Looks like Bernie is surging in NH

[cali]

He's not doing nearly so well in Iowa or other early voting states, and some of it can likely be attributed to the neighboring state thing, but still, considering that he was polling in the low single digits a month ago, it's great news.

In a trio of new polls in early primary states, Hillary Clinton leads Democratic rivals in Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire.

It’s in the Granite State, however, where the former secretary of state’s standing is the least rock-solid, according to new polls conducted by Morning Consult.

Among Democratic voters who say they will participate in the state’s primary next year, 44 percent back Clinton. Next up: independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist from neighboring Vermont, who grabs 32 percent. Vice President Joe Biden, who has shown little inclination to run, claims 8 percent of likely Democratic voters.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-democrats-2016-early-states-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119004.html#ixzz3d9s67gl4

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. YAY! I'm "Feeling the Bern"!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=411979

[JaneyVee]

2. Didn't Sanders have 16% in Iowa last poll?

Yet this poll has him at 12%. I haven't been paying much attention to all the polls so I could be wrong. I actually thought Sanders was beating Clinton in NH already.

[mythology]

5. That difference would be within within the margin of error

And thus functionally the same.

[JaneyVee]

6. Oh yeah good point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. The polls seem to be a bit of an oulier

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-4167.html


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html

But the SC polls aren't especially fresh.

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. I don't know, but of course any movement toward Sanders is considered cataclysmic by the media.

I don't think he's "beating Clinton" anywhere, except maybe Russia.

[still_one]

3. NH is a fierce independent state

Last edited Tue Jun 16, 2015, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)

[LordGlenconner]

61. Yes, they proved that in 2008

With Obama coming off an unexpected win in Iowa, his momentum was blunted by Hillary's win in NH, when the conventional wisdom said Obama would win NH.

He didn't, and that one loss basically extended the campaign by months.

[still_one]

63. I have no doubt this is going to be an interesting election season

[MineralMan]

4. If Joe Biden doesn't enter the race, where you do expect his voters to

lean? He seems closer to Hillary Clinton in his politics than to Bernie, as I see it.

[cali]

7. who knows? but clearly, according to this poll, Bernie is pulling voters from HRC

you managed to contain very well, how pleased you are with Bernie climbing in the NH poll.

[MineralMan]

11. He is gaining in New Hampshire. No question about it.

That's a good thing. My question about Biden supporters is still there, though. I'm trying to analyze the polling numbers. He doesn't seem to be getting the same jump elsewhere. This could be a regional thing or something else. I don't know. Since I don't live in NH, my opinion doesn't matter much there.

You have seen my statement of support for Senator Sanders many times already. It still stands, as does my invitation for you to attend our precinct caucus for confirmation of that support. In this thread, I'm looking at these results analytically.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. "He doesn't seem to be getting the same jump elsewhere."

You're not supposed to point that out.

[cali]

30. Fine to point that out. I point it out in the OP. duh

my point was that the poster's supposed support for Bernie is.... interesting. I think Hillary is a MUCH better fit for him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. You guys jumped all over that one poll where Bernie doubled his support after his kickoff, and no...

other poll, according to RCP, supported that increase. Can you say outlier? Just a caution that a single poll does not a trend make.

[kenfrequed]

45. Odd

That everytime a poll comes out that suggests that Bernie has jumped up in support (originally he was at 3% or so I think.) Someone jumps out and instantly dismisses the poll. I would say Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Also, the choice of your tag-thingee: a waiving smiley face. It feels somewhat dismissive and maybe a bit sarchastic at time. If that is what you intend then fine. If it isn't then you might want to consider what your communication goals are.

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. I think you get what my "communication goals are". Still, one poll is not a trend. Ask Romney.

[kenfrequed]

49. I am not sure that I do.

I assume you are not trying to be dismissive or sarchastic. It feels dismissive and sarchastic, but I have trouble believing that is your intent. Clear it up for me.

[Tarheel_Dem]

55. No. Let's just leave you shrouded in mystery. And, by the way, "sarchastic" is not a word.

[kenfrequed]

57. I make spelling errors.

At least I say what I mean. You just seem to be dodging and angling to anger people. I know your game already. Many people seem to have already added you to their ignore list.

