2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIn New Shock Poll, Bernie Sanders Has LANDSLIDES Over BOTH Trump and Bush
In a general election, Bernie Sanders would mop the floor with these republican clowns......
In a new McClatchy-Marist poll, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leads Republican candidate Donald Trump by a landslide margin of 12 percentage points, 53 to 41. In the McClatchy poll, Sanders also leads former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) by a landslide margin of 10 points, 51 to 41.
The huge Sanders advantage over Trump is not new. In the last four match-up polls between them reported by Real Clear Politics, Sanders defeated Trump by margins of 12, 9, 9 and 2 percentage points. The huge Sanders advantage over Bush is new. In previous match-ups, the polling showed Sanders and Bush running virtually even, with Bush holding a 1-point lead over Sanders in most of the polls. Future polls will be needed to test whether the huge Sanders lead over Bush in the McClatchy poll will be repeated in future polling or whether the McClatchy poll is an outlier.
It is shocking that the data suggests that Sanders has a lead over Trump that could be so huge that he would win a landslide victory in the presidential campaign, with margins that would almost certainly lead Democrats to regain control of the Senate and could help Democrats regain control of the House of Representative if, of course, the three polls that show Sanders beating Trump by 9 to 12 points reflect final voting in the presidential election. It would be equally shocking if future polling shows that the Sanders lead over Bush remains at landslide margins. For today, there are two issues these polls present. First, the national reporting of the presidential campaign completely fails to reflect Sanders's strength in a general election, especially against Trump, and against Bush as well.
Second, and perhaps more important, Sanders's strength in general election polling gives credence to the argument I have been making in recent years, that American voters favor progressive populist positions which, if taken by Democrats in the general election, would lead to a progressive populist Democratic president and far greater Democratic strength in Congress.
cont'
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/259812-in-new-shock-poll-sanders-has-landslides-over-both
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)We are really in a great spot as a party.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article43727049.ece/BINARY/Poll%20details
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)The fact that Ben Carson is doing so good vs Hillary...Could not find any data vs Sanders but I would imagine it would be similar. Hopefully this is changing now that people are learning what a QUACK Carson is?!?!?
mmonk
(52,589 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That in itself makes things more interesting. I truly have no clue who it is going to be. They are going to have to start gaining name recognition in the general itself. The other positive aspect, is their other candidate, similar Sanders, will have never been vetted at the national level. The first months will be the vetting of a new person. That is always fun on the national stage.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)one of Hill's fans had my post deleted because they thought I said I'd take Trump over Hill. My point was and is that she is NOT electable, contrary to her followers.
I said I was voting for Bernie, even in the GE, because he is the only one that represents my interests. And if Hill beats him in the primary, she may well lose to a GOPer. Polls mean very little because they only represent Dem voters. But Bernie will get cross-over votes. That is why he is the BEST matchup against any Republican.
Segami
(14,923 posts)Truthful candidate vs. lying candidate.
Democratic Socialist vs. Third Way New Democrat
Who best represents you?
Is it so complicated?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Some actually WANT the Democrats to represent Wall Street since the Republicans have come to represent angry white guys in funny hats.
vlakitti
(401 posts)LonePirate
(13,420 posts)Bernie has the better economic message but it does not surpass the enticement and history making opportunity to elect a female President.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Bernie's message resonates with everyone.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... whereas most of them don't trust Hillary Clinton, even far more than many of us Bernie supporters here. I think he wins many independents and Republicans on that note alone, and so is isn't "ludicrous" to believe that he'll get more crossover votes. I get the feeling even if they feel that there are lot of issues that they disagree with him on, when it comes to certain ones such as TPP, etc. where he has a lot stronger viewpoint and record rejecting than any other presidential candidate from either party, that he will potentially get their vote if they perceive him honestly working for that goal.
The "socialist" thing won't be the deciding factor that the corporatist media wants it to be to help those that pay for their campaign ad dollars or the small number of large companies that own it.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Republicans have decades of hate invested in the Clinton brand, where Sanders wasn't even on their radar. And he's already attracting all sorts of interest on the right, even beating out the Republican candidates in New Hampshire in THEIR primary, among THEIR voters.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)I'll take a wild guess at zero. But I can see a lot of Indies and GOP women voting for Bernie because he represents their interests more than any GOP candidate.
