I will not take Bernie Sanders' candidacy seriously until

[MoonRiver]

I see polls about how he matches up against the GOP candidates. Democratic voters need to have this information!

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R!

[tularetom]

2. Why do you suppose you haven't yet seen such polls?

I mean, there have to be some out there somewhere.

Could it be that other candidates are pressuring the pollsters to keep them quiet because the results would reflect positively on Sanders' candidacy?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. I don't think it's that complicated.

I don't think the pollsters have been taking him seriously enough, and haven't bothered to do such polling yet.

[MoonRiver]

5. He's all over the news, much more than Hillary or any other Democratic candidate.

Media is taking him seriously, just not giving us polls about Sanders v. GOP.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. While the media might not be taking his candidacy seriously ...

they absolutely have the head to head data. They are just choosing not to release it.

[orpupilofnature57]

105. + 1000 Well Put !!!!!!

[MoonRiver]

4. Can you link some polls? I really have not seen any.

He's second under Clinton. People need to know how he stacks up against the Republicans.

[Agschmid]

6. Conspiracy in everything huh?

Good lord.

[virtualobserver]

102. there are two conspiracies

one to make us believe that there is a conspiracy, and the other to make us believe that there isn't one.

[MoonRiver]

8. Whether they reflect positively on Berni, or not, I would like to see them.

Right now there is ZERO information about this hugely important factor. As I said to someone else if you find a poll please post. Democratic voters need to know.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I received this missive in my DU mail box and will post it without editorial comment

I emailed PPP about the lack of Bernie v GOP polling. This is the reply I got back. Last line is very informative.

"Every poll we have done for the last 2 months matches up Bernie Sanders and the other Democrats with Scott Walker, who led our most recent national Republican survey. You can find all of those on our website. In general they have shown that Sanders would not be a viable general election candidate-

Tom"

I think I will email other pollsters about this issue.

______________________________________________________________________

Public Policy Polling (PPP) is a U.S. polling firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina. PPP was founded in 2001 by businessman Dean Debnam, the firm's current president and chief executive officer.

PPP is described as one of the "most accurate" polling companies and also as a "Democratic-leaning" polling company because it polls only for Democratic and progressive campaigns and organizations on a private basis.

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

Now, the veracity of two people are at stake, that of the person who mailed me and that of Mr. Jensen. Since the person who mailed me shall remain anonymous I will post the e-mail address and phone number of Tom Jensen so his veracity can be established or impeached, ergo:


[e-mail]
919-744-6312.

[awoke_in_2003]

116. What is it with people using PMs instead of

being out in the open? What are they afraid of?

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. Or, perhaps ...

the media needs a horse race leading up to the primaries ... if the Bernie/gop polling shows him weak, then for most Democrats the primaries would be over because the most important point for us is electing a Democrat.

[tularetom]

85. Well, I'll concede that possibility, except...

they don't seem to have a problem touting polls that still show Clinton with comfortable leads over Sanders. Such polls would tend to minimize the horse race aspect yet we still see them all the time.

I suspect that Sen Sanders polls surprisingly strong against all or most of the republican contenders.

[MoonRiver]

88. Guessing doesn't cut it for me.

If he polls strong I would like to know that. Why aren't we allowed to know?

[tularetom]

95. If he polls strong would that change your mind about supporting him?

If the answer is yes, then despite your avatar, you don't necessarily support Clinton. You just want to back a winner, and I can understand that.

If it's no, then what's the point? You have your own reasons for supporting Clinton and you won't change in any case.

Anyway, I suspect that the Clinton folks fear that a lot of supporters would jump ship if the whole inevitability meme were discredited, because that's really all she has.

[MoonRiver]

99. No. Because I think she is the best candidate for the job.

Would your opinion of Bernie change if he polls low?

[tularetom]

108. No, it wouldn't but then I'm not the one clamoring to see the polls in the first place

Look, it's six months until the first primary, polls at this point are meaningless. I wouldn't gloat if the polls showed Sanders in the lead over every republican, nor would I be depressed if they showed him to be trailing all of them by significant margins.

