The Sanders Polling Anomaly

[eridani]

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/12/09/the-sanders-polling-anomaly/

The good news for Sanders is what the pollsters actually demonstrate to be true about electability by direct match-ups of the two Democrats against the four Republican contenders who have more than single digit support. Their findings: “Sanders does just as well [as Clinton against Rubio], or even better, against [the other] top Republicans [Trump, Carson, and Cruz].”

Against each of the latter three, Sanders’ winning margin exceeds Clinton’s by 2%, 3% and 5% respectively.

It appears that democratic voters are not just misinformed, but grossly misinformed, about whether Clinton or Sanders would do better against Republicans. Comparing the margin of support among Democrats for Clinton over Sanders (30%) with the even larger 38% margin of polled Democrats who erroneously rank Clinton as a more electable candidate than Sanders suggests the possibility that their grossly erroneous belief may well account for much of their expressed preference for Clinton.

Even if not all Clinton supporters are using electability as their main criterion for preferring her in opinion polls, it would be useful for these grossly misled Democrats when casting their primary vote over the next several months to consider the reason why Sanders’ outperforms Clinton against Republicans. They should remember that it is independent voters, not party loyalists, who generally determine the outcome of typically close general elections. If Democrats really want to lose the 2016 election to a Republican they should by all means choose a candidate that Independents reject. Clinton is just the candidate for that job.

[GoneFishin]

1. Independents yes. Also the torrent of Republicans who will go out of their way to get off the couch

to go vote against her, even if they miss Duck Dynasty.

[Android3.14]

2. Looks like the link is malfunctioning. Try this one

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/12/08/the-sanders-polling-anomaly/

[Android3.14]

3. The upshoot of the article is that Bernie will do better than Clinton in the GE

He does as good or better in polling against Republican candidates as Clinton does, but he has room to improve with independents that Clinton lacks. Clinton has topped out and pretty much can only worsen her chances in the GE, because the Democratic base is unenthusiastic, she has high negatives in polling with every demographic, and the GOP will have high motivation to vote against her. Bernie, however, has a chance to bring a landslide, strong coattails in local races that should win back the Senate and just maybe bring us the House, and a true mandate for change.

Voting for Hillary in the primary is the worst choice, not because of the many issues of corporate control, disastrous votes, and obvious intent to move to the right, but because she represents the highest risk of failure in the GE.

If the general election were a game between a human and a pigeon, a vote for Clinton in the primary is the opening move where the bird knocks over the pieces, craps all over the board and starts strutting around aimlessly.

With the SCOTUS at stake, along with all the other desperate problems we face, we have to win this general election. Bernie has the best chance to do that.

[Scuba]

4. It's essential Dems support Bernie in the primary. Wouldn't want an R naming SCOTUS judges!!!

[n2doc]

5. The key is turnout

Does anyone but the most hard-core HRC supporters think she would bring out more enthusiastic voters than Sanders? I see this like the election we had last fall in Georgia- 2 democrats running as conserva-dems for Senate and Gov, , and they got walloped because people stayed home. Happened in the Senate race in Tenn. also.

Obama won twice because he got people excited and they turned out. The DNC has relied on fear and a focus on corporate-friendly dems, and has seen historic losses across the country (losses that were not made up by Obama's presence in 2012 on the ballot).