[Tarheel_Dem]

58. I sure wish my alert stalker would add me to his/her ignore list as well. Anger, much like the.....

ignore feature is always an option.

[Jefferson23]

9. I think that is a fair bet going to Clinton, at least for now. n/t

[NCTraveler]

12. I would think most of Biden's would go to Hillary or O'Malley.

Not all, but a majority. I also don't find it to be shocking that Sanders numbers are growing. That had to happen. There was only one direction for them to go. On top of that, he has excellent ideas that bode well with all of us progressives. I'm kind of wondering why they are still polling with him in it. I don't think he would have an interest with Hillary and O'Malley in the race.

[MineralMan]

14. I think they continue to include him because he

is the sitting VP and has not declared one way or another. I expect Biden to make a decision, though, by the end of July. I'm guessing he's not going to run, though. He probably won't do any endorsements until it's clear who will be the nominee, though. I imagine it will be clear in March of next year.

Biden seems closest in positions to Hillary Clinton, so I expect most of that 8% will go to her. I don't see O'Malley as building a strong following, really. I could be wrong, of course, but there is such a nice contrast between Clinton and Sanders that I don't see a spot for O'Malley in the primary voters' minds.

Just my amateur musings, though, of course.

[NCTraveler]

17. This might not be the place but I would like to hear your amateur musings on O'Malley.

I think I am seeing something others aren't with him. Normally that means I am dead wrong. I think he is going for a very steady and measured approach. Sanders is going for the scorched earth campaign. Hillary is building a coalition like no other. O'Malley is willing to ramp up slowly. Even his supporters seem to be the nicest frickin people. And I'm talking about on DU!!!!! I think he believes time is on his side. Not sure that is possible since end dates are known. I do think he is going to gain with this approach without damaging his brand. As others have support that will come and go, he is building up something stronger. Well, that's all I can garner at this point.

[MineralMan]

22. OK. I see this primary as pretty well polarized already.

Hillary's on the traditional side, and Bernie is on the progressive side of Democratic thinking. O'Malley has even less name recognition in most places than Bernie Sanders, and doesn't seem to be stimulating the imagination of Democrats who want to replace the traditional with something new.

O'Malley is a very nice guy, with good ideas, but isn't sparking a rivalry in the Party. He'd be a fine President, I'm sure, but without an existing nationwide brand, he's got a tough job being considered by primary voters. It's not a fault of his; it's this particular election. If Biden doesn't enter the race, he may pick up voters who don't like Clinton but aren't interested in Sanders for whatever reason.

I just don't see where O'Malley's constituency comes from, really. It's a nationwide race, so if people are saying "Who?" about him, it's going to be almost impossible for him to make headway against two strong and vocal candidates who have distinct differences.

I don't know, but I'm not thinking too much about him, and even less about Lincoln Chafee, who I think will get exactly nowhere at all in this primary race and may not even try to compete in the early primaries.

Again, I could be wrong about any of this. It's just based on my own experience in election observation for over 50 years.

[NCTraveler]

25. Thank you for the time.

Even though I do think O'Malley will do well, I cannot offer up opposition to your opinion. Yours sounds a little more sensible than mine and we are kind of reading tea leaves. Well, a little better than that as we have a lifetime of watching politics in us.

[MineralMan]

27. It's always interesting to speculate this early in the process.

Anything can happen, to be sure.

[Springslips]

33. On the other hand. . .

Since both Biden and Hillary are known names perhaps a good portion of Biden supporters are anti-Clinton for whatever reason and pick Biden by default. To bad these polls don't dig deep and ask for second choices.

[Jefferson23]

10. I continue to feel encouraged and hopeful. K&R

[mmonk]

13. When the media, the corporate infrastructure, and their parties

control the conservation, they can't lose. But when someone speaks the truth and people can hear, things can change. We need more debate to win back representative government for the people.

[MineralMan]

15. The best way to win that back is to encourage more

people to participate in the primary elections. The general election, too, of course. As long as primary turnout sticks at about 25% or less, it will still skew heavily and not really be representative. GOTV!