A lot can happen between now and New Hampshire.

Anyway, good on ya for responding as you did. I wouldn't have a very high opinion of anybody who allowed a frickin poll to make their electoral choices for them.

[MoonRiver]

9. Democratic voters are just one part of the equation. Plus, not all candidates are equal

in the eyes of the electorate. Independents and even moderate Republicans factor in also. Why is this confusing to you?

[MoonRiver]

11. You are making wild assumptions.

I think you must be very frightened about what Bernie v. GOP match up polls would show. If I were a Sanders supporter, I would want to see the results of such polls, believing he would ace the competition. Assuming that's what Bernie supporters believe.

[marble falls]

16. Heck, there are Republicans here in the Hill Country of Texas who are suprised....

how much they support Bernie's positions and how much the GOP has policy that doesn't respond to their real concerns at all like health care, banks, medicare, social security, foreign policy.

[MoonRiver]

23. I like data much better than anecdotal reports. n/t

[marble falls]

35. Anecdotes are data. Statistics are anecdotes gathered. I don't trust Fox data.

[mythology]

38. No anecdotes aren't data

They don't turn into data if all you have is anecdotes.

In order for it to be data, it needs to be a randomized representative sample of the total population and do as much as possible to correct for potential bias such as people talking to a known supporter of a particular candidate or party.

[marble falls]

41. Thats your opinion...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026669016

[rock]

49. It's a highly respected opinion

One that nearly all scientists have (and that's good enough for me). Of course, it's more accurate to say, anecdotes are not good evidence (i.e. they are data, worthless data).

[karynnj]

87. why do you assume that HRC will do better with independents?

One faction of the right and independents, is libertarians. In reality, neither Bernie or HRC are in agreement with Libertarian ideas, but many see Bernie as more in agreement - even when Bernie disputed the idea that he had a lot in common with Ron Paul. I heard him very eloquently list the many points of disagreement when he was asked if he agreed they had lots in common at a Burlington town hall he had.

Not to mention there are many disaffected people who might vote if Bernie is the candidate and not otherwise.

[Agschmid]

13. Except that is not logical at all.

[brooklynite]

12. Public Policy Polling: June 16

Clinton continues to be a far superior general election candidate to any of the other Democratic hopefuls. Scott Walker would lead Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders each by 8 at 39/31 and 40/32 respectively, Jim Webb by 11 at 39/28, and Lincoln Chafee by 12 at 39/27.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_61615.pdf

[MoonRiver]

15. Thanks, but is this just Walker v. the Democrats?

That's how I read it, but obviously could have missed something.

[brooklynite]

19. Only one I've seen so far...

...one thing to consider is the willingness of respondents to answer extended questions. Clinton is considered to have a strong probability of winning the nomination (and no, that's not just media bias), so she's given head to heads against the large Republican field. Ask the same of Sanders and you double the set of questions (triple if you add O'Malley); there a strong likelihood that you'll lose the participation of the respondent if the survey gets too long.

[MoonRiver]

21. All I can say is, some, hopefully many, pollsters have to produce these polls

before primaries begin.

[Fred Sanders]

45. That, in a nutshell, is the only reason I can not support Bernie, as much as I love him.

Too much is at stake to put up anyone other than a candidate that is most likely to retain the WH for 8 more years against the fascist assault.

Too much is at stake for dreaming, just yet.

Even the French Revolution took 70 years to shake out...I counsel progression and patience.

[calimary]

76. Amen.

I like Bernie too. But I like Hillary AND her chances in the general.

Besides, it's time for a woman. Especially since we finally have one who's capable and viable.

[Stevepol]

77. That's not illogical

considering the poll took place June 16. A lot has happened since then. Bernie's main problem is name recognition. I would wait for polls about how Bernie would stack up against Repubs until Bernie's name is better known and people have a chance to digest and assimilate that info. Hillary is very well known already, about as well known as she is ever apt to be.

