Hillary with huge leads in first post Bernie announcement Iowa and New Hampshire polls.

[stevenleser]

Hillary leads 51-13 in New Hampshire (38% lead) and 60-15 (45% lead) in Iowa. The funny spin of the CNN article is hilarious. The poll numbers aren't that different but Bloomberg rightfully notes that Hillary is dominating in Iowa but CNN focuses on the fact that Bernie's numbers jumped from 6-13.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/06/politics/bernie-sanders-poll-new-hampshire-2016-elections/

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-07/poll-hillary-clinton-dominates-in-iowa-bernie-sanders-second

[stevenleser]

1. Kick nt

[wyldwolf]

2. kick

[cyberswede]

3. Bernie's poll number doubled? Awesome!

[stevenleser]

5. LOL. Yes, as did Ted Cruz' numbers when he first announced. Turned out that was his high water mark.

I think we are seeing the same thing here.

[cyberswede]

7. Of course! It makes sense that a newly-announced candidate's numbers would go up

It also makes sense that a news article might focus on the newly announced candidate, as well.

[sufrommich]

4. I will be surprised if Sanders goes over 20% throughout

the primaries, especially after others join the race.

[stevenleser]

6. Agreed. His high water mark is set by the amount of Democrats who aren't favorable on Hillary

And that number maxes out in the 20% range.

[cali]

8. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him do significantly better than that

but who knows? The first caucuses and primary are a long long way off.

[Orsino]

25. So will we all.

He's taking on a superstar while armed with very little money or name recognition. He's going to have to bring his A-plus game.

Fortunately, he's at least got an A-plus message.

[NCTraveler]

42. "Fortunately, he's at least got an A-plus message."

Yes, he does. That is why I love the fact he entered the race.

[bunnies]

9. So she's losing ground in NH.

It'll be interesting to see the next poll.

[stevenleser]

10. That's Bernies best bet for an early state. And it looks really bad for him. nt

[bunnies]

11. lol. We'll see about that.

Theres a LOT of buzz about him around here.

[stevenleser]

12. 51-13. 38%. And there is a lot of "buzz" on DU too. Just like there was about Kucinich.

Bernie appeals to the same crowd.

[bunnies]

14. Its been a week.

As I said, we'll see.

[stevenleser]

15. Ted Cruz had a similar surge after his announcement. Turned out it was his high water mark.

Yes, we will see.

[bunnies]

17. Really? Youre comparing Sanders to Cruz?

Lovely.

[NuclearDem]

18. As candidates who generate a lot of grassroots fervor and appeal

the comparison is valid.

[stevenleser]

19. Bernie is so sacrosanct that his poll numbers can't be compared to other candidates? Really?

[bunnies]

20. Yeah. Thats it.

Clearly you got my meaning.

[stevenleser]

22. That's the only logical thing you could mean since there was no other information on which to opine.

Either than or you were responding to a straw man version of my post which is your own fault.

[Rex]

43. IKR!?

Standard fare for the tiny but vocal minority here...they are all foaming mad, because a DU poll showed 90% of this place going for Bernie.

Just pity them and slowly step away...it ain't worth your time, trust me I know the "DUers" you are dealing with. They care nothing for the primaries or democracy as a whole.

OF COURSE he compared Cruz to Bernie...you should expect such garbage from a small group here from now on.

[bunnies]

46. Its a pretty pathetic attempt to marginalize Sen. Sanders.

Ive been trying to leave such posts alone but this one really chapped me. Some have already started with the "savior" bullshit again too.

[stevenleser]

47. You're inviting that with objecting to every comparison as if it's sacrilege.

And I'm betting you and the other poster have complained about Obama support as worshipping and cultlike at least once, right?

The irony is hilarious.

[bunnies]

48. What the hell are you even talking about?

Youre comparing a distinguished Senator with decades of experience to a batshit rookie lunatic! I would not compare ANY Democrat to Cruz. Its an insult.

And actually... I supported Obama in the primaries in 08. I was one of those getting shit on then as well.

[Rex]

61. He doesn't have a clue, he is one of the most clueless persons I've ever seen on this forum.

He just makes up stuff and has no idea how to research a person first...should be expected since he learned so well from his mentors on Foxnews.

Best to just ignore people like him...pundits with a subjective view of the world really don't count for much.

[stevenleser]

64. Except, I'm the one who wrote this OP backed up by facts. And you never

Are backed up by the facts and are always wrong.

Funny how that works.

[cascadiance]

32. Umm... Sanders had $1.5 million of donations the first 24 hours. Cruz only had $1 million

If that were translated in to votes, Bernie would win 60% to 40%.

[stevenleser]

35. Cruz also has to deal with a half dozen other folks vying for that money. Bernie only has 1. nt

[cascadiance]

38. And Cruz has wealthy donors and SuperPACs on his side. Bernie doesn't...

Bernie relies on individual donors from those whose wealth has been strangled over the last few years and don't have much disposable income for such donations. Some of them like me are just starting to recover from paying taxes that the wealthy don't have to pay (10% penalty on retirement fund distributions) and will be donating later when we can.

It would be interesting to see the quantity of different sources of these donations versus just the raw amounts that already have Sanders significantly ahead. I'll bet he dwarfs them.

[stevenleser]

39. Again, split by half a dozen folks. Same issue. nt

[cascadiance]

40. And those donating to them, the 1%ers that own more wealth than the bottom half of Americans...

are likely not just putting money into just one candidate's coffer. They are used to "buying the field"!

[NCTraveler]

13. Really is a great start for Hillary.

Many voters in New Hampshire and Iowa are a little more political savvy than the rest of the country. Sanders wont have as large of a name recognition bump in those states as he will in Florida or some other similar state.

