Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jfern

(5,204 posts)
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 08:01 PM Apr 2016

McClatchy/Marist national: Bernie's margin over all 3 Republicans is 11+ points better than Hillary

He runs 11 points better against Trump. While Hillary beats Trump by 9 , he has a 20 point landslide.

Clinton 50-Trump 41
Sanders 57-Trump 37

12 points better against Cruz. Hillary only ties him, while he beats Cruz by 12.

Clinton 47-Cruz 47
Sanders 53-Cruz 41

And we’ve saved the most epic for last. While Hillary loses by 9, Bernie wins by 11, a 20 point difference.

Sanders 52-Kasich 41
Kasich 51-Clinton 42

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/47-delegate-front-runners-clinton-and-trump-benefit-from-each-other/

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
McClatchy/Marist national: Bernie's margin over all 3 Republicans is 11+ points better than Hillary (Original Post) jfern Apr 2016 OP
Yeahup..... daleanime Apr 2016 #1
Match up polls are worthless Gothmog Apr 2016 #2
538 has been full of shit this whole election jfern Apr 2016 #3
Are Sanders general election polls fools gold? Gothmog Apr 2016 #18
Next you'll be telling us that unfavorable ratings... Herman4747 Apr 2016 #31
Yes, anybody who's been around for a while knows this. Dem2 Apr 2016 #32
Sanders has not been vetted and so match up polls are really worthless Gothmog Apr 2016 #4
The FBI isn't done vetting Hillary jfern Apr 2016 #5
It must be sad to know that your candidate's only chance relies on a sad prayer for an indictment Gothmog Apr 2016 #19
If Bernie was under FBI investigation, you can bet he'd be attacked nonstop for it. jfern Apr 2016 #20
Brock has been doing his damnest for months. Qutzupalotl Apr 2016 #12
it is all the baggage SoLeftIAmRight Apr 2016 #6
It's a happy club, and we are not eligible for membership. /nt NCjack Apr 2016 #10
'If we are going to nominate someone who 50% of our people can't stand, elleng Apr 2016 #7
Seems like a no-brainer, but babylonsister Apr 2016 #13
Right. elleng Apr 2016 #14
One possible exception to that rule... thesquanderer Apr 2016 #25
WE'll ALL lose. elleng Apr 2016 #33
... AzDar Apr 2016 #8
A poll 5 months out. How laughable. Trust Buster Apr 2016 #9
But Hillary was inevitable 5 months out Motown_Johnny Apr 2016 #28
Golly gee, it's as if Independents matter. Barack_America Apr 2016 #11
first of all MFM008 Apr 2016 #15
re: "I dont care if one wins by 5 or 15 as long as they win. " thesquanderer Apr 2016 #24
It's undeniable. If you want to beat Republicans Bernie is the best choice Cheese Sandwich Apr 2016 #16
THE SUPREME COURT PEOPLE tk2kewl Apr 2016 #17
Polls are all different. snowy owl Apr 2016 #21
And there's one of your Super Delegate arguments. thesquanderer Apr 2016 #29
A lot bernie supporters would have to vote for trump or cruz BlueStateLib Apr 2016 #22
They aren't necessarily people voting Bernie in the primary jfern Apr 2016 #23
Truth Hurts for Clinton FreakinDJ Apr 2016 #26
I support the most electable candidate for the Democrats~Bernie! me b zola Apr 2016 #27
I believe that's called outside the margin of error. n/t Tom Rinaldo Apr 2016 #30

Gothmog

(145,427 posts)
2. Match up polls are worthless
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 08:02 PM
Apr 2016

Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.

No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.

Gothmog

(145,427 posts)
18. Are Sanders general election polls fools gold?
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 08:50 PM
Apr 2016

These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946

Not surprisingly, Sanders' campaign is touting those general-election numbers. "There was fresh evidence on Sunday that confirms Bernie Sanders would be the most electable Democratic Party nominee for president because he performs much better than Hillary Clinton," the campaign blasted out to reporters yesterday. But here is a legitimate question to ask: Outside of maybe New Hampshire (where Sanders enjoys a geographic advantage), are Sanders' general-election numbers fool's gold? When is the last time you've seen national Republicans issue even a press release on Sanders? Given the back-and-forth over Bill Clinton's past -- and given Sanders calling Bill Clinton's behavior "disgraceful" -- when is the last time anyone has brought up the candidate's 1972 essay about a woman fantasizing about "being raped by three men simultaneously"? Bottom line: It's always instructive to take general-election polling with a grain of salt, especially 300 days before the general election. And that's particularly true for a candidate who hasn't actually gone through the same wringer the other candidates have.

