Polls show Bernie Sanders popularity among all voters is plummeting

[lapucelle]

One of the arguments Bernie Sanders' fans made during the 2016 Democratic primary was that he was more electable than Hillary Clinton. His favorable ratings with the general electorate were far higher than Hillary Clinton's. Indeed, Sanders maintained fairly high favorable ratings with all voters as late as 2018.

Sanders' popularity among all voters seems to be declining considerably in the last few months, however.

Our new CNN poll puts Sanders favorable rating at 46% compared to an unfavorable rating of 45% among registered voters. This is only the latest poll to have Sanders at basically even in his net favorability rating (favorable-unfavorable). A Quinnipiac University poll from late December gave the Vermont senator a net favorability of just +2 points. An average of all recent polls put Sanders' net favorability at about -1 points.

snip================================

Sanders, though, may have to convince Democratic voters that he electable. In our poll, just 30% of Democratic voters believe the party has a better chance of winning the presidency with him than someone else as the nominee. The vast majority, 59%, think they have a better shot of winning with someone else.

That may change, though, when Biden gets into the race. The big unknown is whether Biden, whose ratings are currently sky high, is also going to come crashing down to Earth if and when he declares. It's probably not a bad bet given past history and what has happened to Sanders. Then Democrats will have a much tougher time figuring out who is the most electable.

The poll was taken before Sanders' recent hires of "twitter attack dog" David Sirota and Jill Stein supporter Briahna Joy Gray.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/bernie-sanders-favorable-unfavorable-rating/index.html

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/03/18/rel4a.-.trump,.economy.pdf

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2591

[BooScout]

1. That's because this time...

...he's actually getting vetted.

[Sherman A1]

3. Or perhaps because there are so many other choices

this time around? I am hoping for the most progressive candidate that we can possibly get.

[lapucelle]

60. That would be either Harris or Warren ,

followed by Booker and Gillibrand (for the senators who are running).


http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

[Sherman A1]

86. I would disagree as to the choices in the primary process

but everyone has to make their own selection.

[pnwmom]

100. Governor Inslee is just as progressive, but of course he's not on the list. n/t

[emulatorloo]

128. That's because it is a comparison of Senate Voting records. Gov Inslee is very interesting to me

He’s definitely moving up on my list.

[pnwmom]

130. Right -- which is why I said "of course." He's been a great Governor, a strong progressive

who managed to pull 54% of the vote in 2016 even though one of the Houses of the legislature still polled a majority Republican.

But as of 2018 both houses are blue. He helped move Washington out of the purple for the first time in decades.

[emulatorloo]

132. ...

[Cha]

194. Gov Inslee is brilliant!

So appreciate him being in the race.

Hope he gets to debate

[BooScout]

136. Wow...Sanders is almost at the bottom of the list..

Imagine that.

[Cha]

192. Yeah, he talks "progressive" but

his votes say differently.

[Cha]

191. Aha! Mahalo, lapucelle!

http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

[PatSeg]

79. Yes, there are lots of excellent choices

and they all have much to contribute to the dialogue. Obviously there are some that I prefer to others, but so many voices and viewpoints will help us get our party on the right track. I felt like this was sorely lacking in 2016 and it was hard to get enthused about the primaries. It easy for a goofball like Trump to suck all the oxygen out of the room, as there didn't seem to be a lot in the first place.

This primary season is going to be quite unlike anything we've ever seen and I am actually quite excited about it!

[Sherman A1]

88. I am likewise excited about the coming exchange of ideas

I will see how excited I am about where we end up at the convention. The Dem nominee will certainly get my vote, beyond that... time will tell.

[PatSeg]

120. There are two or three

that I would vote for in a general election to keep a republican out of the White House, but would not consider in a primary race. As for the rest, it is really hard to choose - I would like a woman on the ticket of course. On one hand I would like young and fresh, but I'd also like experience and knowledge. I'd prefer very progressive, but also pragmatic and electable! Can I have more than one?!?!

[reACTIONary]

137. ...we can possibly get...

.... elected.

[Maru Kitteh]

4. So many good Dems running that are more attractive candidates.

More inspiring, less baggage, etc.

[TruckFump]

18. I was a Bernie supporter in 2016

Now working for Kamala Harris. I agree with your thoughts on this -- the choices we have this year are totally inspiring. I am in the game for all of them, but particularly for Kamala and Beta -- Joe Biden has a piece of my heart too. Well, add Booker and Mayor Pete, too!

(See what I mean! )

[Maru Kitteh]

22. Mayor Pete is kind of blowing me away too. I'm also all in for many different combos

this season. The excitement is just amazing! ALL of those you mentioned sound good to me too.

[TruckFump]

24. Every day, I find something new to like

about someone who is running. This year is blowing me away. I am so excited...like when Obama was running!

Yes, anyone of them and combinations thereof!

[BadgerMom]

56. I feel the same way!

One minute I’ll read an interview with Buttigieg and consider the nation under his leadership and smile. Then I consider Beto, Kamala or Jay Inslee and am equally excited. Warren, too.

My friend and I have a new game we play. What two should be on the ticket? What combination? Who could fill cabinet posts? It’s fun this year. And we’re both committed to working our butts off no matter who our nominee is.

[emulatorloo]

129. +1.

[PatSeg]

81. Isn't that great?

To truly like so many candidates? Its like going to a Bresler's ice cream shop being happy with numerous choices. "I like pistachio, oh but that rocky road looks good too!"

[TruckFump]

96. Yes, yes, yes!!!

I go to the frozen yogurt shop and feel the same way!

We have the best candidates EVER for 2020.

[PatSeg]

122. Sure must suck to be a republican right now!

Their primaries tends to be one clown show after another. They haven't had a really effective presidential candidate since Reagan and he was a friggin' actor!

