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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:51 AM Feb 2016

According to national polls, Trump beats Hillary, while Sanders beats Trump.

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by In_The_Wind (a host of the General Discussion forum).

In New Hampshah, Trump got 94k. Hillary only got 90K.

AND BERNIE GOT 130K!

I guess the national polls are right after all.

36 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
According to national polls, Trump beats Hillary, while Sanders beats Trump. (Original Post) ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2016 OP
According to Nate Silver's 538 website, these polls mean nothing right now Gothmog Feb 2016 #1
that be the same Nate who ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2016 #2
The goalpost now are on wheels madokie Feb 2016 #18
a great mental image you create there. ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2016 #26
Serious question ... Whiskeytide Feb 2016 #28
Here are some warnings from Nate Silver's 538 website about polls Gothmog Feb 2016 #3
It wasn't that long ago Nate had Bush with some huge probability of Laura PourMeADrink Feb 2016 #5
I do agree that national polls are iffy and not perfectly reliable ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2016 #6
That goes both ways. safeinOhio Feb 2016 #16
Democrats would be insane to nominate Bernie Sanders Gothmog Feb 2016 #4
Ah, you must be referring to the negative attacks from Gloria, Madeleine, Chelsea, and bill ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2016 #9
Trump says he will kill Bernie on taxes if nominee. On Clinton - Laura PourMeADrink Feb 2016 #11
Exactly! hamsterjill Feb 2016 #29
Bernie Sanders says he polls better against GOP candidates than Hillary Clinton Gothmog Feb 2016 #7
The DNC doesn't care about that fact Blueguyinthesky Feb 2016 #8
Nate was right once and thats about all madokie Feb 2016 #19
Yeah but C_U_L8R Feb 2016 #10
I wouldn't be so sure of that GummyBearz Feb 2016 #32
Regardless of polls, independents and moderates... hoosierlib Feb 2016 #12
I'd like to recommend this, but it's still an uphill battle to avoid nominating Hillary. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2016 #13
Hillary cannot win the GE. I am amazed that there are people who think that she can. bowens43 Feb 2016 #14
She's either going to lose the Primary or the General. NightWatcher Feb 2016 #15
Beware of believing what you want to hear repeated over and over again treestar Feb 2016 #21
I am far out on the left. I disagree with you. nt earthshine Feb 2016 #30
I don't agree with that. hamsterjill Feb 2016 #31
If Bernie is nominated---the repubs, Rove and the media Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #17
Vetting hasn't started on Bernie treestar Feb 2016 #20
ah, no. ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2016 #22
REPUBLICAN scrutiny treestar Feb 2016 #23
Well, I think you are likable enough. As is Bernie :) ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2016 #24
Sanders can win -- basic premise ... earthside Feb 2016 #25
Hillary won New Hampshire last night.... so Bernie is done Anti-Establishment Feb 2016 #27
but WAIT! McGovern LOST 49 states to 1!! closeupready Feb 2016 #33
To an entrenched incumbent KamaAina Feb 2016 #34
National polls mean little to nothing right now. Egnever Feb 2016 #35
Locking In_The_Wind Feb 2016 #36

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
1. According to Nate Silver's 538 website, these polls mean nothing right now
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:53 AM
Feb 2016

The above analysis is based on hypothetical match up polls which according to Nate Silver's 538 website are worthless. 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.

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
2. that be the same Nate who
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:55 AM
Feb 2016

said on TV that NH would be closer than the polls indicated for the Dems?

madokie

(51,076 posts)
18. The goalpost now are on wheels
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:32 AM
Feb 2016

so they can just move them as needed to fit the narrative.

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
26. a great mental image you create there.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 12:04 PM
Feb 2016

Whiskeytide

(4,459 posts)
28. Serious question ...
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 01:35 PM
Feb 2016

... If Trump wins their primary (and as much as I have predicted he would flame out or step out or be overtaken by the establishment machine, I'm beginning to see his path to the nomination - holy freakin' shit) ... WOULD the Kochs still spend their $ on his campaign? I'm sure they would still fund down ticket campaigns - but:

(1) Trump has steadfastly rejected big interests/PAC $ so far, and I think reversing that position would actually damage him..., and

(2) I don't think Trump really fits their candidate model. He's unpredictable and likes to be the biggest prick in the room. I'm not sure he'd kiss their ring.

And, if they spend $ on an establishment candidate in the primary to try and take Trump down, I could see some hard feelings getting in the way of a peace between them for the GE.

I suppose the potential for a Sander's presidency could motivate them to hold their noses and support Trump - but I also could see them deciding instead to use the money to build a bigger moat and to try and corner/gain control of the market for sales/manufacturing of pitch forks.

What's the conventional wisdom on how the Kochs and the Trump campaign mesh?

