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

jfern

(5,204 posts)
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 12:00 AM Mar 2016

CNN/ORC and CBS/NY Times show Bernie most electable

Bernie's margin against Trump is 8 points better in CNN/ORC, and 5 points better in CBS/NY Times. His margin against Kasich is 12 points better in CNN/ORC, and makes a difference in which party wins.

?1458614556
?1458614556
?1458614572
?1458614572

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/1504714

44 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CNN/ORC and CBS/NY Times show Bernie most electable (Original Post) jfern Mar 2016 OP
Hypothetical match up polls are worthless and should not be relied for anything Gothmog Mar 2016 #1
538 has been really wrong this election jfern Mar 2016 #3
WOW!!! You rolled all that out in 2 minutes from the OP. Impressive, impressive...indeed! eom Purveyor Mar 2016 #7
With two links even! pugetres Mar 2016 #14
It is sad that these worthless match up polls are the sole support for Sanders claims of electablity Gothmog Mar 2016 #33
Yes anything not 100% positive for Hillary should be ignored... nt revbones Mar 2016 #16
My question to you would be how do YOU think you know who is more viable? Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #23
Match up polling is worthless unless both candidates have been vetted Gothmog Mar 2016 #2
Hillary isn't done being vetted by 100+ FBI agents jfern Mar 2016 #5
And a State Dept internal investigation. HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #10
He's vetted. n/t Loudestlib Mar 2016 #12
Are the Sanders supporters prepared for what the GOP will do to Sanders if he is the nominee? Gothmog Mar 2016 #38
What kitchen sink has Hillary not thrown at him yet? Waiting For Everyman Mar 2016 #34
The Clinton campaign has been treating Sanders with kid gloves Gothmog Mar 2016 #37
Taxes and socialism have been raised. Waiting For Everyman Mar 2016 #42
Read the article Gothmog Mar 2016 #43
Neither I, nor Sanders have complained about it. Waiting For Everyman Mar 2016 #44
On the issue of size of government jcgoldie Mar 2016 #35
National head-to-head polls are of limited value at this point brooklynite Mar 2016 #4
The guy running against the billionaires knows how to run against the billionaire jfern Mar 2016 #8
Correct - anything not 100% positive about Hillary has limited value at this point... revbones Mar 2016 #17
Just as anything by the corporate media has limited value for Bernie... brooklynite Mar 2016 #29
He has raised only $20 million angrychair Mar 2016 #22
Meh ... n/t cosmicone Mar 2016 #6
Most electable with mere people but not with oligarchs. nt valerief Mar 2016 #9
well....oligarchs are 1% grasswire Mar 2016 #11
Even with the beating the M$M has served up against Bernie, he wins. Kip Humphrey Mar 2016 #13
It's incredible, isn't it? If he had HALF the press that Trump gets he would be Lorien Mar 2016 #15
I remember that well! Thanks! I lived in Pikesville (Baltimore) at the time. Kip Humphrey Mar 2016 #18
Really? You think the repubs won't treat him worse? anotherproletariat Mar 2016 #20
Tell that to these guys pinebox Mar 2016 #31
lol KMOD Mar 2016 #19
more lol... 4nic8em Mar 2016 #21
The Koch brothers thank you. Broward Mar 2016 #27
Wall Street says your welcome... 4nic8em Mar 2016 #28
Why are so many Hillary backers risking a Trump presidency? Broward Mar 2016 #24
How/why are Bernie supporters Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2016 #39
Where do I say that I'm certain? Broward Mar 2016 #40
Your comment more than implies it Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2016 #41
K&R amborin Mar 2016 #25
Hell yeah griffi94 Mar 2016 #26
Anyone who isn't in love with Hillary could have told us that Sky Masterson Mar 2016 #30
Two problems.. DCBob Mar 2016 #32
The electability issue goes solidly to Sanders. Waiting For Everyman Mar 2016 #36

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
1. Hypothetical match up polls are worthless and should not be relied for anything
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 12:02 AM
Mar 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

(143,998 posts)
33. It is sad that these worthless match up polls are the sole support for Sanders claims of electablity
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:41 AM
Mar 2016

Sanders has not been vetted and is not electable

Bread and Circus

(9,454 posts)
23. My question to you would be how do YOU think you know who is more viable?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 01:14 AM
Mar 2016

All indications seem to point out that Sanders is at least more popular with independents and more people have a favorable view of him that clinton. Her negatives are very high. These are consistent results across many different ways the cake has been sliced.