LonePirate
(13,420 posts)Like it or not, Clinton is crushing Sanders in pretty much every poll conducted in red states. If your hypothesis is true, Repubs would need to be more willing to cross a larger political spectrum gap to vote for Bernie than they would be to vote for Clinton, whom some of their neighbors support and is closer to them ideologically. Repubs are cowardly, pack animals. They seldom make bold, courageous moves and they certainly do not want to appear out of step with their family and social circles, especially in the south. Supporting Bernie is simply not psychologically possible for many of them.
Bernie's message will resonate with some Republicans, at least those who value their lives over political identity or other nonsense (like that spouted by the poor voters in KY who voted for Bevin despite his vows to eliminate their health insurance). That bridge is simply too far to travel for most Repubs.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)But it is faulty in my opinion. Polls in Red or Blue states only poll one political party. South Carolina's numbers favor Hillary based on polls of Democrats! Have you never heard of people voting against their party because they say their party left them? It happens every election. I'm not saying they will do so in ungodly numbers. But it happens.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)LonePirate
(13,420 posts)Repubs do not cross over, by and large, based on economic reasons. The entire premise that fiscally conservative Repubs are going to cross over en masse to vote for the candidate that the complete antithesis of their core economic values is preposterous to say the least.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)but regular people will.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)What I Learned on My Red State Book Tour ROBERT REICH
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128071628
floriduck
(2,262 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)👍
Seriously, the RW (those who identify themselves as conservative, republican, RW, etc) is not one homogeneous blob, just like the LW isn't. Most are as, or more, sick of the establishment as we are and many of those don't buy into what Trump/Carson/Bush/Rubio are trying to sell them. Many would consider Bernie as a good alternative.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Gender is worthless in determining my vote.
After all, Sarah Palin is a woman,
so is Michele Bachmann,
so is Mean Jean Schmidt,
so is Diane Feinstein.
Gender does NOT confer some special Presidential ability on anyone.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)voters across the political spectrum.
In the only poll I've seen so far of JUST registered Independents, now the largest registered 'party' in the country as both parties lose membership, Bernie defeats Hillary which makes sense. Independent registered voters are not going to elect someone who represents all the reasons WHY they are registered Independents.
And then there are non voters, out of the system BECAUSE they do not believe either party represents them.
We've been signing up these non voters for Bernie since the beginnning, now feeling they HAVE someone that actually speaks for them.
Republicans, sick of the extremism in their own party, and opposed to the wars etc, are also coming over to Bernie.
What IS ludicrous to say is that Hillary has much if any appeal to any of these demographics.
Her appeal is limited to the base of the Dem Party which is now just 32% of registered voters and Bernie has already cut into that demographic also.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)(yes, there are occasional sane Republicans) most of whom support Bernie.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)ANY Repubs will be voting for Hillary. And Independents left the Democratic Party BECAUSE OF THE THIRD WAY THAT TOOK OVER THE PARTY! Hillary IS Third Way. She and her husband started the DLC.
The Repubs will be coming out in droves to vote AGAINST her, not FOR her. Whereas, most Independents and disenfranchised Repubs, WILL GLADLY VOTE FOR BERNIE.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Beartracks
(12,809 posts)... to run, not walk, RUN to the polls en masse to keep her out of office.
Bernie, on the other hand, not so much. He may even steal significant votes from the Republican candidate.
===================
TBF
(32,058 posts)ie conservatives that are socially liberal. The right-wing will turn out en masse to defeat her. When I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary there were republicans in line voting for him because they would rather have him than Clinton (in Texas we have an open primary). I'm not under any wild illusions that we can turn Texas blue in 2016 - but I think in the general we have a shot at cross-over votes.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)So do you believe it for Sanders but not Clinton? On what rational basis?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)that there's a meatspace outside of it: they really do think that if Clinton loses the general it'll be because of the 100,000+ active DUers here (even subtracting the 10% diehard Clintonistas, and the 80% of Sandernistas who'll hold their noses, and the 80% of those not in swing states)
the notion that the commoners that Sanders mobilized wouldn't be enthused by Clinton can't really enter their heads: they think "Sanders mobilized for the Democrats, they're safe Dem voters"
Mass
(27,315 posts)There are many polls showing the same thing. Most polls show Sanders competitive in the general election.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)from the exact same poll, Clinton would also "mop the floor" with Trump and Bush (Trump by 15 points, as opposed to Sanders' 12; Bush by 8 points, as opposed to Sanders' 10). Essentially, given MOE, they BOTH trounce Trump and Bush by about the same amounts.
In other words, the shocking news is that any DEMOCRATIC candidate will beat these two jokers.
Next ...
