2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum4/14 Reuters Poll: Bernie Sanders Takes National Lead
New Reuters Poll Shows Bernie Sanders Taking National Lead
Rosette Newcomb | April 14, 2016
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.
http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-leads-new-national-poll/
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)She built her lead during the early stages of the primaries when support for Sanders was still building up. She will likely get the nomination based on that early lead alone. Problem is, support for her has been eroding ever since. In the end we will end up with a nominee that a majority of voters disfavors. Not a good setup going into the GE.
merrily
(45,251 posts)First Lady and other reasons. (I cannot think of a First Lady who has not made the most admired women in the US list while in the White House and stayed there for some time after leaving.) Also, no one else had announced and America had been told since 2012 that, if she wanted the nomination in 2016, it would be hers: No Democrat would even bother to challenge her.
As she went along, she lost points, same as 2008 and same as when she went on her book tour. Bernie actually gave her a bump in ratings when he let her off the hook about her "damn emails." The more she's out there, the more her ratings go down. (That is why she wanted only four debates.) Happened in 2008, happened on her book tour, is happening now and will be scary by November if she is the nominee. If she is the nominee, Dems better pray that Trump is the nominee, not Kasich or even Jeb! or some other GOP establishment pick.
amborin
(16,631 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Rebuild their lives after the Great Economic Collapse of 2008, that they thoughtlessly went along with the stoopid meme of "Lesser of two evils."
Now Americans have been woken from their slumber. Granted some people still have had such comfortable lives that they don't get it, and the fact that this is basically a police state has not helped matter s much either.
But people I talked to all during Spring and early Summer of 2014 told me that they
"had had it." Often they commented such statements as "No more voting for the lesser of two evils. No more voting for Corporate-owned candidates who' re owned by The Big Financial Partners."
pat_k
(9,313 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but I would think that might be a tad concerning to the Hill Folk.
amborin
(16,631 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)To believe what they believe if they live inside the comfortable bubble of reality fashioned by the thought police here on DU. Apparently they do not go onto more progressive sites, nor do they have friends who are Bernie followers, etc.
And some of them live inside the bubble within the bubble that is the HRC group!
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)Her lead in delegates is higher than Obama's ever was during his winning primary season.
Those are real and measurable stats.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)So of course she couldn't overcome that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)wants who in office than she and her fans try to imply.
Also, I assume your statement about Obama includes super delegates. BTW, that Obama came out of a state legislature, few had heard of him before 2004, etc., yet he defeated her by any measure says a lot. This time, with the DNC, media and everything else at her back since her 2008 defeat, she has a modest pledged delegate lead over Sanders, who few had heard of a year ago. Wowza.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)keynote Covention speech. Where was Sanders? Did he attend that Convention to support real Democrats like Obama did?
And I notice you omitted that Hillary also won the popular vote in 2008. So it looks like you're only into anti-Hillary spam that fits your limited world view.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You can't include FL and MI.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)So touchy, so sensitive. Like a nervous tic. BERNIEMATH!
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)delegates. Reality. LOl @ desperate BernieMath that can't accept REALITY.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I hope you make it through July 24, BERNIEMATH! Oh good lord, it's contagious BERNIEMATH!
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)R B Garr
(16,975 posts)You obviously know that drill.
And I can type BernieMath 3 times, too.
BERNIEMATH BERNIEMATH BERNIEMATH
morningfog
(18,115 posts)race. That is what makes your obsessive tic so noticiable. You can't seem to stay on topic, BERNIEMATH!
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)BernieMath.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I made no BERNIEMATH comment on the 2016 race.
I only corrected your error with BERNIEMATH respect to 2008.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)The posts are numbered. You picked your own popular vote. BERNIEMATH.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)And the super delegates agreed in 2008. Maybe you don't remember what happened then.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)through bogus BERNIEMATH.
Obama has nothing to do with your twisted calculations today, LOL.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)My initial response to you was only that Hillary did not win the 2008 popular vote. That was it.
Maybe you thought I was another poster. Maybe you have a nervous tic. But, you distracted from that point, which was my only point -- to correct your error.
It is there for your review.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)You used BERNIEMATH to discount the 2008 popular vote. The posts are numbered. Go read them.
LOL, and someone else was asking me for links to basic election results as if what I initially said is not common knowledge.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Not a godamned thing to do with Bernie. Go read it. I was correcting you and your error.