I feel you just ignore reality.

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
2. Match up polling is worthless unless both candidates have been vetted
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 12:03 AM
Mar 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. Sanders has not been vetted and the above polls are worthless
 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
10. And a State Dept internal investigation.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 12:10 AM
Mar 2016

But she's been vetted by Wall Street, and declared 100% dirty to their satisfaction.

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
38. Are the Sanders supporters prepared for what the GOP will do to Sanders if he is the nominee?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 02:47 PM
Mar 2016

According to this article, Sanders has been treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign to date. However the GOP will not be as kind to Sanders. This article from VOX has some good predictions as to how nasty the GOP and the Kochs will be http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders

I'm not sure I have the requisite killer instinct to fully imagine how the GOP will play a Sanders campaign. But consider just this low-hanging fruit:

Sanders would be the oldest president ever to take office — older than John McCain, who faced serious questions about this in 2008.

Sanders is a socialist. "No, no," you explain, "it's democratic socialist, like in Denmark." I'm sure GOP attack ads will take that distinction into careful consideration.

Sanders explicitly wants to raise taxes, and not only on the rich.

That's just the obvious stuff. And he has barely been hit on any of it so far.

I have no real way of knowing whether Sanders and his advisers appreciate what's coming if he wins the nomination, or whether they have a serious plan to deal with it, something beyond hoping a political revolution will drown it out.

But at least based on my experience, the Bernie legions are not prepared. They seem convinced that the white working class would rally to the flag of democratic socialism. And they are in a state of perpetual umbrage that Sanders isn't receiving the respect he's due, that he's facing even mild attacks from Clinton's camp.

If they are aware that it's been patty-cakes so far, that much, much worse and more vicious attacks are inevitable, and that no one knows how Sanders might perform with a giant political machine working to define him as an unhinged leftist, they hide it well.

In the name of diverting some small percentage of the social media bile surely headed my way, let's be clear about a few things: This is not an argument against supporting Sanders. There's nothing dumber than making political decisions based on how the other side might react. (For one thing, that would have foreclosed supporting Obama, a black urbanite with a funny name, in 2008.)

But it is an argument that Sanders has gaping vulnerabilities that have not yet been exploited at all, so his followers should not yet feel sanguine about his ability to endure conservative attacks. Also they should get a thicker skin, quick.

The GOP will have a great deal of material to work with and the Kochs will be spending $887 million, and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars. These groups will have a great deal to work with

Waiting For Everyman

(9,385 posts)
34. What kitchen sink has Hillary not thrown at him yet?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:56 AM
Mar 2016

And why hasn't she?

He's been running for a year, so how is that not being vetted? What can a Repub say that she has not said?

This argument is nonsense and so is the drivel in this Millbank article. There's nothing in it that people don't already know.

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
37. The Clinton campaign has been treating Sanders with kid gloves
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 02:45 PM
Mar 2016

The concept that the Clinton campaign has been very negative on Sanders is simply false when you look at what Sanders would be subject to if he was the Democratic nominee. VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:

I have no interest in litigating any of these attacks here. Like any Democrat elected president in 2016, Sanders wouldn't be able to get much done, but he would block attempts to roll back Obama's accomplishments and have a chance to fill a few Supreme Court vacancies.

When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?

But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.

His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.

The attacks that would be levied against Sanders by the Kochs, the RNC candidate and others in a general election contest would make the so-called attacks against Sanders look like patty-cakes. The GOP and Kochs are not known for being nice or honest and as the article notes there are a ton of good topics available for attack. Raising taxes is never a good campaign platform (Just ask President Mondale). The GOP would also raise the socialism and age issues if Sanders was the nominee.

Again, I agree with the VOX position that so far, Sanders has not been subject to negative attacks close to what the GOP would use against Sanders and the attacks against Sanders if he was the nominee would be brutal. I urge Sanders supporters to read the VOX article to start to get a feel for what real negative attacks would look like.

Waiting For Everyman

(9,385 posts)
42. Taxes and socialism have been raised.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:11 PM
Mar 2016

Sanders is only 5 years older than Trump and 6 years older than Hillary. I'd like to see either of them make a big deal out of that.