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)Persondem
(1,936 posts)take a serious hit. Tax and spend socialist ads write themselves. They are being relatively nice to him because they would rather face him in the GE.
Clinton is still kicking their butts even with the GOP taking shots at her for 20+ years. Her current electability is more of a floor whereas Sanders's is more like a ceiling.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)There are huge numbers of people who do not vote (for various reasons) who are being inspired by the populism of Bernie Sanders.
So, we will get the votes from Democrats who usually vote, the Democrats who vote during Presidential races, the Democrats who are worried about a Clinton dynasty, new voters inspired to the election by populism, cross over republicans tired/scared of the tea party manics, independent voters who now feel like someone they have been associated with in the past has a chance, and nearly everyone who relies on the social safety net.
We vastly out number them. We just need to be brought together. Something the DNCC and the Third Way have been unable to do.
Every hit piece the RWNJs can spin can be reversed to hurt them. In some cases attacking Bernie Sanders on policies might be the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot with a grenade launcher.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)bumper stickers and pictures. People do not have much of an attention span these days so a picture with Marx, Mao and Sanders and a few choice words about socialism is all it takes to bring down Sanders.
"We just need to be brought together. Something the DNCC and the Third Way have been unable to do."
Not sure about this. You do realize that Dems have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes in the GE.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 11, 2015, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)
Feels left out and doesn't vote because both parties feel so similar.
We the political fanatics see the difference clearly, most people not so much.
mythology
(9,527 posts)http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html?referer=
It's objectively wrong to say that the parties are the same.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)That is my point.
We are here because we live and breath this shit. A fairly large portion of the population isn't as dedicated as us. Due to a variety of factors (Telcom act of 1996, the continual erosion of the middle class for the last forty years no matter which party had majorities/POTUS, elimination of civics classes, popular culture, etc) the American public is....disenchanted, with American government.
I hold that that disenchantment was intentionally grafted onto the American public. Moneyed interests do far better when voter turnout is low.
The only way the DNCC could lose so much in one decade is by intent.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)uninformed non-voters.
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)which caused Democrats to lose the White House in 2000. Had the majority of the public realized what huge differences actually exist, Shrubya would never have been President. Never.
But after eight years of Clinton's compromising away the baby with the bathwater, few of us were certain anymore that such a huge difference did exist. Now we know better, or should know better, but there are still millions of voters confused by the likes of Hillary and Obama, who have both admitted to being moderates.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)would be difficult to quantify. Tere were some other tactical consideration that did measureable damage to Gore chances: He didn't carry his home state, he lost NH and FL by a margin of less than the number of Nader votes, Gore not pushing for a full recount, and FL's unlawful voter purge all could be said to have influenced the outcome in 2000. Nevertheless, Dems did win the popular vote that year.
Also, the USA is a moderate country that leans one way or the other so a moderate candidate is a good fit.
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)We have been pulled so far to the right that a "moderate Democrat" like Obama is really a Republican, even Barack Obama has admitted as much.
You are accepting a main$tream media meme: that the US is a moderate country. But in fact, polls show that the public supports the positions of Social Democrats by an overwhelming majority. For the past 30 years we have been pulled far-right, and now is our one and only real chance to fight the oligarchy and change that mess.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Gore did not carry Tennessee because Rove especially targeted Tennessee for a win simply to embarrass Gore. The margin by which Bush* carried Tennessee was not all that great, I think it was about 40,000 (just something like that). But what a lot of people never really realized was that Tennessee was riddled with the same type of voting "irregularities" that waffled through Florida. It was in fact for voter suppression "a little Florida." I only am aware of this because my family is from Tennessee and I read about a number of the shyster tricks Republicans played down there. Eventually, some of these complaints were investigated by the government and settled, just as those in Florida were. Long, long voting lines at polling places where African-Americans were in the majority, reduced number of places to cast ballots, people turned away because they didn't have required id, polls closing while long lines where still in place and subsequent court complaints -- you name it, and it happened.
Gore did not push for a full recount because that was not an option presented in the State constitution. The only way to obtain a full state recount was by court order (which eventually came down the Florida Supreme Court) or by permission of the Governor (and we remember who the Governor of Florida was at that time). The Florida Supreme Court should have had the last word on this election dispute as the rules for conducting Presidential elections are defined in our U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court had no, I repeat no, Constitutional authority to intervene as long as the State of Florida conducted the election according to election laws previously written into the Constitution (which Gore was following and the Republicans were not).
