, thinking people would have understood from the jump that my reply, http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1415328 was both logical and not gender-based.
If Bernie had ordered a food he intended to leave and ordered ice cream, it would have been just as inexplicable. And, if a thinking person did find something illogical about my reply, he or she would have explained why.
So, since you imply that you are a thinking person and my reply reflected poorly on thinking people everywhere, it should have been very easy for you to specify to me exactly why my post about ordering a hot dog at a place known ONLY for hot dogs makes no sense. Yet you didn't. It's not too late, though: please go ahead and explain. Thanks in advance.
Tanuki
(14,920 posts)have been in response to my post 61, which did not yet exist? Get a grip. Nobody cares whether she had ice cream or a hot dog, except you, apparently.
merrily
(45,251 posts)As far as ice cream, I never said anyone cared, including me. I said it was not a smart pr move. However, I was not the one who brought up ice cream. I replied to someone else. And then you replied to me, which was odd, if you didn't care.
Tanuki
(14,920 posts)headline, which I did not. Perhaps you misread it at first glance and responded accordingly.
merrily
(45,251 posts)exactly Ginger Rogers redux. Poor decision, maybe, but, apart from that, really not a big deal.
Bernie looks a lot healthier than she does. It's too bad you cannot admit even that, but posting about kitten heels is just lame, IMO.
Tanuki
(14,920 posts)are not spike heels they are pointy and "chiseled" and can destabilize one's gait. Who said it was an "accomplishment"? Women are damned if they do and damned if they don't in regard to clothing choices, and HRC would be derided if she showed up in "sensible shoes," or better yet, whatever shoes Bernie wears. The concern trolling about HRC's health is patently ridiculous and reeks of desperation. Did you see Jennifer Lawrence fall at the Oscars, and then again as she got out of her limo for another red carpet event? Her movies indicate that she is in damn good shape. It happens. Gerald Ford fell a time or two (or three), and people said he was a klutz, but nobody tried to spread smears about his "health."
Btw, have you ever noticed how strangely unpopulated that "train station" is in your clip? Seems pretty staged to me.... And I don't agree that he looks "a lot healthier", so there is nothing for me to "admit." I don't play Bill Frist-style diagnostic games on the internet and I take their respective physicians' word for it that they are both in good health. They are both keeping extremely challenging schedules at ages when many are retired. Kudos to both for that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)missed all those times. Absolutely nothing is wrong with a stylish flat. And wearing flat, Hillary looks as though moving is an effort for her. BTW, if low kitten heels destabilize her, the problem is not the shoe.
As a woman who has seen and suffered actual gender based discrimination/harassment and who has also served on hiring committees, I am telling you, this constant pulling of the victim card for every lame reason to help Hillary hurts women in general and therefore ticks me.
As far as the video, I've taken trains and subways in NYC and Boston at all hours and have indeed seen them that sparsely populated, even emptier. And the train was obviously about to pull out out, so common sense says most people were already in the train or on the platform. Funny how you will assume some things from what your eyes tell you but not others.
Besides which, if the issue is health, what does it matter if it was staged? Clearly, Sanders is the one running, not a stunt double.
As far as not having said it was accomplishment, no, you did not use that word, but you sure posted as though it was an achievement that Bernie would have trouble matching.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I said she barely had the strength to make it all the way up in that clip I seen and fell on her Keister once she did make it to the top. Out of shape or meds whichever
jillan
(39,451 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)As everyone who has lived in NY (not just maintained a residence there while living in D.C.) and even most visitors know, "Nathan's Famous" is famous for hot dogs, period.
I could see her ordering ice cream to eat if she hates hot dogs. But, if she were going to order something and NOT eat it, why, oh, why not order the hot dog? It's like going to some very old, iconic local pancake house for a local color photo op, then ordering soup and leaving it. Makes no sense.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)that I posted about yesterday.
She didn't want anyone to see her eating.
merrily
(45,251 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)This belongs in GDP. It's not Latest Breaking News by a long shot.
Stop pretending nobody sees what you're trying to do.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)website and believe all the fairy tales you want.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I'll use your own words against you: Stop pretending nobody sees what you're trying to do.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)"Sanders is absolutely killing it among the people who never vote."
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)How many college kids were even eligible to vote 4 years ago?
How many more supporters have been denied the right to vote even though they were registered?
And others haven't voted in the past because they didn't feel like either party represented their interests. But Sanders is generating enthusiasm among first-time voters. Something your "reality-based" conservative candidate isn't doing.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)If Sanders was attracting enough votes to win, he'd be winning.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Duckfan
(1,268 posts)Congruente
(41 posts)In the past.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)We need you.....
Told ya.
within margin of error.
Still behind in the popular vote
still behind in delegates
way behind in super delegates
WINNING.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)thereismore
(13,326 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)and usually gets 20-30% of Republicans in Vermont and I am sure nationally there would be some as well. . . . Hillary will not get that many Independents and NO Republicans. . ..
He beats Hillary in EVERY voting block. . . . AND he beats all the Republican candidates by double digits and Hillary doesn't.
Can you make that "electability" argument for me one more time?
I mean, it IS the GE we want to win right?