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. Sanders shines in the home stretch.

No worries there.

[moondust]

21. What did the polls say exactly eight years ago

vis-a-vis Hillary and Barack (who incidentally had given the keynote address at the 2004 DNC)?

[stevenleser]

23. It was much closer. nt

[geek tragedy]

26. Clinton was low-mid-30's with Obama low-mid 20's and Edwards

Mid-teens.

[cascadiance]

29. Actually it was Clinton in the low mid 40's not 30's a lot closer to primary season...

... as this graph demonstrates.



I think at this point it is still way too early to know just yet.

People knew Edwards then from his running with Kerry in previous election, and knew Obama from his convention speech amongst other things then too, and being in a higher populous state than Vermont.

I think these numbers can change a lot over this coming year, and I think they will as more people meet Bernie campaigning. And Bernie meeting people and campaigning directly to them and coming across as a rare *honest* politician speaking his mind openly is one of his best strengths and is how as an independent he keeps winning his races for senator there.

Those who know Bernie strongly support him. And that number will grow this coming year. We've just started this race.

[geek tragedy]

31. those are national numbers. I was referring to NH numbers in spring 2007.

The only numbers that really matter are fundraising, field staff, and early state polling.

National numbers, meh.

[Puzzledtraveller]

24. Give it time, there are two forces about to collide in the Democratic party

and who comes out at the end will decide the fate of the party for years to come.

[stevenleser]

41. No, there is no collision, no dramatics. Hillary has an 80% favorable rating among Democrats and

Liberals.

[Puzzledtraveller]

58. Now

but do you think that won't change, even a little? There is a thing called a primary, preceded by debates.

[Comrade Grumpy]

27. If I were a betting man, I'd wager on Hillary. But I wouldn't vote for her in a primary.

And it's early yet.

[redstateblues]

28. If Bernie can't win in New England

It will be curtains.

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. Pssst...

Hillary has huge leads. Pass it on.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Cautiously optimistic. I say that because the other side has SOoooooo much money to fool around....

in our primary (if you know what I mean). I have no doubt Hillary will be the nominee, but the Nader-like adoration of Bernie is a bit disconcerting to say the least.

[madfloridian]

37. "the Nader-like adoration of Bernie is a bit disconcerting to say the least."

I have planned to not say anything against Hillary while I am supporting Sanders enthusiastically.

I remember the ugly primary seasons before, and I have vowed not to contribute to the fray.

[Snotcicles]

59. I to support Sanders and have also planned to stay above the fray,

as I'm sure that is how he also wants it. But I do have limits. We also have quite an arsenal if needed.

[daleanime]

34. Oh noes, it's hopeless. Might as well surrender now.....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Gene McCarthy was a long shot in N.H. in '68.

And, he lost to LBJ. But, LBJ dropped out after N.H.

[joshcryer]

44. Post debate polls are all that matter.

Hell, Sanders won't be truly launching until the 26th. Until then he's running the cable news circuit.

[stevenleser]

45. Assuming candidates make it to the debates. Presidential campaigns eat up a lot of $$$

Most failed campaigns have to stop not because the candidates necessarily want to at that moment, its because their poor showing has caused the donations to stop and they don't have the money to effectively continue.

[joshcryer]

49. This is a low key primary in general.

[joshcryer]

50. To clarify (was on my phone):

Because it's going to be a low key primary (none of the candidates want the 2012 clusterfuck clown car that was the GOP primary) most of the players will make it to at least half of the debates. After that the second and third placers will be featured.

My thought is that the first debate will feature most sensible candidates (sorry Vernon Supreme!), Sanders, Clinton, and at least two of O'Malley, Chafee, Webb. After that the subsequent debates will feature any of those with the least impressive debater bowing out give or take a debate or two.

It's going to come down to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, and no one should rule out Sanders. And it won't be like the Gore Bradly debates, the MSM will want to make something happen, so the debates will be featured.

People forget that Gore and Bradly had 6 debates. People forget Gore was even challenged for that matter...

[moondust]

51. How many of Hillary's numbers

Last edited Fri May 8, 2015, 01:40 AM - Edit history (1)

are attributable to something other than:

1) decades of name recognition;
2) little or no name recognition of other Democratic candidates;
3) "glass ceiling defiance syndrome";
4) corporate media saturation coverage of her thanks to Wall Street's stamp of approval.

[Thinkingabout]

57. How about adding her record and experience, if you are going to negate her record then we will also

have to negate Bernie's record and then what will he have? Elect ions does not have handicaps.

[Puzzledtraveller]

62. I would put #4 at the top

then 1,2,3. Most people, identifying as liberal or democrat still get much of their exposure from the corporate approved media sources.

[discocrisco01]

52. Name Recgonition

Name recognition is Bernie's biggest problem. And Bernie is going to have a big hill to climb because of name recognition among minorities.

[Thinkingabout]

53. Bernie has been in Congress for several years and you are saying he has a big climb because of

name recognition among minorities, then Bernie has a problem he will have to deal with. I don't know if the $2 million is going to gain this for him.

[stevenleser]

54. Not to mention that every news media in the U.S. carried his announcement for

Two days straight. TV, radio, and online and print newspapers.

That is what accounted for his jump in the polls. Everyone who looked at a newspaper or news program or listened to the radio in those two days heard about him and at least a mini bio. It's his high water mark.

[TheKentuckian]

55. Whistling past the graveyard.

[stevenleser]

56. You have me confused with a Bernie supporter. nt

[Katashi_itto]

60. Damn... Hillary is losing ground so soon?

[Rex]

63. Stir that pot!