[marble falls]

14. Try using a search engine....

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-support-2016-republican-presidential-candidate-poll.html

[thesquanderer]

17. That link is irrelevant

It doesn't address the topic of the OP at all. It talks about how Sanders has more support among Dems than various Repub candidates have among Repubs, and doesn't say anything about how Sanders would match up against any Repub candidate.

[MoonRiver]

18. That's why I love graphs! They give you a concise picture.

What I got from that link is that Sanders is 42 points behind Hillary among Democrats, but ahead of all GOP competitors. By how much, especially as compared to Hillary, is a guess. I would like some serious polling with media attention. It's all murky right now.

[mythology]

40. It tells you nothing about where Sanders is in comparison to potential GOP candidates

There are substantially more Republicans running for their nomination. By default, you would expect that would lower the level of support any individual candidate will likely get because you are dividing the same potential support (100%) over 15 or 20 candidates rather than over 4 candidates in the Democratic primary.

[MoonRiver]

54. Those polls exist between Hillary and all the (many) GOP candidates.

So tell me exactly why those same polls can't be run for Bernie. Is he "special?"

[madokie]

20. What ever

Hillary will never be the President of this country and that you can bank on.

[MoonRiver]

22. That's your biased opinion and totally irrelevant to my OP.

FAIL.

[madokie]

73. in your eyes maybe

[HassleCat]

24. It's a primary

This is why we have primaries, to see if Democrats prefer one or the other. Sanders can beat any Republican, in spite of comparisons to George McGovern.

[JaneyVee]

25. He's not leading against any GOP frontrunner.

[MoonRiver]

26. I'm really hoping to see polling data soon.

Seriously, the primary voters need and DESERVE to see how he stacks up against the GOP.

[PowerToThePeople]

28. I will not take hrc candidacy seriously until

she votes "no" on the Iraq war resolution.

Oops.

[MoonRiver]

30. That has nothing to do with my OP, but nice try!

[PowerToThePeople]

32. You gave a reason for your

lack of suport of one, I gave my reason for lack of support for the other.

[MoonRiver]

44. I never gave a reason for my lack of support for Bernie.

I like Bernie. All I'm asking for is polls about how he matches up against the GOP candidates.

[MoonRiver]

31. Yes, and that is a very different scenario.

I still think he and his supporters believe he has a shot at the primary and general. Polls, if they are ever produced, will tell the tale.

[bobbobbins01]

36. He has already stated he will not run as an independent if he loses the primary.

I understand we're in a primary and everyone wants their candidate to get the nomination, but its getting kind of ridiculous. Either you haven't been paying attention to his candidacy(which makes you uninformed), or you think hes lying. Bernie hasn't given any indications that he is untrustworthy, quite the contrary.

[frylock]

78. hurr durrrr

[Indepatriot]

33. I would suggest your "concern" is unwarranted until January,

just before the primary voting starts. I believe by then the polling will reflect more accurately a public that has had time to check out all the candidate's records and policies. I guess you might say these things are still "evolving".

[MoonRiver]

58. I think information is valuable.

Polling exists between Hillary and the Dem candidates; Hillary and all the Repub candidates. Why not Bernie, and the other Dem candidates, against the GOP? I'm getting the feeling that this prospect is very threatening to Bernie supporters.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

34. Waiting for pollsters to tell you who to vote for?

I thought Hillary supporters were smarter than that.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

43. So you're waiting until corporate media tells you who can win?

Funny, this board hates polls when they don't go our way, but we love them when they support our narrative.

Maybe you shouldn't care what corporate biased polls have to say and support the candidate you think has the best platform?


Then again Hillary is the corporate candidate, makes sense. I'll listen to labor, you listen to Gallop and CNN.

[brooklynite]

48. I see---and you don't care about the polls that show Bernie gaining, right?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

111. Not really.

I support Bernie, and the the numbers after the caucus are all that matter to me. I don't look at politics as a football game.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

113. And what would Hillary accomplish?

The continuation of selling our country to Wall Street? More war? Lol. She'll get things done alright.