[OhZone]

7. Yup!

I don't know why they thought he would get a free pass this time too. Oh, white male privilege. Yeah.

[TheBlackAdder]

181. Once he chose that anti-Democratic contender hit guy to challenge the others... he died to me.

.

Bernie Sanders hires Beto O'Rourke critic as top aide in 2020 race

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Tuesday said he is hiring a well-known liberal journalist with a history of sharply criticizing other Democratic presidential candidates, including Beto O'Rourke.

Sanders’ campaign said it is bringing in David Sirota, whose work has appeared in The Guardian and Newsweek, among other outlets, as a senior adviser and speechwriter.

The move could stoke tensions within the Democratic field since Sirota has previously targeted O'Rourke, the former U.S. congressman from Texas who entered the presidential race last week, and other rivals.

Sirota on Twitter and in published articles has accused O’Rourke of siding with President Donald Trump and Republicans while a member of the House of Representatives, as well as being overly friendly with the oil and gas industry.

https://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-hires-beto-orourke-critic-top-aide-192135766.html

.

[OhZone]

183. Agreed!

I am 110% against Bernie now.

I mean, I will vote for whoever is the nominee but I doubt it will be BS.

[MH1]

15. A lot more people already know who he is, this time. nt.

[thesquanderer]

40. What new vetting are you seeing? (n/t)

[Kahuna7]

80. Go on twitter and enter the hashtag #VettingBernie. nt

[Gothmog]

134. There is some great material on sanders on twitter

[LovingA2andMI]

91. Bingo!!

We have a winning statement!

[Cha]

2. Yay for the Vetting Process!

And, what's up with all his 3rd party hires?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Mahalo, lapucelle!

[OhZone]

9. Yup nt

[calimary]

16. Definitely.

SHEESH those tweets! Just asking for trouble!

[True Blue American]

57. Askng for trouble?

She just dug a hole to China!

Is she black! If not how dare she pak for them?

Those are Trump cult tactics. Stein was in bed with the Russians, too!

[Me.]

59. That's The Press Secretary He Chose?

WOW! You know, I heard on one of the morning shows his people called militants and was surprised someone was actually saying it out loud but she sure is making a case for such an appellation. What's he thinking to hire someone like that to speak for him? Maybe we should do a poll and ask who is worse, she or Sarah Sanders.


aloha kakahiaka hoa

[Cha]

66. BS is definitely making a statement..

and it's one of divisiveness. Just like I've always said he is.

He's shouting out now that we thought he was divisive before.. well watch this.

you heard on a morning show that his people were called "militants"? Doesn't take a brick wall!

Good Morning to you, too!

[Me.]

75. ...

[Kahuna7]

82. Yep. It's scorched earth all over again. On one hand...

he says he wants his campaign and surrogates to play nice. On the other hand his surrogates are sworn haters of the Democratic Party.

[Cha]

90. Hellava campaign

strategy.

Kahuna

[calimary]

179. No kidding. I guess this is an example of the kind of staffer

with whom he’d surround himself if he ever won the White House.

Another decision that tells you a lot about the decision-maker. And none of it good.

I’m NOT impressed. Disgusted is a far more accurate word to use in this case.

[Cha]

184. Yeah, scary thought.

[PunkinPi]

65. Thank goodness for vetting this time around...

Add this one to the list...she attacks John Lewis -- a hero and national treasure

[Cha]

77. Yes, that's one of BJG's worst,

imo.

Mahalo, Pi

[Gothmog]

197. This lady was working for sanders in 2016

There was an organized stunt to boo Congressman John Lewis at the national convention. The Clinton delegates were warned about this stunt 20 to 30 minutes in advance by the Clinton campaign whips. I was told by my whip that sanders was asked to stop this event and he declined

This event was a planned stunt by the sanders campaign or his delegates

[NastyRiffraff]

141. Yeah, she's a winner

Black Democrats voting Democratic. Imagine that. And imagine a candidate's press secretary being that condescending to a demographic the candidate badly needs (and will never get).

[Cha]

159. nina turner was the red flag and

now this.

Like is being said.. at least it's all out in the open now.

Riff

[stonecutter357]

5. good

[NurseJackie]

6. It's harder to like someone once you REALLY get to know them...

It's harder to like someone once you REALLY get to know them... no matter how "likeable" he (or she) may appear to be.

It's harder to like someone once you REALLY get to know them... and when you can see beyond the "front" and the "mask" that's presented. When people begin to realize that a candidate has just ONE stump speech... or that the often repeated laundry-list of complaints doesn't have a matching list of ACTUAL REAL WORLD SOLUTIONS. (Anyone can point out what's wrong, it takes someone with vision and leadership to find solutions that can make it through Congress.)

I think anyone's obvious contempt for the Democratic party and the smearing of Democrats in general is something that would turn-off a lot of voters.

[Thekaspervote]

28. You nailed that one! Thanks!

[ehrnst]

45. +1000.

[True Blue American]

61. You said it

Nurse Jackie!

[Kahuna7]

83. Yeah, Sister Girlfriend!!!

[Gothmog]

102. sanders is being vetted this cycle

[Hortensis]

173. No longer new, no longer the great misogynistic hope to defeat Hillary.

[getagrip_already]

8. bernie is that crazy uncle nobody wants at dinner......

And the more people dislike him, the crazier he gets.

With all the talent out there, why would any sane candidate make these hires and then double down on them? Unless of course, you have a plan that doesn't include having a democrat elected potus in 2020.

[OhZone]

13. Exactly.

You hire someone who made pro-Trump comments and the like, we know where you're coming from.

[Maven]

10. When you hire poisonous snakes like David Sirota to win hearts and minds,

What do you expect?