[mmonk]

20. I believe everything should be returned to The League of Women Voters

as far as televised debates go. Everybody in, equal time, and make your case to the voters.

[MineralMan]

23. I could support that. Especially for the general election.

I'm not sure they ever really got involved in primary races, though. I could be wrong, but I don't remember them doing much in primaries.

The old-style debates were, to me, better balanced and informative. Richard Nixon would probably disagree, though. Flop sweat isn't a great attribute in a TV debate, especially in B&W.

[geek tragedy]

18. It'll be interesting to see if other polling outfits show similar results.

Morning Consult doesn't have much of a track record, so very hard to assess the quality of this data.

[SoapBox]

21. Has he even been in SC yet?

Just wait until he starts talking there.

[FloridaBlues]

24. Don't get over exited

about this poll in NH people expect him to do well in his neighboring state. When the polls are 1-2 months out get excited .

[Spitfire of ATJ]

26. "Socialist"???

Grab the kids!!! The Russian tanks are coming this way!!!

[padfun]

40. As opposed to "Republican" like in the Republic of North Korea?

Lot of difference between "socialism" and "democratic socialism"

[Spitfire of ATJ]

54. There's a lot of difference between "socialism" and "communist dictatorship" too....

These idiots expect America to look at this:



...and see this:



Meanwhile, we see this:

[morningfog]

28. 32% looks very good at this point in the race.

[Smarmie Doofus]

29. Sanders should take NH.

Thereafter... it's anyone's race. ( More likely Sanders' than Clinton's.)

It's ruinous for a "frontrunner" to lose NH.

It telegraphs the idea that there is something profoundly WRONG. ( And in this case, there is.)

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. "It's ruinous for a "frontrunner" to lose NH. "? I know someone who would take issue with that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Actually the last three presidents have lost New Hampshire

Any way here are all the New Hampshire polls:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html#polls

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. So, it's a fallacy that "losing NH would be ruinous for a frontrunner"? I kinda thought so.

P.S.: You probably know more about this polling firm than I, but what is their track record, and is their sampling always so tiny? 279 registered voters seems small.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. The evidence suggests...

The evidence suggests that Bill Clinton, George Walker Bush and Barack Obama all won the presidency despite losing the New Hampshire primary and that the poll cited by the original poster seems to be an outlier:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html#polls



It might be an artifact but the last six presidents have all won the South Carolina primary.

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. Whenever I see these blaring headlines proclaiming 'Hillary's Going Down', I'm reminded of this:

Vox: "It's time for the media to admit that Hillary Clinton is popular"

Updated by Matthew Yglesias on June 1, 2015, 8:30 a.m.

Quinnipiac is out with a new poll that confirms something the national media is loathe to admit, and that essentially never surfaces in their coverage of one of the most-covered people in the world today: Hillary Clinton is the most popular politician in America.

Hillary Clinton is the most popular politician in America
It would be genuinely silly to think that her early leads in general election polling tell us anything interesting about what will happen in November 2016. But they tell us a lot about how people feel in May 2015, and the way they feel is pretty good about Hillary Clinton.

According to Gallup, for example, she is the most admired woman in the world. What's more, she has been the most admired woman in the world for 17 out of the past 18 years.

Journalists don't like Hillary Clinton

But the press hates to admit this. For Clinton, good news is never just good news. Instead it's an opportunity to remind the public about the media's negative narratives about Clinton and then to muse on the fact that her ratings somehow manage to hold up despite these narratives.

Here's how the Wall Street Journal wrote up an earlier poll showing Clinton beating all opponents:


Hillary Clinton's stature has been battered after more than a month of controversy over her fundraising and email practices, but support for her among Democrats remains strong and unshaken, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/1/8676727/hillary-clinton-popularity

The part about "journalists" really stood out. They don't like her, so she'll always be Goliath & Sanders will be David. They love a horserace, but they hate Hillary, and the news coverage will reflect that. I think she and her team are prepared for that. No love from the media.

[Adrahil]

38. I suspect an anomaly... That's WAY out from other polls.

I'll wait to see a couple more before I call that result real.