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
43. Read the article
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:22 PM
Mar 2016

The Clinton campaign has not attacked Sanders and have treated Sanders with kid gloves. If you really think that the Clinton campaign has attacked Sanders, then you are fortunate that Sanders will not be the nominee because the GOP, the Kochs, Karl Rove and Trump will be very very nasty to Sanders and they have a ton of material to work with

Waiting For Everyman

(9,385 posts)
44. Neither I, nor Sanders have complained about it.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:28 PM
Mar 2016

Kid gloves, right. Clinton has pulled everything she could think of, that much is obvious.

jcgoldie

(11,582 posts)
35. On the issue of size of government
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:02 AM
Mar 2016

Here is where I think Sanders would be most vulnerable to attacks from Trump trying to pull away working class whites "Reagan Democrats" away from the democratic party... The term socialism may not carry the negative baggage it did 25 years ago at the end of the cold war... but among working class whites, "government" is very unpopular.

brooklynite

(93,844 posts)
4. National head-to-head polls are of limited value at this point
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 12:04 AM
Mar 2016

Bottom line however is that both Clinton and Sanders are competitive with Trump at this point. However, Clinton is competetive DESPITE her "baggage" which is well known. Sanders numbers will come down if he becomes the target of GOP attacks.

Two other issues: first, the cost of the GE will be in the realm of $1B (that's what Obama raised four years ago). As successful as he's been , I'm not convinced that Sanders can raise 10X that amount in 4 months. Second, I'm honestly not sure Sanders will know how to campaign against Trump or will care to. I worry he'll just keep repeating his same speech elements and assume that's enough.

angrychair

(8,593 posts)
22. He has raised only $20 million
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 01:09 AM
Mar 2016

Less, almost all from small, almost no maxed out donors (>1%), than HRC.
51% of HRC's existing donors are either maxed out or nearly maxed out for the entire election cycle (primary and GE).
He has almost 2 million individual donors (twice as many as HRC). Over 5 million donations (a US campaigning record).
He has out-raised HRC 2 months in a row and is on-track to do it again in March.
Where are these "new" donors for HRC coming from? Even the most optimistic outlook sees her as cash-strapped going late into GE, especially against a billionaire that has almost unlimited funds, known her personally for years, more name recognition and free press than any republican in any election, ever.

Only Sanders is a reasonable counter to a rich, self-entitled racist asshole like trump. He is literally taylor-made for a fight against a billionaire elitist.

Kip Humphrey

(4,753 posts)
13. Even with the beating the M$M has served up against Bernie, he wins.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 12:14 AM
Mar 2016

Impressive.

Imagine, no I mean really contemplate for a few moments where Bernie would be given a fair opportunity in the press and by the DNC.


So, is the press, is the DNC cursing us with a Trump presidency by their actions?


Unfortunately, for we the people the answer may be yes.

Lorien

(31,935 posts)
15. It's incredible, isn't it? If he had HALF the press that Trump gets he would be
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 12:26 AM
Mar 2016

Secretariat in this race. He started with little name recognition outside of Vermont and viewers of Bill Moyers and Thom Hartmann, has faced a media that's either dismissive or ignores him completely, and he's STILL packing them in at every rally! Can you imagine how different things would be if we still had the Fairness Doctrine in place?

 

anotherproletariat

(1,446 posts)
20. Really? You think the repubs won't treat him worse?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 12:37 AM
Mar 2016

Off the top of my head I can think of a half dozen things that their evangelical base will despise, and the sizeable conservative population will consider an absolute no-go.

griffi94

(3,731 posts)
26. Hell yeah
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 01:37 AM
Mar 2016

Bernie would be great...if he could win the primary which is
looking doubtful.
But if he could win then that would be awesome.
AWESOME.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
32. Two problems..
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 08:37 AM
Mar 2016

1) GE polling is essentially meaningless this far out.
2) Bernie wont be the Democratic nominee.

Waiting For Everyman

(9,385 posts)
36. The electability issue goes solidly to Sanders.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:21 AM
Mar 2016

It's been that way for quite some time. His numbers have been steadily increasing on that in poll after poll.

Lawrence O'donnel took note of these polls last night, and seemed surprised. Whether he will pretend like he never heard it in his future comments remains to be seen. The talking heads on his show tried to discount the poll results with the meme that "but Bernie hasn't been vetted yet"... oh really, then what has Hillary been doing all year? And what can Republicans say that she hasn't? She hit him with everything in their playbook, including ratfucking.

Bernie would demolish anybody in their lineup. All their possible objections, he has heard for years.

I'm glad Bernie is including these polls now in his talking points, to get the word out to those who haven't heard about it.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»CNN/ORC and CBS/NY Times ...