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
3. Here are some warnings from Nate Silver's 538 website about polls
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:55 AM
Feb 2016

Here are some warnings from Nate Silver's 538 site. Warning number three is very relevant

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
5. It wasn't that long ago Nate had Bush with some huge probability of
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:57 AM
Feb 2016

winning it all

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
6. I do agree that national polls are iffy and not perfectly reliable
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:58 AM
Feb 2016

but they do indicate trends. And I agree that state polls (or results) reflect the reality far greater than national polls.

but the national trend is that Hillary loses to Trump.
AND that Trump loses to Bernie.

So, I find it amusing that a real life result (which proved Nate wrong) in NH bears that out.

safeinOhio

(32,524 posts)
16. That goes both ways.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:18 AM
Feb 2016

Those polls could just as easily be way off in the other direction. It could mean that Bernie would win against the repub be even greater numbers than now predicted.

Right now the repubs are calling for Hillary being more of Obama, Bernie, not so much.

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
4. Democrats would be insane to nominate Bernie Sanders
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:56 AM
Feb 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.

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
9. Ah, you must be referring to the negative attacks from Gloria, Madeleine, Chelsea, and bill
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:59 AM
Feb 2016

Yeah, they were really effective in New Hampshire.

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
11. Trump says he will kill Bernie on taxes if nominee. On Clinton -
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:01 AM
Feb 2016

Worst S of S

hamsterjill

(15,214 posts)
29. Exactly!
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 01:41 PM
Feb 2016

Hillary has been tested by fire. Bernie has yet to endure that.

In addition, we still have a long, long road ahead of us before the nominee is determined. Much can happen on either side. Therefore, I don't put a lot of emphasis on polls at this point.

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
7. Bernie Sanders says he polls better against GOP candidates than Hillary Clinton
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:58 AM
Feb 2016

While I still think that these polls are worthless, I am amused to see that Sanders was found to be misrepresenting these polls and that in fact his claim is not true http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/26/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-polls-better-against-gop-ca/

In the runup to the Iowa caucus, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has repeatedly said he has a better chance of beating the eventual Republican nominee in the Nov. 8 general election than fellow Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

"Almost all of the polls that -- and polls are polls, they go up, they go down -- but almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton," he told voters during a Jan. 19 town hall meeting in Underwood, Iowa.

We took a look at the various national surveys, as compiled by RealClearPolitics and PollingReport.com to see how that assertion stacks up against the data.....

Our ruling

Sanders said, "Almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton."

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal national poll released before Sanders' statement supports his claim for Trump, but it has no data against Cruz or Rubio. Earlier polls say he doesn't outperform Clinton at all against Cruz, Rubio or Bush, and the narrow races combined with the margins of error make his contention even more dubious.

Beating Clinton in only two of eight hypothetical matchups is far from "almost all."

The statement is not accurate, so we rate it False.
 

Blueguyinthesky

(54 posts)
8. The DNC doesn't care about that fact
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:58 AM
Feb 2016

They're going to find some way to make sure Bernie doesn't win. If they can't cheat him out of a few more states they'll make sure all super delegates vote for Hillary. And Nate Silver has been horrendously awful this election cycle.

madokie

(51,076 posts)
19. Nate was right once and thats about all
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:36 AM
Feb 2016

f' nate silver

C_U_L8R

(44,889 posts)
10. Yeah but
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:00 AM
Feb 2016

in the main election - Sanders would have Clinton voters or vice versa
and the same for the Republican clusterfuck. Things may add up differently
than they look now.

 

GummyBearz

(2,931 posts)
32. I wouldn't be so sure of that
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 01:52 PM
Feb 2016

in the main election - Sanders would have Clinton voters or vice versa
and the same for the Republican clusterfuck. Things may add up differently
than they look now.

If the same number of voters would pick either Clinton or Sanders, they would poll the same vs. Trump. After all, how can Sanders be winning head to head vs Trump, but Clinton be losing head to head vs Trump if the voters will pick either one? Also note the number of DU Sander's supporters who have been banned for saying they wont vote Clinton in the general election no matter what. And the Independent voters who are energized about a candidate Sanders and at the same time bored to death about a candidate Clinton. There is a reason why Sanders polls better vs trump than Clinton does vs trump.

 

hoosierlib

(710 posts)
12. Regardless of polls, independents and moderates...
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:06 AM
Feb 2016

Don't trust and will NOT vote for HRC...

Bernie's ceiling is higher and he doesn't have the high potential of an "October Suprise" like a criminal referral from the FBI or a potential indictment from a special prosecutor (if the DOJ decides to go that route).

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
13. I'd like to recommend this, but it's still an uphill battle to avoid nominating Hillary.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:08 AM
Feb 2016

Go Bernie.

 

bowens43

(16,064 posts)
14. Hillary cannot win the GE. I am amazed that there are people who think that she can.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:10 AM
Feb 2016

She is one of the most despised politician in America. The distrust felt for hillary in this country is widespread and has been smoldering for decades.