[getagrip_already]

14. not only did he hire him...

he hired him in secret while he was still working as a reporter writing hit pieces without disclosing his affiliation with the campaign.

That isn't just dishonest, it's fraud, and bs KNEW it the whole time.

[ehrnst]

46. Yes, transparency seems to be an issue, doesn't it? (nt)

[MrsCoffee]

74. It's funny when I heard Tad Devine wouldn't be joining because they didn't see eye to eye anymore,

I was expecting a completely different approach. I thought Devine and Manafort's recycling the Orange Revolution and Lock Her Up campaign from Ukraine was pretty shady. So when Devine said he and Bernie had philosophical differences, I was expecting a softer, cleaner campaign from Sanders.

Seems I got some stuff wrong there.

[comradebillyboy]

11. From today's Washington Post:

Sanders and Warren are talking a lot about civil rights. Not many blacks are listening.

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. — The crowd packed into the gym of a century-old black church here cheered every time Sen. Bernie Sanders attacked inequities that hit disadvantaged African Americans especially hard, applauding his ideas to address “the disparity within the disparity.”

But the problem Sanders faces in appealing to black voters was staring at him as he spoke for an hour recently at the gym of the Royal Missionary Baptist Church: Of the more than 1,600 people who came to see the candidate, fewer than 40 were black.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-and-warren-are-talking-a-lot-about-civil-rights-not-many-blacks-are-listening/2019/03/19/af608ff6-4719-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html?utm_term=.0ede1896c591

[Cha]

12. Thanks!

[calimary]

17. Yep.

Woefully out of touch. Still.

[R B Garr]

21. Interesting reminder of his many problems. nt

[dalton99a]

34. +1

[ehrnst]

48. That's a problem for a Democratic POTUS candidate. (nt)

[NastyRiffraff]

208. I think most Blacks see through him

NOW he decides he should try to appeal to Blacks. But most of them can recognize bullshit when they see it. This is the same man who railed against "identity politics" and whined that no one paid attention to the needs of "white men like me."

[Uncle Joe]

19. Corporate media conglomerate spin, Bernie's favorability ratings aren't that different from when he

ran last time.

"Plummeting"

(snip)

So, what's changed? I'd argue that Sanders was benefiting from not being in a competitive campaign. (Former Vice President Joe Biden, who has garnered the most support in general election polls among the Democrats, may be benefiting from a similar effect.) When you're not being thought of a viable threat to win a party's nomination, opponents tend to lay off. The last time Sanders was thought of as at least a minor threat to win the Democratic nomination was in March 2016. His net favorability rating back then among all voters was +3 points in a CNN poll.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/bernie-sanders-favorable-unfavorable-rating/index.html

Thanks for the thread lapucelle

[ehrnst]

50. CNN is a "media conglomerate" when reporting on Sanders, but heroic again

when talking back to Trump, it seems.

[Uncle Joe]

76. CNN is a corporate media conglomerate.

The title of that article that I posted belies the content, in which a comparison is made to Bernie's earlier run with favorability ratings being about the same.

There is another thread here at D.U. from CNN on this same subject but that article totally omits the historical comparison paragraphs.

[ehrnst]

89. You used that as a perjorative.

Of course, Jacobin has no such impetus to apply journalistic editorial standards to their bias, so any news source that does would seem "right wing" by comparison.

[Uncle Joe]

92. They are certainly not a corporate media conglomerate along the lines of CNN.

Concentration of media ownership (also known as media consolidation or media convergence) is a process whereby progressively fewer individuals or organizations control increasing shares of the mass media.[1] Contemporary research demonstrates increasing levels of consolidation, with many media industries already highly concentrated and dominated by a very small number of firms.[2][3]

Globally, large media conglomerates include Bertelsmann, National Amusements (Viacom Inc. and CBS Corporation), Sony Corporation, Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, AT&T Inc., Fox Corporation, Hearst Communications, MGM Holdings Inc., Grupo Globo (South America) and Lagardère Group.[4][5][6]

As of 2018, the largest media conglomerates in terms of revenue rank Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, AT&T, CBS Corporation and Viacom per Forbes.

In nations described as authoritarian by most international think-tanks and NGOs, media ownership is generally something very close to the complete state control over information in direct or indirect ways.[citation needed]

(snip)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

I have stated before and will say so again, Trump did't happen overnight but is the culmination from decades of corporate media conglomeration and dysfunction.

[ehrnst]

97. Jacobin is pretty much all editorial, and not journalism as such.

More like a National Review for the Left.

I'll take CNN for polling, fact checking and accurate reporting of news over Jacobin or National Review, thanks. And I'll add FoxNews and the Intercept to the list of "not trying to be journalism" as well.

[Uncle Joe]

107. That's been the increasing case for decades with the corporate media conglomerates.

Less actual journalism and near continuous editorial, Trump is the culmination of these diminishing journalistic policies.

[ehrnst]

110. That still doesn't make Jacobin, the National Review, The Intercept, or the American Spectator or RT

actual journalism.

CNN is more beholden to journalistic standards than any of those.

NPR is better, but CNN has more staff.

[Uncle Joe]

114. It makes them editorials, I see nothing wrong with that. Personally I view

CNN more than any other news media network and I see an almost seamless blend between actual news and editorial, the same holds true with the other corporate media conglomerates, FOX in the age of Trump has almost reached State T.V. status.

[ehrnst]

117. Editorials are editorials, not polls, nor are they fact checks. They are opinions.

Just because one doesn't like that a favorite politician gets fact checked doesn't mean that it's yellow journalism to do so.

Just because one agrees with a publication's hatred of a particular politicial party doesn't make their opinions or analysis of candidates evidence based.