I have not made a single comment on the 2016 math.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)You only counted what you felt like. Read your post.
Seriously, this is obviously a ploy to get posts hidden. Not buying your confused efforts to pretend Hillary didn't win the popular vote in 2008. Quit spamming with this obvious nonsense.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You can't count MI and FL. Obama didn't campaign there, the DNC sanctioned those states for moving up in the calendar. Obama won the popular vote of the sanctioned states.
Nothing to do with Bernie, nothing. Hence, my comment on your nervous tic, which apparently include paranoia, lol.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)But if I said you had a nervous tic, I bet someone would alert on my post.
That's how it's worked before. A Bernie fan follows me around and insults me, but if I answer in kind, MY posts are hidden. That's how it's OBVIOUS your tortured logic trying to discount Clinton's popular vote win in 2008 isn't worthy.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Done with you and the strange chip on your shoulder.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)still try to make it personal with insults. Yeah, SO LONG.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I'm going to put you on ignore. I don't mind idiots and I tolerate assholes.
But both is too much.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)would be hidden. But you enjoy yourself. It's all about you. Reality and common knowledge about the 2008 popular vote is only for you to determine, i.e., BERNIEMATH.
merrily
(45,251 posts)it didn't make him known nationally. He started the race 30 points behind Hillary because he was not known. Like Bernie ,the better he got known, the higher his numbers his numbers got.
As far as your fake posting rules and ad homs, no one cares.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You should have built up a slate of acceptably liberal candidates back then.
Instead, you did nothing ... then finally tried to draft Warren, who said "no thank you". So Bernie said "ok, I'll do it."
If you wanted a fair fight, you needed to start preparing for it a lot earlier.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You've had 8 years to build a person!
merrily
(45,251 posts)she's my Senator. I tried to draft Sanders. I'm not saying I succeeded, but it turned out the way I hoped.
I was supposed to look for rich candidates to run for President in 2011 that the DNC would accept? A year before Obama was re-elected? Really? Were you looking a year before Obama elected?
If you wanted a fair fight, you needed to start preparing for it a lot earlier.
Really? If I prepared, I could have changed the Party rules and made Debbie Wasserman, Donna Brazile and the rest of the DNC and Democratic officeholders and the media fair? Changed Great news! False, of course, but great.
BTW why the hell should anyone have to prepare to make the DNC fair, even if that were possible? Isn't that just its responsibility?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)[h2]"WE CAN"T HEAR YOU!"[/h2]
Loudestlib
(980 posts)R B Garr
(16,975 posts)LOL at desperate BernieMath.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)add up, I wonder how much of this nastiness they'll regret. The primary is essentially already over
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)knowledge now, but look at the desperation to revise reality just to discount her success. Sad. And you are right, it is nasty.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)and Universal name recognition is having so much trouble against this previously unknown "socialist" senator from hippie-dippy VT?
Wouldn't it indicate that maybe someone needs to fix their craptastically outdated campaign which falls flat with increasing frequency once you start talking about voters born after, say, 1965?
Hmmmmm, Just a thought.
smiley
(1,432 posts)The only link I have is this.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html
But the problem with these numbers are they don't include Iowa, Maine, Alaska and Washington and a couple U.S. Territories. But for some reason this link keeps getting posted because it shows Hillary with 2 million + votes.
Why the missing numbers?
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)How silly to ask for links to basic news.
smiley
(1,432 posts)On a serious note. Do some research instead of believing the spoon fed propaganda you get from you teevee.
You must be new here, because asking for links on DU is a very common occurrence.
So again I ask you. Do you have a link and why the missing numbers in the link that I've provided?
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)Desperate.
smiley
(1,432 posts)Nice transparency page btw.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)noticed it.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)...and refreshments:
...a little music:
...and a little sofa jumping
...and finally, a hat tip to everyone's hard work:
OK, everyone back to work. Primaries are coming up and Bernie really needs us to keep at it while he is in Rome.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)The behavior we have seen these past few weeks is not that of a confident campaign.
Their internal polling probably looks even worse--you can bet that if it showed her leading they would be proclaiming it from the rooftops.
amborin
(16,631 posts)lack of confidence on their part
QC
(26,371 posts)People with twelve hides weeping over incivility and all that, it's good for laughs.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Watching you guys search for a metric that will allow you to claim a victory that you won't actually get, is getting rather humorous.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You might as well be telling us about Bernie's Facebook likes.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The numbers in the OP are real too...things keep changing for her, funny how that goes.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You can keep hunting for new metrics if it makes you feel better.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)IamMab
(1,359 posts)We've gone through a few of theses excuses now.