There isn't a republican alive who couldnt beat her in the GE

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
15. She's either going to lose the Primary or the General.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:16 AM
Feb 2016

I'd prefer the Primary loss.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
21. Beware of believing what you want to hear repeated over and over again
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:40 AM
Feb 2016

Hillary is not the most despised politician, etc. The right wingers want you to think so.

 

earthshine

(1,642 posts)
30. I am far out on the left. I disagree with you. nt
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 01:41 PM
Feb 2016

hamsterjill

(15,214 posts)
31. I don't agree with that.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 01:43 PM
Feb 2016

I think she can win. I think her foreign policy experience is going to be a major factor.

Much of the "distrust" has been from the unfair smears leveled against her by her (very fearful) Republican enemies. The Republicans would welcome Bernie as the nominee.

Kingofalldems

(38,359 posts)
17. If Bernie is nominated---the repubs, Rove and the media
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:22 AM
Feb 2016

will make him the president of Venezuela. 'Venezuela' will be in every other sentence uttered by Fox news.


Fact.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
20. Vetting hasn't started on Bernie
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:39 AM
Feb 2016

Of course right wingers want us to think that.

Hilarious that it is being told by the same corporate media controlled by the oligarchs that is supposedly so against Bernie. Well, they aren't now. They would be as soon as he got the nomination.

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
22. ah, no.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:41 AM
Feb 2016

Just what have bill, chelsea, and others been doing? Running that "SOCIALIST" scream? claiming he has no experience? Claiming he cannot be elected? Attacking his religion? Calling him a puppet because he TOOK SPEAKING FEES? Thanks for that one, Bill. That really scored a hit. Not.

The bigger problem is they cannot pull the same crap on him that they pulled on Obama. Bernie simply is far cleaner than Hillary, and when they try to dirty him up, one only has to glance at Hillary to realize that those attacks and the people making them are full of shit. And Yes. I am saying that Bill's attacks have been full of it.

Bill needs to go lay down and retire.
Wait. That might be construed to talk about his extra-marital sex life. I did not mean it that way.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
23. REPUBLICAN scrutiny
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:47 AM
Feb 2016

Bernie has not been subject to Republican scrutiny and that's going to be much much much worse.

Bernie is far less clean than Obama. And way way way less charismatic. And promising way too much pie in the sky that the average American does not want to pay for. Nearly half want to repeal the ACA!



ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
24. Well, I think you are likable enough. As is Bernie :)
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:49 AM
Feb 2016

Sorry, could not resist!

earthside

(6,960 posts)
25. Sanders can win -- basic premise ...
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 11:56 AM
Feb 2016

Forget polls at this point.

Step back and look at the big picture as informed by the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.

Clinton lost because ...

She don't have a message.
People don't like or trust her.
She is scandal prone.
Over her political career she has been on both sides of almost every progressive issue.
She is an advocate for the status quo.


Sanders won because ...

He has a very cogent and powerful message.
As folks get to know him, they like him.
He is the real deal, especially on campaign contributions and the overall consistency of his record.
He is the change agent.


Trump could be the GOP nominee because ...

He has a message that is more of a feeling (Repuglicans like that).
He seems authentic; he doesn't talk like a politician.
Repuglican voters have bought into this notion that Trump scandals are just examples of political correctness.
He is not the candidate of the status quo, but he is a Wall Street enabler (Repuglicans like that).
He is a change agent.


It seems clear to me from a strictly political analysis that Bernie is tapping into the deep dissatisfaction that most American are feeling ... any candidate who cannot do that in 2016 is going to lose.

Sorry, Hillarians, but your candidate is at least eight years, maybe 12 years too late. The milieu of 2016 is not 'everything is pretty much just fine and, hey, how about the first woman president to replace the first black president?'.

It is tempting to be conventional and conservative in your political analysis, therefore think that the plain, boring, experienced, best funded millionaire candidate is your safest bet.

But 2016 is shaping up as a potential wave election and if the Democrats don't catch the wave with a new, idealistic, change nominee .... yes, they can lose to a Repuglican change candidate.



 
27. Hillary won New Hampshire last night.... so Bernie is done
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 12:17 PM
Feb 2016

Hillary got more Delegates

We PEONS have no say

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/new-hampshire

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
33. but WAIT! McGovern LOST 49 states to 1!!
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 02:07 PM
Feb 2016
 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
34. To an entrenched incumbent
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 02:13 PM
Feb 2016
 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
35. National polls mean little to nothing right now.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 02:15 PM
Feb 2016

It would be foolish to make your choice based on them.

In_The_Wind

(72,300 posts)
36. Locking
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 02:21 PM
Feb 2016
Statement of Purpose

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum. Posts about the Democratic primaries, conspiracy theories and disruptive meta-discussion are forbidden.



[img][/img] The host have suggested posting this OP again in GDP.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»According to national pol...