Hey, if it supports your bias, that's going to be very pleasing to you. But one should just own that, and not try to claim that any reporting that doesn't reflect well on one's favorite candidate is somehow compromised by money and not based in fact.

Jacobin is a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture.

[Cha]

196. THIS!

[lapucelle]

64. Wait...it's CNN's fault...again?

[ehrnst]

99. ....

But of COURSE.

[Cha]

195. lol

[Freethinker65]

20. IMO, Bernie is the "rabbit" in this horse race

He probably will not have enough to continue to stay in the lead. I am not saying he cannot win the nomination, but as other candidates break out from the crowded field, Bernie might need to readjust...

Those that love Bernie will continue to do so, but he will probably need to expand upon his ideas and how he delivers them at rallies and in speeches to increase his base. If not, the sound bites from this campaign will be no different than his last campaign and it will be portrayed as stale and lacking in new ideas.

FYI. I voted for Bernie in the last primary. I enthusiastically voted for Hillary in the general. I most likely will not vote for Bernie in another primary.

[Cosmocat]

47. YEP

"FYI. I voted for Bernie in the last primary. I enthusiastically voted for Hillary in the general. I most likely will not vote for Bernie in another primary."

[R B Garr]

23. His stump speech is worn out. People have heard

enough of it and just aren’t buying it anymore.

[Mr Tibbs]

95. Everyone knows Sanders positions on most issues

Because of the stump speech. That's how politics have always worked.

[ehrnst]

105. Actually, one's Party affiliation is what most people think of first

when understanding a politician. That's how it's always worked.

[R B Garr]

112. His popularity is plummeting. Do that must mean his positions

are plummeting.

[Mr Tibbs]

115. He just tied Biden

He has came up 9 points since February in a field of many candidates. Sanders popularity is the least of my concerns.

[R B Garr]

119. You obviously haven't read these articles.

His popularity is plummeting. Only 30% think he can beat Trump. His stump speech is worn out.

[Gothmog]

25. Who is surprised by this?

Link to tweet

[Thekaspervote]

27. Not me

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. He no longer has Hillary as a foil.

[George II]

29. I wonder how much further it'll drop with two Jill Stein supporters now on his senior staff?

[dalton99a]

31. The personnel moves show that his outfit will be as vile and nasty as the current White House

[thesquanderer]

42. Do you think most poll respondents would ever know that? (n/t)

[lapucelle]

69. Those new hires will be framing the BS campaign messaging. N/T

[world wide wally]

30. Face it, people. Bernie's time has come and gone.

It's time to move on.

[dalton99a]

32. There are far better candidates - Democrats who don't hire anti-Democratic senior staffers

[MGKrebs]

87. Says the Joe Biden supporter!

Just playing.
Cheers!

[nycbos]

33. As Homer Simpson would say

[lapucelle]

156. ...

[kentuck]

35. An old Native American proverb:

One cannot step into the same stream twice...

[Mr Tibbs]

36. He isn't running against one person anymore

[lapucelle]

72. Why and/or why would the number of people in the race impact favorability? N/T

[yaesu]

37. Another attempt by MSM to decide who will get to the GE

corporate MSM has their fav candidate that they want to put up against their "golden boy" tRump who chits out huge tax breaks for them. I already notice one Dem that is mentioned by them all the time, as the person to beat & this person hasn't even officially entered the race.

[lapucelle]

71. This was a poll. N/T

[Chakaconcarne]

38. He's still very useful for 2020....

Let him run on his ideologies. That messaging affiliates with the overall Democratic ticket without any other DEM candidate having to adopt or assume responsibility (or liability) for them...Then, the main ticket dem can run on all presented ideologies from all the other candidates without necessarily having to commit. This is exactly what the GOP does....if you hadn't noticed.

[SidDithers]

39. Putting Team Green in place as his senior campaign leadership can't help with Democrats...nt

Sid

[mcar]

41. Name recognition vs actual vetting

[LakeArenal]

43. Never gonna see those taxes, are we?!?

That would be another nail on his political coffin, me thinks.

[ehrnst]

44. Perhaps those recent hires of Sirota and Gray underscore why he may be losing

popularity among Democrats.

Democrats like the Democratic Party - maybe not every single part of it - but they will likely choose someone who doesn't think of the Democratic Party as such an adversary.

[thesquanderer]

123. The poll was taken before those recent hires.

But even today, I doubt the average poll responder is aware of those hires, or their potential significance.

[ehrnst]

124. I know, what I think that the poll is showing that many Democrats already see in him

the ideas impelled him to make those hires.

I hope that's clearer.

[DemKittyNC]

49. Good

Great to hear. We have so many excellent actual Democrats running that aren’t so questionable and toxic, we don’t need him.

[radical noodle]

51. Most Hillary supporters will not vote for him

for obvious reasons. IF he was the nominee, he would likely get their votes, but for the primary, he's not going to get them. He's done nothing but make them angrier.

It's not simply benign indifference to him. They are actively working against him.

[Mr Tibbs]

116. 95% of people are over the last primary

Not an issue

[radical noodle]

157. LOL!

Dream on.

[comradebillyboy]

118. He seems incapable of expanding his appeal.

[Mr Tibbs]

147. He has risen nine points since February

When he first ran for president, he was at 3% name recognition. Now he is the most popular politician in America. So you are correct, no expansion of his appeal.

[Renew Deal]

52. I'm sure people will like him more when they see his accomplishments. Here is the list:

[dalton99a]

58. You left out some stuff

[Renew Deal]

62. Good catch

[Cha]

94. lol.. you guys!

[sheshe2]

126. ...

[betsuni]

155. HA!

[Kahuna7]

84. LOL! You ain't right.

[MFM008]

53. To many good choices

Not just him and Hillary ( or Stein).