[CrispyQ]

57. Stop the bullshit insinuation that Bernie will run as a independent if he loses the primary.

You're the second person to insinuate this, this morning. Why are you folks parroting this lie?

http://inthesetimes.com/article/17572/bernie_sanders_president

To the dismay some idealists, Sanders rejected the idea of running for president as an independent. “No matter what I do, I will not be a spoiler,” Sanders said. “I will not play that role in helping to elect some right-wing Republican as President of the United States.”

Before he decided to run, Bernie stated that if he did run, it would have to be as a dem because only the dem & repub parties have the infrastructure/funding for a presidential election.

Bernie will not throw the election to the repubs if he loses the primary.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

112. Based on what?

You're own gut instinct? If anything it will be Hillary supporters that take their ball and go home.

[HFRN]

37. It's Bernie or 3rd way DINOS nt

[MoonRiver]

46. Well, we know where you stand. Most serious voters want to know

If a candidate can win.

[NorthCarolina]

64. If Bernie can't win in America then

it doesn't really matter a whole bunch. We'll be left with a choice between two Wall Street candidates, and the corporate forces will have cemented their victory for decades to come. To me the fight for Bernie eclipses any partisan agenda, it is about reclaiming representative Democracy for our citizens. The train is moving fast, and folks can get on board or get out of the way. We have one shot at this, and I for one am not going to waste it coddling to those that are comfortable with the status quo.

[MoonRiver]

66. I'm just asking for polls matching all Dem candidates up

against the GOP candidates.

I don't want to get into a philosophical discussion about why you support Bernie. I disagree with your assessment of Hillary, but that's not the point of this thread.

[calimary]

92. Welcome to DU, HFRN!

Glad you're here. May I gently suggest that we start reframing that a little?

Perhaps make it "It's Bernie or ANOTHER DEMOCRAT."

Because if it isn't Bernie, and everybody who preferred him stays home and pouts on Election Day, then it will be WAY WORSE than any "Third Way DINO." And THAT you can take to the bank.

The worst Democrat is a lot better than the "best" CON. For one thing, you don't see ANY of them sidling up to paul wolfowitz on foreign policy, do you? OR planning to consult george w. dry-drunk on anything, do you? Or to ron paul and his fairy-tale/Utopia/up-on-some-vaporous-make-believe-cloud-somewhere libertarian world. You already KNOW what they'll do. Even the worst of those on our team can at least be worked with. None of them will summarily ignore anything that comes from our side - like I guarantee you ANY of the GOPers will. You want THEIR idea of a dream Supreme Court????

And I'd venture to say that if Bernie does not go all the way, he will still have pushed the whole party machinery farther toward the left. And anybody who does beat him to the nomination - and I'm betting it'll be Hillary - WILL take note of that because they're going to want Bernie's followers to come over to them, and I suspect they'll know what they have to do to woo them. They're gonna want all those Bernie supporters kept in the fold. I know I certainly do! And I think, with her brains and shrewdness, that's exactly what Hillary would do, too.

I happen to put a lot of stock into those "listening tours" of hers. Look how she conquered New York state. When she emerged from First Lady status and decided she wanted to be a public servant in her own right, they moved to New York and she decided to aim for the Senate from there. The opposition and the skeptics and the scoffers pelted her with criticism. Threw all kinds of "carpetbagger" shit at her and "oh how arrogant she is" shit at her and "who the hell does she think she is?" shit at her. Meanwhile, she was touring the state in little bitty venues and availabilities - listening to people. Not the Wall Streeters. Not the banksters. Not the high-rollers. The PEOPLE. People in the small towns. People in the redder parts of the state and the countryside and the rural areas. She spent months doing that. She collected opinions and preferences and complaints and stories of individual kitchen-table need from stem to stern. She went out, reached out, and found out what THEY wanted. And then she formulated her campaign on that. And she won. TWICE.

