General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAccording 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.
Gothmog
(143,998 posts)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/
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)said on TV that NH would be closer than the polls indicated for the Dems?
madokie
(51,076 posts)so they can just move them as needed to fit the narrative.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)... 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)Here are some warnings from Nate Silver's 538 site. Warning number three is very relevant
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)winning it all
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)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)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)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
Watching Sanders at Monday nights 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 doesnt 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 dont 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 thats my definition of democratic socialism.
But thats not how Republicans will define socialism and theyll have the dictionary on their side. Theyll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. Theyll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldnt be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists dont 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, youre 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 its demagogic to say, oh, youre 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 didnt quarrel, saying, P eople want to criticize me, okay, and F ine, if thats 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)Yeah, they were really effective in New Hampshire.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Worst S of S
hamsterjill
(15,214 posts)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)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/
"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)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)f' nate silver
C_U_L8R
(44,889 posts)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)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)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)Go Bernie.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)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)I'd prefer the Primary loss.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Hillary is not the most despised politician, etc. The right wingers want you to think so.
earthshine
(1,642 posts)hamsterjill
(15,214 posts)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)will make him the president of Venezuela. 'Venezuela' will be in every other sentence uttered by Fox news.
Fact.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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)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)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)Sorry, could not resist!
earthside
(6,960 posts)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.
Anti-Establishment
(11 posts)Hillary got more Delegates
We PEONS have no say
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/new-hampshire
closeupready
(29,503 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)It would be foolish to make your choice based on them.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)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.