[awesomerwb1]

54. What scares me is

WheRe WiLl AlL HiS MoSt FanAtIcAl supporters go when he loses in the primaries, if he loses?

I am 100% sure some will cry conspiracy again and vote third party or even trump again. It's madness.

[NurseJackie]

103. Nicely done.

WheRe WiLl AlL HiS MoSt FanAtIcAl supporters go

I rEaLlY dOn'T kNoW.

[cwydro]

207. I don't know, but I hope they take their exclamation points with them.!!!

Here are some more!!!!

[TommyCelt]

109. Expanding on that fear...

...there was a huge push from the Greens to get him to jump ship after the 2016 primaries and run on their ticket. Now he has Greens holding senior staff positions.

If he runs 3rd party, this trump has got it locked.

Bernie's not a Dem.

[thesquanderer]

121. It's not madness that *some* Sanders supporters go elsewhere in November.

Sanders has always had support outside the Dem base, and many states had "open" primaries where you didn't have to be a Dem to vote. So you have people who voted for him in the primaries who are not necessarily reliable Dem voters to begin with. In some cases, there was never any chance they were going to vote for Hillary, no matter who she was running against.

The country isn't all D and R. Lots of people vote person, not party. It's not crazy that some who found Sanders appealing did not find Clinton appealing, and either stayed home, voted third party, or yeah, even voted for Trump as who they saw as the less "definitely-bad" of two bad choices. I have one of those in my own family, and so does my partner. And neither regrets her choice, that's how anti-Hillary they are. But as long as the nominee isn't Hillary, they could both possibly vote Dem next time. One is specifically hoping for Biden.

Remember, the country is roughly 30% Dem, 30% Repub, and 40% neither. Sanders has strong support among the neither, which his supporters argue makes him a strong November candidate, but it also means that he has a lot of support from people who won't necessarily vote Dem in November if he's not the nominee. It's unfortunate, but it's not madness.

[George II]

133. Awesome, rwb1!

[Johnny2X2X]

55. His fans are tearing our party apart right now

Any candidate that announces is the target of Bernie fans right now. The day they announce, Bernie fans miraculously have dozens of memes ready to use that trash that candidate. Did you know Beto O'Rourke is no better than Mitt Romney?

They fall for it every time, it's doing massive damage to the party and the country.

[CentralMass]

63. RealClear has him moving up in polls closing in on Biden.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

[True Blue American]

68. Poll from The Hill!

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/434727-poll-biden-rises-to-8-point-lead-on-sanders-in-national-dem-2020-primary

[CentralMass]

113. Poll from Emerson 3/17-3/18. Biden/Sandrrs tied at 26%

http://emersonpolling.com/2019/03/19/national-poll-sanders-tied-with-biden-beto-gets-post-announcement-bump/

[Kahuna7]

135. CNN's latest primary polling....

Link to tweet

[lapucelle]

158. The CNN poll was a "favorability" poll. N/T

[mountain grammy]

67. Recent polls show 50% of Americans agree that the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt..

Polls are bullshit! Depends on what is asked and how it's asked..

[True Blue American]

70. I just posted one

Disputing the one just posted.

[mountain grammy]

145. Thank you.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

73. His support from *this* voter has plummeted.

I supported him in the 2016 primaries because the choice then was binary, and I agreed more with most of his positions than I did with Hillary's. I just hoped he'd help push her to take up some more progressive views (which she did) because I didn't really expect him to get the nomination. Of course, I voted for Hillary in the general. With more (younger, diverse) candidates to choose from this time, however, I don't need Bernie, and I especially don't need or want the divisive Jill Stein retreads he's chosen to manage and represent his campaign. That was the last straw. He's now on my big-fat-no list with Gabbard, Gillibrand and Williamson. Obviously any Democrat is better than Trump, but this year there are plenty of great Democrats to choose from. I no longer consider him to be one of them.

[WeekiWater]

85. Two things.

He was at a saturation point when he announced this time around. He can only go down.

Second, it's why he has all of these dishonest attack dogs. He needs to drive his opponents down at a quicker rate than he drops.

[dalton99a]

93. Yep, it's the burn down the village approach

[theophilus]

98. He is not worthy of consideration until he releases tax records, imo. n/t

[Gothmog]

101. No one took sanders seriously in 2016 and so sanders was not vetted

No one took sanders seriously and so he was not vetted. Vetting is important I amso glad that sanders is being vetted this cycle https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/28/why-bernie-sanders-has-an-uphill-climb-ahead/?utm_term=.1b4f90c2a717

Finally, what happens when the oppo dump on Sanders comes? We have no idea, because it never happened in 2016. Clinton was so terrified of alienating his supporters and seeing them vote for Jill Stein in the general election (or not vote at all) that she tiptoed around him for pretty much the entirety of the primary campaign. That doesn’t mean that he’ll be destroyed when stories about the more colorful aspects of his history start cropping up, but there’s just no way to know.

Which is what we could say about the Sanders candidacy as a whole: There’s no way to know how it’s going to go. But he’s got his work cut out for him.

See also https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-campaign-donald-trump/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2019-02-20T14%3A52%3A07&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social%C2%A0

2. How will he withstand more scrutiny and more attacks?
One of the secrets to Sanders' success in 2016 was that no one -- most especially Clinton -- thought he had any chance of going anywhere in the race. Clinton largely ignored him for the better part of 2015, allowing some problematic parts of Sanders' record for Democrats -- most notably his voting record on guns -- to go unnoticed. (When the race began to tighten, Clinton gently prodded Sanders on guns and health care.) Sanders, too, largely flew under the radar of investigative reporters for major news outlets who were busy looking into Clinton, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and others seen as more viable candidates. (That reality clearly benefited Donald Trump in the early days of the campaign, as well.)