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

So I believe in her. And I fully realize she's not perfect. But she's as good as they come in my book. And who have the other guys got? carly fiorina forcryingoutloud??????? Who have they EVER had as far as women candidates go? sarah palin? michele bachmann? FUCK! Hell, not a single one of their men measures up - even an inch off the ground. They're all busy pushing in the opposite direction all the time!

I've already said if Bernie beats Hillary to the nomination, then I will happily be all in for him. Without hesitation and no moping or pouting, either. I wish I could say I hear the same pledge coming back this way from Bernie supporters but I don't. I hope they come around because I believe SHE'S gonna be it. And she's gonna need them onboard, however reluctant and pissed off and pouting they might be. WE ALL are gonna need them onboard - if that's how it shakes out, and if we are really serious about keeping the White House in Democratic hands.

[Stardust]

117. Ahem...I support Bernie now but will support Hillary if she wins the nomination. eom

[TheCowsCameHome]

42. ....he visits Provincetown, as Hillary did the other day.

So there.

[mythology]

47. There is some polling about that

Here is a PPP summary for Washington:

PPP's newest Washington poll finds that Hillary Clinton leads the entire Republican field in the state- by margins smaller than what Barack Obama won by in 2008 and 2012, but larger than what Al Gore and John Kerry won by in 2000 and 2004.

Clinton leads the GOP hopefuls by anywhere from 10 to 15 points. Ben Carson and Marco Rubio come the closest, each trailing by 10 at 49/39. Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are each down by 11 at 48/37 and 49/38 respectively. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul face 12 point deficits at 50/38. Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry lag by 13 points at 50/37. And Chris Christie does the worst of the Republican field with a 15 point deficit at 49/34. Clinton doesn't quite match the 15-17 point margins Obama won the state by, but exceeds the 5-7 point ones Gore and Kerry had.

We also tested the other Democratic hopefuls against Scott Walker but even in this dark blue state, none of them lead him. Bernie Sanders achieves a tie at 35, and the rest of the Democrats trail him- Jim Webb by 1 point at 33/32, Martin O'Malley by 3 points at 34/31, and Lincoln Chafee by 6 points at 35/29. The weak performances of the alternate Democrats are a byproduct of their being so little known that they get only 54-61% of their own party's vote but nevertheless they show how much more formidable Clinton is than anyone else on her side.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/05/clinton-up-big-in-washington.html#more

This is over a month old and is also limited to a particular state and one potential Republican nominee.

[MoonRiver]

61. That has been discussed up thread.

It's a very limited poll.

[arcane1]

51. Why aren't you mentioning the other non-Clintons that are running?

There are more than 2 Dems in the race right now. Are they held to this same standard?

[MoonRiver]

55. Agreed. There should be the same polls for them.

Ideally we should see match-ups with all the candidates on both sides.

[arcane1]

56. Are you going to wait for those polls before you take their candidacies seriously?

[MoonRiver]

59. She has been polled against the GOP, over, and over, and over.

She beats them all. I'd like to know how the other Dem candidates would do. Something wrong with that?

[arcane1]

63. Of course not. I was just curious why you only mentioned one of them n/t

[calimary]

86. There are some details about that in mythology's post, #47.

Just a few posts upthread from here.

[daleanime]

52. Because beating Hillary....

would mean nothing?

[MoonRiver]

60. Bernie won't beat Hillary, imo, but he would be much more unlikely to, again, imo,

if polls showed him being clobbered by the GOP. That's logic 101.

[daleanime]

96. This isn't a kids game of "Rock, paper, scissors..."

if Hillary beats Bernie, then she the stronger candidate to run against the republicans.

But if Bernie beats Hillary, it's the other way around. That is what's logical.

[Jim Lane]

110. To some extent, it is.

I can see a case either way.

The case for Clinton: She's clearly more conservative than Sanders. Some centrist voters, to Clinton's right but to the Republican's left, might consider themselves ideologically closer to Clinton than to the Republican, but closer to the Republican than to Sanders. She's also more familiar to the voters who don't pay much attention to politics and who skip the primaries and caucuses.