And once the U.S. Supreme Court usurped the matter, the two laws it used to justify stopping the recount were nothing but bullsh*t. That Safe Harbor law (the one setting the deadline for when the slate of electors had to be submitted to the Elector College) was originally written when states forwarded their slates to the electors BY PONY EXPRESS. So the law was written to mandate the couriers be dispatched in a timely manner by the riders on horseback. There was plenty of time for that recount to have been conducted and the slate sent to the Electoral College. Secondly, that equal protection law stating that the voters whose votes might be recaptured in a recount would carry more weight than the votes of the original voters that were counted, and thus the original voters would be discriminated against should a recount change the result of the election. And in that latter statement, the Supreme Court negated the 5 million popular vote advantage Al Gore had over Bush* nationwide. So if one is to give any nod of agreement to the Supreme Court's falling back on that asinine equal protection plank, how does that same person justify the nullification of the 5 million votes on a national basis that rationale generated.
Sorry for the length of this post, but this is one subject that always pushes my buttons....
Sam
Persondem
(1,936 posts)And indeed, SCOTUS sure screwed the pooch ... and the whole country.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Theoretical Democratic nominees are beating theoretical Republican nominees.
The reality is, you have to actually become the Democratic nominee first to do it. And right now, at this point in time, that is not looking likely for Sanders. And I don't think that simply by convincing people that Sanders could beat x or y R candidate is going to change that very much. There are way too many other factors at play, including the candidates' organizational efforts, their outreach, their performances and demeanors, etc. I also don't think that the nostrum offered so often herethat people don't really know him, and once they hear him they will certainly be won over (in conjunction with being convinced he could perform well in the general)is particularly working either. That didn't happen with the first debate or the forum, or with the many many TV appearances ... thus far.
I'll be happy to eat my words on all this if things suddenly change. But I am trying to look at reality here. Magical thinking is not my bag.
Faux pas
(14,672 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Those who care about electabiliuty should know this, and no two ways about it.
riversedge
(70,208 posts)http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/9/1447820/-McClatchy-Marist-Poll-Hillary-Clinton-Leads-All-Republicans-Nationally
McClatchy/Marist Poll: Hillary Clinton Leads All Republicans Nationally
By DerekJack30
Monday Nov 09, 2015 4:02 PM CST
According to a new McClatchy/Marist poll of 1465 voters, Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and even Ben Carson, their strongest (of course if he doesnt collapse under the weight of imaginary stabbings and pyramids full of grain)
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 56, Trump 41 Clinton +15
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Carson 48, Clinton 50 Clinton +2
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 50, Rubio 45 Clinton +5
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 52, Bush 44 Clinton +8
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 53, Cruz 43 Clinton +10
General Election: Fiorina vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 53, Fiorina 43 Clinton +10
Beautiful! ..........................
Marist polls are rated rather well by 538. BTW, if the election is a 15 point landslide, I predict a good electoral map.
Segami
(14,923 posts)Thanks for the kick anyway.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Very strong numbers for democrats.
riversedge
(70,208 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Hey, I've been saying that all year.
The next president will be chosen in Philadelphia.
I'm for the democrat, not the corporatist.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)"Lesser of two evils" doesn't work well if you know evil's gonna lose.
tishaLA
(14,176 posts)Nice to see positive poll results!
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...that Bernie can't win the General persists.
Time to bury THAT dead horse.
Response to bvar22 (Reply #16)
Name removed Message auto-removed
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)Another M$M meme bites the dust.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Why? Because as he is in 2nd place, Bernie Sanders is not being subjected to the same level of scrutiny--from the media and from Republicans-- as Hillary.
If Bernie were to become the frontrunner, that would obviously change, as would the head to head poll numbers.
Gloria
(17,663 posts)It's about each state, and very few at that...and it will be a close race ....
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #48)
Name removed Message auto-removed
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)A Republican I work with the other day said he would vote Sanders over any Republican. Because of his stance on marijuana. I asked him about Hillary's 'Me too!' and he said he hadn't heard it yet lol.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Trump, on the other hand, is still strong and is likely to be stronger as Dr. Nutcase continues to make an a$$ of himself.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)leftcoastmountains
(2,968 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)onecent
(6,096 posts)but i think the powers that be will have the final say so...
and IT WILL BE HILARY.
i can only say THANK GOD bush is only getting less than 6 percent. there is a God...
well, not really but if there were......
YIPPEE
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Response to Segami (Original post)
Post removed
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)that's good to know.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)who can't believe what's happened to their party of late.
Remember, he regularly gets 21-25% of REPUBLICAN voters in his home state, who know
him and love him, because he's the real deal.