Sanders will get no pass -- from either the media or his fellow candidates -- this time around. He is among the frontrunners -- and will be treated as such. His wife's time as president of Burlington College could well come up. And his opponents will do a deep dive into his nearly 30 years of votes as a member of the House and Senate. This is all very normal stuff in a campaign. But not for Sanders.

The CNN polling reflects the fact that sanders is being vetted

[PatrickforO]

104. I don't feel the same about Bernie now as I did in 2016.

I was having a talk about this with colleagues at work, and the point was made that many of the people who embraced and loved Bernie back then were actually loving his message. His platform. The things he was proposing that would genuinely and significantly improve the lives of most Americans. That's why I went all out to support him in '16.

Now, though, many of the candidates are coming forward with this platform - healthcare, debt-free college, a Green New Deal.

Talk turned to AOC and the new progressives in the party. An esteemed colleague at work who is a bit more centrist than I am said they were going to ruin our chances of beating Trump because they are advocating impractical things, things that will be very difficult to pass even if we take both houses of Congress and the WH.

I countered with the argument that AOC and the other progressives are speaking truth to power. Like me, they are sick and tired of politicians who say what they think we want to hear in order to get elected, then go to DC and do very little that actually benefits us. All of us, if we're being honest, can name a few of these people. And I'm not talking about the right-wing crazies. There really isn't a Republican party any more - it is the party of Trump - a racist, white nationalistic, xenophobic, homophobic, corrupt and treasonous monstrosity that has brought shame upon our entire nation.

Nope. I'm talking about Democrats. And I'm particularly talking about Democrats that are feeling really uncomfortable with some of the things the new progressive group are saying. But why, I ask, should we tolerate anything less than a commitment to vigorous, focused and passionate effort to mitigate climate change from any of our candidates? Why should we tolerate anything less from our candidates that a commitment to universal healthcare, with at least a public option, and ideally Medicare for all? Why should we tolerate anything from our candidates but a commitment to overturn the giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations the Trump party rammed down our throats in 2017?

And, when elected, why should we tolerate candidates who don't act in our best interests like they said they would.

All of us need to speak truth to power. That is the only possible way we can cut through the corporate greed and corruption that tried to take over our government completely with the election of Trump. We all have one vote, but we also all have the ability to make calls, write letters, compose emails, sign petitions, donate money, post on social media and do our utmost to influence the political dialog in this country.

People are tired, damned tired, of a government who only responds to billionaires and corporations. It's time for some serious reform. Bernie used the word 'revolution,' and by that he meant a dramatically increased level of political consciousness and political engagement on the part of us all. The days when we can just cross our fingers, vote for the people with D behind their names and then hope for the best are over.

We need some massive changes NOW, and without MASSIVE pressure from us, those changes aren't going to happen and our grandchildren are going to have to breathe through fucking masks just to stay alive, and the earth will be polluted and dying, whole species of wildlife will die and the earth will become a much harsher place. People will continue to die because they cannot afford life-saving drugs or healthcare. People will continue to go bankrupt when they get sick.

Wake up, people. Things were incrementally better under Obama, but now under Trump all the good he did is being sabotaged or reversed. And for what? So shareholders in big corporations can get richer, so CEO compensation can be even more stratospheric and so we can have more and more billionaires at the expense of the rest of us, who just have to suck it up and work even harder.

Sorry, but that's bullshit. We need serious change NOW.

That is what the progressives are saying.

[yardwork]

175. Here's the sad part. Those issues were already part of the Democratic platform.

Hillary's campaign platform included plans for a Green New Deal, expanded health care, increased minimum wage, etc.

Hillary was not particularly good at marketing her plans. Bernie was better at making it all sound exciting and new, making big promises. Trump was even better at selling huge, false promises.

It's all about the sound bite now. The American public appears to be incapable of making an informed decision based on actual facts.

[PatrickforO]

178. Maybe. But I remember Clinton in the 2008 primary being asked if

she felt healthcare was a 'right' not a 'privilege.'

The question came from one of the media heads looking for the next 'gotcha' to inform the next 24-hour news cycle.

Clinton wouldn't say.

To be fair, neither did Obama. That's my point. These things might well have been on the platform, but none of our candidates were talking forcefully about them.

Here's what I think, at age 60, after seeing what I've seen in politics. In '92 a group of Democrats decided to move to the center because they didn't think the liberal message still worked. It was an effort to promote new talking points, ones that attempted to reconcile the right and left. The Third Way people eschewed the New Deal philosophy, downplayed Keynesian economics and had a belief in the power of the market to solve problems government could not. Clinton got in there and did a pretty good job. He assigned Hillary to the healthcare issue, and she tried and got burned badly.

I don't know why the New Deal went by the wayside. Oh yeah, the MIC and Vietnam. And the Republicans - they got tough. Never back down, never apologize, lie, cheat - all about winning. Not governing. Newt Gingrich back in the 90's led a 'do nothing' House and he was proud of that.

So now, years later, we have a young generation that has been screwed every which way but loose, and they, like Americans all through our lives, have been irritated at politicians that say whatever it takes to get elected, and then do nothing, really, when they get in office. The Republicans have been like that for decades, of course, ruling by fear. Their latest effort is to try and scare us with socialism. We're supposed to just wilt every time some dumbass like Louis Gohmert says, "'Murika won't NEVER go sosha-list!"

Problem is, we have a decade at best before human-caused climate change is irreversible and this planet becomes much less habitable. Americans are going broke again from high healthcare costs. My own plan is a shitty, rationed one with financially crippling copays, and it's like that for many millions of Americans. People can't afford to by life-saving drugs, and look what has happened to the price of insulin. And what about our children and grandchildren? Debt slaves to forever-loans they had to take out for college, and they make less, have amassed less wealth, start fewer businesses, and even are delaying starting families and buying homes because of this particular brand of predatory capitalism.