The case for Sanders: The election isn't primarily about where the candidates are on the left-right scale; it's primarily about turnout. Sanders could trail Clinton among the more committed voters who show up for primaries and caucuses, but, as a much less conventional candidate, do a better job of motivating people to vote in the general even if they've become apathetic about politics.

Which case is stronger? Way too early to tell.

It's even harder to handicap O'Malley's chances, because he combines some of the strengths and some of the weaknesses of each of the others.

[hrmjustin]

62. I take him seiously but have concerns about his ability to win a general.

Yes we need that information.

[onecaliberal]

65. I will never take hrc candidacy seriously because of her policy positions.

[MoonRiver]

67. What does that have to do with polls matching up Bernie against the GOP candidates?

Deflection some?

[onecaliberal]

68. Deflect? More like I don't wait for a poll to tell me

Who best represents the interests of my family and this country. I won't argue with you about this any further. My morals don't need poll testing.

[MoonRiver]

93. So, for clarification, my OP was not about you and your family.

It was a simple request for polls that show how Bernie does against the GOP. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[onecaliberal]

100. It has everything to do with it.

Some of us don't need to poll test policy to be for it.
Enjoy the dust bin.

[SunSeeker]

69. Yep.

[A Little Weird]

70. Polls can be useful

Polls can be valuable tools for campaigns but voters shouldn't rely on pollsters to tell them how to vote. Critically considering a candidate's record and policy positions is the way to choose who to vote for.

[MoonRiver]

71. They are an important piece of information.

But, more importantly, why poll one Democratic against the GOP candidates, but not the other Dem candidates? Seems quite biased and unfair to me.

[A Little Weird]

72. I agree it is biased and unfair n/t

[Sancho]

74. The media is having fun promoting a serious contest...

any kind of horse race is fun to talk about. Why ruin it with.."Bernie had a big crowd, but the polls show he would lose badly in any race against Bush/Walker/etc." would not be a good headline.

After all, Bernie is interesting to talk to!!

I think the polls don't show Bernie as competitive yet, so there's nothing to report.

[MoonRiver]

75. Media has to give it up at some point.

There can't only be polls about one Democratic candidate.

[frylock]

79. I encourage you to continue to underestimate Sen Sanders' chances.

[MoonRiver]

89. How is wanting to know how he racks up against Republicans

underestimating him? Really strange statement.

[frylock]

91. You not taking him seriously is underestimating him..

Log into Facebook and take a looksee at Sen Sanders presence on social media.

[MoonRiver]

94. That is not a poll, in case you didn't know.

[frylock]

98. Of what, 800-something people called on their land lines?

I would encourage you to continue to not take Sen Sanders' campaign seriously.

[BrotherIvan]

118. By the attacks, I would think the HRC campaign has some internal polls

And they don't look good. Hurrr durr!!!!

[frylock]

120. That's my take away as well.

[Comrade Grumpy]

81. Don't fret. You have plenty of time to make up your mind. The first primaries are months away.

In the meantime, you are welcome to pester the pollsters.

I'll be much more interested in what the polls say six months from now.

[karynnj]

84. I doubt those polls could make any sense before the debates

At this point, he is simply too unkown. Many groups - including the elderly and veterans - who really really like him in Vermont have yet to really hear or see him.

If he does become viable, I suspect it will be because he wins Iowa and gets heard in the media. Even two months ago, I would have thought that impossible, but he may be the best fit for where the country is in 2016.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter was far from a mainstream Democrat and it was via retail politics in Iowa that he gained visibility. His strength then after Watergate was his integrity. Could the incorruptibility that Sanders represents be appealing to many not ideologically driven people?

As to electibility, I would not push this if I supported Clinton. To you this should matter only if you think he is actually a threat to HRC. To be that, he has to pull off an upset that is bigger than Obama 2008. If he is that strong, why would he lose to a very weak Republican field?