"Because the kids like him!" And we all know what informed and reliable decisions kids make, right?
"Because he attracts non-voters" We're supposed to be impressed that people who don't vote support him? In an election season? (15% of his supporters in Wisconsin didn't vote for a single other Democrat. 15%!!)
"Because he won 8 in a row" Out of over 30 states that voted. He's lost a few contests in a row too, we all know.
"Because he polls better against [Republican candidate]" So does Clinton, so that's just a question of margins.
"Because he's 1 point ahead nationally" In the final months of the primary, when he's already down over 200 delegates? Great timing.
As a Clinton supporter from 2008, I know what they're going through. But all the anger and vitriol they can spew won't change reality for their candidate.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Forty percent of all American registered voters hold no deep allegiances to either party.
(Both Pew Surveys of 2008 and 2015 show this to be the case. And Gallup recently found the same statistic.
When you "dis" the notion of "non-voters" voting in this election if Bernie is the candidate, then you' re ignoring a most important statistic.
It would be wise to make the statement you' re making IF that non-allied voter statistic was not so impressive. But very fool hardy to make that statement with the reality being the case. (And BTW, that 40 percent is higher than either party's allied voters. Dems have ONLY 36% of all voters. Republicans have only24 to 26%)
IamMab
(1,359 posts)You're also assuming, incorrectly, that every independent is a partisan ideologue, when a good portion of them are moderates and centrists as well.
I don't know, maybe you thought you'd pump yourself up by pretending to speak for a large mass of people, but the fact is that you don't. And you won't. Ever. Because independents historically don't display a pattern of coalescing around a single candidate or idea. At best, you represent a minority of a minority of a minority. Independents are a minority of all voters, left-leaning independents are a minority of that, and hard-core head-in-the-sand "Bernie Sanders progressives" are a minority of that.
Your boogeyman is broken. Get a new one.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Agreeing to run and lose?
What did Diane Feinstein get in return for her ignoring the Democratic Party primary wins by Steve Westly and insisting that Bustamante had to be the candidate against Ahnoold Schwartzennegger?
What does Hillary get for running against Trump? Although we all know she will not win?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I think Trump will lose to Hillary if it comes to that...the violent rallies and
the blatant racism, women hate him, he's a train wreck even though she
is about as non -inspiring as one candidate can possibly be.
The Republican story is not over yet either...if they run a Third Party, that
will only help her.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)the American people lose.
The Clintons simply soft peddle the trash they do to the middle and lower classes, while Trump does the damage with a relish! I have to admit I think his approach much more honest. (Not admirable, not likeable, but at least there is none of this fake sentiment for the poor and the middle class.)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The violent rallies freaked me out.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)the more you're slip sliding away. . .
Simon & Garfunkel
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Joob
(1,065 posts)Mike__M
(1,052 posts)Of all the candidates from both parties, Clinton has the most experience at losing a presidential primary.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Much needed.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)down down down
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)David__77
(23,503 posts)I haven't been emphatic in endorsing any candidate. I think I will vote for Sanders here in California when the time comes.
It does seem to me that Clinton will secure the nomination. I think (and, of course, don't know) that it's likely that Clinton will ride a downward trajectory in terms of personal favorability through November. I haven't been following this election closely and haven't been following the details of each candidate's specific platform.
I haven't cared much for Clinton since the 2008 election. I supported Obama and I did not like her campaign's criticisms of Obama. I think of Clinton as pretty conservative. I have a thought that, were she to become president, it would not be a good time for the left or for the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party. I think, unless the Republicans nominate someone who would be rather unprecedentedly unpopular, it may be unlikely for her to win a general election. I do not think that she is likely to successfully build a coalition that includes labor and self-identified progressives at the core.
That so many people are voting for Sanders, who is very much the US equivalent of a "back bencher," is very interesting to me. This is mid-April, and we have a former Secretary of State, Senator, First Lady, endorsed by the overwhelming majority of pledged superdelegates, who hasn't just yet wrapped things up. I consider that she will wrap it up. I do consider it interesting that hasn't yet done so.