And then the Republicans pass the giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations so they can give yet more of our money to these parasites.

So yeah, progressives like me are calling bullshit, and insisting, demanding that our candidates learn to talk articulately about the kitchen table issues that I brought up here, and then DO something about those issues that actually helps us when they get in office. As to electability, none of our people are going to get anywhere if they don't find a way to show people what bullshit the Republicans are spouting and turn the conversation to these very real issues.

That's why I like the Parkland kids, and those kids that confronted Diane Feinstein (and yes, I did watch the entire footage of that), the kids around the world striking so our elected officials can act like 'adults' in legislating solutions for climate change. And AOC and the rest of the young, divers members of the House. They are calling bullshit on the way things are. I'm calling bullshit on the way things are. Bernie has been calling for a 'political revolution,' wherein Americans once again TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY of learning about the issues and then holding those they elect accountable for performance.

But we don't have decades to address these things. Not any more. Look at your children. Look at your grandchildren. We need to pull out all the stops.

[JonLP24]

189. Great post

[artislife]

205. They seemed to pay lipservice at best

and at worst, she poo pooed the ideas of asking for too much. In her little salons of listening.

I agree with your posts. We are not at a point when we can just continue, in my words, to "think good thoughts" about solving hard problems. The kids of Parkland are WOKE and they see us as hand wringers who will fret for a bit and then get back to our own lives.


We cannot go back, we cannot be wishy washy, we must be brave.



One thing about Republicans; they decide to go extreme and don't worry if they convert anyone from the other side. I think our failing is that we don't focus on our game and play proactively.

[Victor_c3]

106. I supported Sanders above everyone last election cycle

I would support him if he were to get the nomination, but I believe this time around it’s time to throw newer/younger blood into the mix.

[SHRED]

108. Sirota

They did it for me even considering him.

[Amimnoch]

111. GOOD!

'bout time people started waking up and seeing him for what he is.

Would have had our best chance of winning had he not jumped in again, but C'est la vie. Hopefully he doesn't do enough damage on the way out to damage our candidate we do select again.

[Power 2 the People]

125. Only time will tell.

[sheshe2]

127. He is being vetted this time around. nt

[George II]

131. They're talking about this right now on CNN, i.e., the significance of his spike in unfavorability!

In December his unfavorability rating was 35%, now it's all the way up to 45%, just one point below his favorability rating.

A side note about this new poll is that 59% of all Democrats think that Democrats have a better chance of winning next year with someone else.

[BannonsLiver]

138. More evidence Bernie will not be the nominee, and won't ever be president

I think the nominee will be one of: Biden, O'Rourke or Harris. Warren is the darkhorse candidate. Any of them would make me very happy.

[Mr Tibbs]

139. Sanders just tied Biden

Sanders has risen nine points since February

[BannonsLiver]

140. Yeah, cool story but the negatives are what they are.

Not looking good for Bernie.

[Mr Tibbs]

142. Can you link to these negative poll numbers?

Thanks!

[BannonsLiver]

143. He is a paltry +1 on net favorabilty in this poll.

Did you actually read the article?

If you did and don’t think that’s a problem I think it speaks to your understanding of politics and campaigns.

Bernie’s in trouble. The acceptance of Sanders supporters is not required for thst to be true. Sorry.

[Mr Tibbs]

144. He has risen nine points since February

[BannonsLiver]

146. And his net favorability is still just +1

Not a good sign.

[Mr Tibbs]

148. If he were 50 points ahead, his detractors would claim

That his popularity was nose-diving.

[BannonsLiver]

149. You'll never have to worry about any of that.

[Mr Tibbs]

150. I won't have to worry about it

But your fear of his candidacy is definitely palpable

[BannonsLiver]

151. ...

[TwilightZone]

154. It is nose-diving.

That's the whole point of the article.

"An average of all recent polls put Sanders' net favorability at about -1 points.
Compare that to where Sanders was at the end of his 2016 presidential bid. Sanders had a 59% favorable rating to 36% unfavorable rating among all voters in a CNN poll taken in June 2016. "

"Sanders was able to hold onto much of his popularity through last year. A CNN poll taken in early December 2018 gave him a +13 net favorability rating with all voters. A Gallup poll in September 2018 had him at a +15 net favorability rating with all adults. "

Net +23 in June 2016.
Net +15 in September 2018.
Net +13 in December 2018.
Net -1 now.

[lunamagica]

152. Sanders is done

[Mr Tibbs]

153. Sanders is obviously the one to beat

[Gothmog]

198. How? sanders will not have any support from African American voters

sanders is not going to break 15% in South Carolina or the southern Super Tuesday primaries. Booing John Lewis as the National Convention and hiring a press spokesperson who attacked Congressman John Lewis will hurt what little support in this demographic that sanders had

[Cha]

201. trump is the one to beat.

Last edited Sun Mar 24, 2019, 12:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[madville]

160. LOL, by those same polls they are referencing he has gained support

In those same polls he was at 14% with primary voters in December and is at 20% now. So his popularity is plummeting while at the same time he is gaining supporters? Just more proof you can spin polling data in any direction.

[lapucelle]

161. These polls don't have any questions about the primaries and/or candidate preference.

There are polls which show a BS post-announcement bounce, but the polls CNN referenced for this analysis concern favorability.

[madville]

162. You're right, I was thinking of something else I just read

Thanks.

[madville]

163. Just about everybody's favorability numbers are far higher than Hillary Clinton's by that poll

Hillary Clinton is at 32% favorable/61% unfavorable in this same poll.