[AtomicKitten]

32. Go Bern.

[geretogo]

36. Go Bernie !!! Any one that does not worship Benito Mussolinni and carry his picture is always

going to be called a Socialist in Fascist America .

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Mussolini was a socialist before becoming a fascist.

Born to a socialist father, Mussolini was named after leftist Mexican President Benito Juárez. His two middle names, Amilcare and Andrea, came from Italian socialists Amilcare Cipriani and Andrea Costa. Early in Mussolini’s life, for instance, those names seemed appropriate. While living in Switzerland from 1902 to 1904, he cultivated an intellectual image and wrote for socialist periodicals such as L’Avvenire del Lavoratore (The Worker’s Future). He then served in the Italian army for nearly two years before resuming his career as a teacher and journalist. In his articles and speeches, Mussolini preached violent revolution, praised famed communist thinker Karl Marx and criticized patriotism. In 1912 he became editor of Avanti! (Forward!), the official daily newspaper of Italy’s Socialist Party. But he was expelled from the party two years later over his support for World War I. By 1919 a radically changed Mussolini had founded the fascist movement, which would later become the Fascist Party.


http://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-mussolini

[kenfrequed]

48. Wow...

Seriously, wow.

What kind of a statement is that? What are you trying to imply?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. He was a fanatic

Mussolini was a fanatic. He went from being a Marxist-Leninist to being a fascist and believed both with an equal fervor. No different than Eldridge Cleaver or Clarence Thomas who went from being black nationalists to being Republicans. Some folks are given to wild ideological swings but the only constant is how passionately they believe what they believe at the moment.

[kenfrequed]

51. The context means an awful lot

Is your comment related at all to the thread or to what was being discussed previously?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. This was the context

Go Bernie !!! Any one that does not worship Benito Mussolinni and carry his picture is always

going to be called a Socialist in Fascist America .

[kenfrequed]

56. So what are you implying?

Seriously man, I think that Free Republic is right down the block. Goldberg's book "Liberal Facism" is cited at length there. That is where you see that argument made most frequently.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. I strive to be civil so I will ignore the ad hominem attack, for now.

Liberalism and fascism are mutually exclusive ideologies as the former celebrates the individual and the latter celebrates the state and that the individual must surrender to the state so if Mr Goldberg is comparing the two and concluding they are the same he lacks understanding.


Also, Hitler and Mussolini called themselves National Socialists but in reality they were anything but. They did misappropriate the term "socialism" because it was so popular in 1930's Europe...

No need to thank me for the political theory/1930s European history lesson though it did cost me thousands in grad school tuition to learn.

I just thought it was fascinating to mention Il Duce, socialism, and fascism in the same sentence. It belies even a rudimentary knowledge of political theory and 1930s and 1940s European history.

[kenfrequed]

60. I strive to be logical

Linking progressive socialism to fascism was the thesis of Goldberg's ridiculous and much panned book. It really isn't much of a step to question you on that score. I mean, it really is in keeping with your comment since you didn't justify it at all or offer much in the way of an explanation for your tossing it out.

Was it just a non sequitor? I asked you what the context was and you merely reposted the comment of the person you were responding to.

I really didn't need a history lesson from you on this as I am quite familiar with the time period. I was just questioning your intent in linking it.

[One_Life_To_Give]

41. This far out it's hard to say much

Alot really depends upon how much the voters are really engaged at the time of the poll. Sure us political junkies are engaged. But many voters really havn't started to look at the primary candidates. As their engagement picks up the polls could take wild swings. Primary is still 8 months away.

[alboe]

42. I'd like to see common themes on other polls, especially in states like Iowa.

Good start, but Clinton is still polling +46-+48 in some polls.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. I linked three polls of polls from different states in Post #8.

[questionseverything]

52. didnt the polls in 08 show hillary winning iowa?

we all know how that went...she placed a miserable 3rd

[Le Taz Hot]

62. Right now, all I want to see, is Bernie's numbers going up.

This particular poll is "among Democratic voters" but I KNOW Bernie will bring in crossover voters as well. He'll also continue to siphon off Democrats as so many are sick of the usual over-produced, corporate-friendly candidates.