These match up polls are not meaningful at this stage

Gothmog

(145,427 posts)
4. Sanders has not been vetted and so match up polls are really worthless
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 08:03 PM
Apr 2016

Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.


The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.

Gothmog

(145,427 posts)
19. It must be sad to know that your candidate's only chance relies on a sad prayer for an indictment
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 08:52 PM
Apr 2016

I feel sorry for you

elleng

(131,028 posts)
7. 'If we are going to nominate someone who 50% of our people can't stand,
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 08:05 PM
Apr 2016

we will lose.'

Marco Rubio

thesquanderer

(11,990 posts)
25. One possible exception to that rule...
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 08:07 AM
Apr 2016

...is what happens if the opposing party ALSO nominates someone who 50% can't stand?? They can't both lose...

MFM008

(19,818 posts)
15. first of all
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 08:13 PM
Apr 2016

democrats havent even started on Cruz. He has been lost in the fog of Trump.
2. I dont care if one wins by 5 or 15 as long as they win.
3. Kasich doesnt have a chance in hell.

thesquanderer

(11,990 posts)
24. re: "I dont care if one wins by 5 or 15 as long as they win. "
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 08:04 AM
Apr 2016

Three things:

1. It is not uncommon for races to get closer as time goes on. So a big lead is better than a smaller one. For example, using your example, what if the race closes by 8 points between now and election day? In that case, the candidate who started at 5 points ahead ends up 3 points behind, while the candidate who started at 15 points ahead still ends up ahead by 7 points.

2. Someone who is winning by much greater numbers is likely winning in more states and districts. That means this candidate is likely to have longer coattails for potential wins of downticket dems, and can potentially flip more seats in the Senate and House. So "as long as they win" doesn't tell the whole story, some wins are better than others.

3. Along the same lines, a President who is swept into office in a landslide may have more political capital to get things done than would a President who gets in via a squeaker. S/he can claim to have a "mandate." (Of course, W made that claim in 2004 despite the fact that he barely won... if Ohio had gone the other way, as many think it actually did but for various shenanigans, he would have lost!)

 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
16. It's undeniable. If you want to beat Republicans Bernie is the best choice
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 08:14 PM
Apr 2016

This poll isn't an outlier. This has been consistent for quite a while now.

snowy owl

(2,145 posts)
21. Polls are all different.
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 04:43 AM
Apr 2016

I sure don't want to put either dem to the test against Kasich. He's attractive like Bush 2. Everybody will want to have a beer with him. Trust me.

thesquanderer

(11,990 posts)
29. And there's one of your Super Delegate arguments.
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 08:15 AM
Apr 2016

The Republicans hold their convention before the Dems. What if they actually do nominate Kasich? What if polling in July (and the party's own internal polling) shows similar results? What if the best info at the time seems to indicate that Hillary loses to Kasich by 10 points, and Bernie beats him by 10 points? Of course, no prediction is cast in stone, but wouldn't it be better to start the campaign with the candidate who is much more competitive to begin with, rather than going with the underdog out of the gate? At this point, it's true with any of the matchups, but particularly so with Kasich.

Add to that what could still be a lingering threat of some kind of legal action against Hillary between the convention and election day.

Why would the party do this to itself?

Of course, if Hillary comes into the convention with 2383 pledged delegates, she's got the nomination. But if she falls short, and it's in the hands of the super delegates, they may have to seriously consider these things. Ultimately, their goal is for a Dem to win, after all. And if Bernie somehow manages to arrive in Philadelphia with more delegates than Hillary (even though still short of the 2383), in addition to everything above, that could clinch it.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»McClatchy/Marist national...