Trump is the closest to Clinton at 40% favorable/56% unfavorable.

[lapucelle]

164. Really? How interesting! HRC isn't running for office. N/T

[madville]

165. Let's hope it stays that way

It is interesting how the same respondents view our present and past candidates. I imagine we'll see a lot of movement after the first debate.

[lapucelle]

166. It's interesting how many many in the right wing media still default to, "but Hillary" whataboutism

when they need to take the focus off the weaknesses and character flaws of Republican politicians.

HRC has said several times that she is not running. I've heard the grammar of the statement parsed on TV by Republican and tea party operatives fearful that she'll enter the race at some future time. It gives new meaning to the phrase "living rent free in their heads".

It's also interesting (but not surprising) how much power she holds as a citizen activist. After all, the fact that HRC beat her opponent by several million votes in 2016 cannot be disappeared from the historical record no matter how hard Trump and his supporters try.

[betsuni]

170. She's not running and last time her favorability numbers before running

were 69% and a Gallup poll named her the most admired woman in the world and she had a 55% favorability rate with voters in battleground states. In April, 2016, she held between 71 and 82% of Sanders' supporters, but the beginning of June that number was between 55 and 72%. Propaganda works.

[madville]

177. I agree and right before the election

I agree and right before the election (the last poll released the day before) her numbers had fallen all the way to just below Trump's, one percentage point below him in favorability if I remember right.

[Cha]

167. Have you seen these Interesting Polls, lapucelle?

Link to tweet

[lapucelle]

168. I can't wait for the debates.

Any candidate expecting kid glove treatment this time around will be rudely surprised. The fact that negative attacks against Democratic candidates have already begun speaks to the degree of desperation some already feel.

Mahalp, my friend!



(No donuts for you )

[Cha]

169. That's what I've been saying..

that these 3rd party "attack dog" hires sound desperate to me.

Sanders Promised Civility but Hired Twitter Attack Dog - The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/sanders-promised-civility-hired-twitter-attack-dog/585259/

Proud to be not on your donut list.

Hoa Aloha, lapucelle

[dalton99a]

180. +1. Helluva headline

and 100% accurate

[allgood33]

171. GOOD!!

[Hortensis]

172. If it's plummeting NOW, just wait for him to

start claiming again that the Democratic Party is corrupt and must be rebuilt. The midterms showed tremendous disagreement with him, and somehow I don't think our mainstream Democrats would take these smears -- from him! -- so quietly this time.

[betsuni]

174. It's go time.

[Hortensis]

176. :) Yup!

For me, no forget, and absolutely no forgive, for someone who'd try to take the Democratic Party nomination away from the majority choice, even if bizarrely hopelessly. Ever.

[dalton99a]

182. The demolition work comes first - he is hiring senior staff with experience

[Hortensis]

193. Contemptible. Experience at synergizing anti-Democratic themes

with those of the GOP and the Kremlin.

What are their actual goals and why? They must know they can't possibly win the primaries, and they must also all know the progressive goals they claim can only be achieved through large Democratic victories. Demolition for its own sake, with a glorious vision of them arising from the ashes? Since 2016 wasn't destructive enough?

[Cha]

186. I dare him!

Link to tweet

[Hortensis]

190. :) If I were them, I'd want that hidden!

Of course, someone who's again surrounding himself with the kind who voted for Jill Stein and Trump and shared propaganda efforts with the Republicans and Russia to defeat Democrats could never become our nominee, could only play spoiler again.

Speaking of hiring bad eggs, wonder if they include any of other half of his 23-24% of anti-Democrat spoilers who voted for Trump himself? Seems all too possible.

[Cha]

185. Paul Krugman commenting on BS poll..

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

187. Krugman has a point: this is before the "Bernie is Hugo Chavez with a New York accent" stuff.

Seems like he would be a flawed candidate.

[Cha]

200. And, interesting coming

from Krugman

[Gothmog]

199. I agree with Prof. Krugman

[Stuart G]

188. It is simple and easy to understand. Sanders is not electable

Sanders supporters may think this is not true. But it is. His ideas are ok, but he is not ok. If he were nominated as our candidate, we would have an in fight all over again. He was loyal, he was not loyal..blah, blah, and blah...This in fight is the very last thing we need

again...this in fight is the very last thing we need
again.. this in fight is the very last thing we need

Don't be a fool..yes fool.

We need to be totally united to beat them, complete and total. Sanders is not the person to do this. You may think so, but you are wrong. Sanders has made too many enemies in this party to gain total and complete support. Anybody that will unify our party is the answer..

Sanders is not the answer

[aikoaiko]

202. Doesn't reqlly matter as long as he is in the race to the end.

I don’t know who I will get behind yet, but I’m convinced that Bernie Sanders is having a positive impact on the party. Mostly due the things others are adopting but also because of who he irritates.

[artislife]

206. Nodding in agreement. nt

[Gothmog]

203. If sanders is the nominee, trump wins

Link to tweet

[artislife]

204. My reasons for not jumping in for him

is his age.

Nothing else.

I agree with his platforms, I like the crabbiness, enjoy that he had a best seller and am grateful that he shifted what our party talks about.

[Gothmog]

209. According to this study trump could win

There are posters who believe that we can nominate the most liberal/socialist nominee as possible and that candidate will easily win because everyone hates trump. It is their position that this is a historic opportunity to nominate someone would otherwise not be electable. This theory is wrong in that most POTUS are re-elected if the economy is good. Here is a scary study that shows this

Link to tweet

There are good reasons to doubt this study

Link to tweet

I do not believe that trump is assured of winning. If we want to win, Democrats need to nominate a strong nominee who is NOT too far out of the mainstream

[DavidDvorkin]

210. Faster! Faster!