NOTE: The Republicans don't face a challenge of defeating a very strong candidate. We do - either HRC wins as an almost incumbent president type candidate or we have someone who beats her - thus a tested campaigner .

[Jim Lane]

90. The limited polling available shows both Sanders and O’Malley to be viable

This PPP poll is from three weeks ago (h/t brooklynite for the link). On the Favorable-Unfavorable-Not sure question, all three leading Democrats are underwater (more Unfavorable than Favorable). The good news for Clinton is that she’s less underwater than O’Malley or Sanders. One striking difference, however, is in the Not sure result: Clinton 6%, O’Malley 56%, Sanders 40% (see pp. 41-42). That means that O’Malley and Sanders have more upside and more downside. Accordingly, Clinton beats Walker while O’Malley and Sanders each loses to him, but the “Not sure” response is lower for Clinton than for the two others (see p. 43).

The reason I conclude that Sanders and O’Malley are viable is that this is so early. DUers are fixated on politics but the general electorate is not. There are plenty of people out there who, asked about a Bush versus Clinton race, would think Dubya was running against Bill, they not even being conversant with that term limits thing.

In general election matchups, Clinton is doing somewhat better right now but there’s more than a year of campaigning yet to come. There’s plenty of time for the leading Republicans to close the gap against her. There’s even more opportunity for the trailing Democrats to close the gap against Walker (or some other Republican), given how many voters don’t know that much about them. None of these three Democrats wins or loses by such a huge margin that we can take the poll as a sure indication of what will happen sixteen months from now.

The poll also has some information about Chafee and Webb, for those interested.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. See Post 27

You seem to differ with the pollster on how to interpret his own polling.

[Jim Lane]

104. I don't read the PPP email as saying that nothing will happen in 16 months.

Polls necessarily sample how people would vote if the election were held tomorrow. The one thing that's clear is that the election isn't being held tomorrow.

As one example among a host that could be cited, I refer you to this poll: "Gallup Daily: McCain Maintains 5-Point Lead". As of September 9, McCain was leading Obama, 49% to 44%. And, by the way, that was September 9, 2008, not September (let alone June) of 2007.

So, if you picture Hillary Clinton's inauguration in 2017, with outgoing President McCain on the podium with her as is customary, you might want to rethink.

In two months, Obama turned a 5-point poll deficit into a 7-point popular-vote win, a swing of 12 points. O'Malley and Sanders have sixteen months to attack Walker's current lead of 8 points. Also note that the "No opinion" tally in the 2008 poll was 4% but is (unsurprisingly) much higher in the current polling on the 2016 election, so O'Malley and Sanders have much more polling room as well as much more time to overcome the current gap.

[orpupilofnature57]

101. You won't take No Hillary for an answer, just keep polling and Bernie will just keep on .

I wonder how many people said that in 2006 about President Obama ?

[pugetres]

103. I cannot recall needing a poll of that sort in the past when I've voted in the primaries.

What is so different now that you feel that I need that sort of information to decide who best represents my values and principles?

[pugetres]

107. That's correct.

But, there still is no need for a poll to help me decide who to cast my primary vote for.

[Thinkingabout]

109. I would like to see the results of those polls also. We have been seeing polls of Hillary for some

Time. She has been shown up in polls with Republican and possible DNC candidates. It will be interesting.

[Avalux]

114. So you're waiting to let other people make up your mind for you?

I'm not trying to be snarky, it's a question worth asking. Why is it that we're more willing to support someone, even if they're not the best candidate, just because everyone else is?

I take Bernie seriously because he is the best choice for me. Not because he looks good in the polls. The status quo will never change if we keep doing as we're told.

[OnlyBernieBurnsBush]

115. Fair enough...

In 2000, Bernie won by 51 points over his GOP opponent.
Gore only beat Bush by 10.

[NCTraveler]

119. I'm not taking it seriously at all anymore.

It's pretty clear we are looking at Kucinich 2.0 here. Great at small ball, lost and confused when playing with the big boys. Really, a life of government with little accomplished except for lofty rhetoric.