Not sure I'm allowed to do this, but I'll give it a try...

[George II]

If this is out of line, let me know and I'll delete it.

Sadly, the Sanders folks have resorted to taking votes out of context in an attempt to "prove" that Sanders is more appealing as a candidate than President Obama was.

Here's an excerpt from a post I read earlier today:

In 2012, Bernie & President Obama were on the same ballot in Vermont.

The exit polls show Bernie and Obama captured very similar numbers in liberal and moderate segments and in Democratic/independent segments.

But in conservative and Republican segments, Bernie did much better than Obama.

Bernie got 35% to his opponents 59% among conservatives and 27% to 71% among Republicans. Obama got 18% among conservatives and only 11% of GOP voters, less than half of Bernie's 27%.

Of course, this was in Vermont, where Sanders began his political career, and they were running for completely different offices (President vs. Senator)

The poster is also ignoring the possibility of conservatives being a bit racist, resulting in less of them voting for Obama than Sanders.

It also can be interpreted as demonstrating that Sanders DOES appeal to conservatives and republicans, belying his "liberal" credentials. And it also could be the result of his zealous support of gun rights.

[NanceGreggs]

1. Huh?

"Bernie got 35% to his opponents 59% among conservatives, and 27% to 71% among Republicans."

There's a HUGE difference between 27% and 71% - what kind of legitimate poll would result in a spread like that?

[George II]

2. I should have pasted the entire post, but wasn't sure about it's permissibility.

The gist of the post was that Sanders as a candidate would get more votes than even Obama did, since he "out-polled" Obama in Vermont in 2012. It was just numbers and a bizarre rationalization of the poster's opinion.

Of course, no mention that Vermont is 95% white, mostly (entirely?) rural, Sanders was a "favorite son" and Obama was running for a completely different office.

[NanceGreggs]

3. I'm still trying to figure out ...

... how any poll could come up with numbers like "27% to 71% among Republicans".

Doesn't sound very kosher to me.

[George II]

5. Yes, being an exit poll, usually the %s add up to something like 90%, since lots of people...

....don't like participating. This is 98%, but we're talking Vermont (not meaning to be insulting) which isn't the usual electorate you find in other states.

[NanceGreggs]

8. No, that wasn't my point.

But now I see the problem.

I was reading, "Bernie got 35% to his opponents 59% among conservatives and 27% to 71% among Republicans."

What was meant was "Bernie got 27% (as compared to) his opponent's 71%".

Got it.

[Iliyah]

4. Awww, now I see. I saw a thread stating that he was winning

GOPers or something like that.

I don't live in a bubble, I'm more a reality type person . . LOL

[okasha]

6. Lemme see.

A white, Independent libertarian pro-gunner gets more votes from R's than an African American Democrat, and that's supposed to make the Independent, libertarian pro-gunner a better Democratic candidate?

WTF?

[George II]

7. BINGO! And they say that Clinton will sell out but Sanders won't? HAH!

[NanceGreggs]

9. Hey, they're convinced ...

... that "Bernie's message" is crossing party lines, and Republicans will come out and vote for him in droves.

[okasha]

11. They might well,

in state primaries in which you don't have to show party ID before you ask for your D or R ballot. That could lead to major ratfucking in states like Texas, where the party stamp goes onto the voter rolls after you request your ballot.

The good news is, Sanders should be out of the picture by Super Tuesday.

[George II]

13. I've been saying, and counting on, the same thing - the bashing should end after the early primaries

[Agnosticsherbet]

10. Obama was not running for the US Senate seat.

They are comparing apples and crocodiles.

[yallerdawg]

12. What do they call this?