Here's How Many Bernie Sanders Supporters Ultimately Voted For Trump

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election. That is according to the data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study — a massive election survey of around 50,000 people. (For perspective, a run-of-the-mill survey measuring Trump's job approval right now has a sample of 800 to 1,500.)

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

According to the analysis of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, fewer than 80 percent of those who voted for Sanders, an independent, in the Democratic primary did the same for Clinton when she faced off against Trump a few months later. What’s more, 12 percent of those who backed Sanders actually cast a vote for Trump.



https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

If we believe these two sources, 12% of Bernie Sanders supporters voted for Trump in 2016.

Troubling? Certainly. But more troubling, to me, was the high percentage of registered voters who could not be bothered to vote.

Estimates show more than 58 percent of eligible voters went to the polls during the 2016 election, nearly breaking even with the turnout rate set during the last presidential election in 2012, even as the final tallies in states like California continue to be calculated, according to statistics collected by the U.S. Elections Project.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/voter-turnout-2016-elections

My point is not to excuse those Sanders supporters who voted for Trump. I can see no rational reason that any voter who supported Sanders would have chosen Trump.

But very troubling is that huge numbers of actual registered voters cannot be bothered to vote.

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. How many PUMA's voted for Someone other than Obama in the general in 2008?

A less divisive way to spin this info is "88% of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary in the general"

[guillaumeb]

3. In my opinion,

any Democratic voter who votes for a GOP candidate as some type of protest vote is making a terrible choice.

And I have heard the many arguments from those who prefer what they claim to see as perfection. The arguments are ridiculous.

[thesquanderer]

12. re: "any Democratic voter who votes for a GOP candidate as some type of protest vote..."

I think you're ignoring the fact that many Sanders Primary voters were not Democratic voters. Many states permitted Independents to vote in the Dem primary. There were also a lot of new (esp. young) voters, who only came to the party in the first place in order to vote for Bernie. They had no pre-existing party affiliation/loyalty, it's just what they had to do to vote for the candidate they wanted.

[guillaumeb]

16. Excellent points,

but if these voters voted for Sanders in the primaries, they voted for him as a Democratic candidate.

And given that Sander's positions mirror the basic Democratic positions on most important issues, an informed* voter might see that as a reason to vote for the eventual nominee.

*And I recognize that not all voters are informed voters.

[thesquanderer]

25. re: "an informed* voter might see that as a reason to vote for the eventual nominee."

...and the vast majority of them did.

Similarly, a vast majority of Clinton primary voters in 2008 voted for Obama in the general... but a not-insignificant portion of them did not.

[guillaumeb]

38. True.

Which leaves the problem of the unmotivated and/or apathetic voters.

[artislife]

48. For a few elections there has been a push to get out the vote

then when they finally do come out to vote for the first time or after a long lapsed time they may or may NOT behave like regular voters.

Oops, that is the downside of Democracy, people voting how they want to.

This reminds me of being at a client's house just after the whole Freedom Fry brouhaha . She had turned on the Tour de France and was whinging that she shouldn't be watching it because the French had betrayed 'Merica. I said that was kind of the downside of promoting Democracy throughout the globe, governments start listening to what their voters want.


It was a beautiful thing to watch her face trying to process what the outcomes of all our wars for Democracy might actually achieve.


And yes, I know that we did NOT bring democracy to France but she DIDN'T.

[WeekiWater]

4. This is incorrect.

A less divisive way to spin this info is "88% of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary in the general"

[CentralMass]

30. And 76% of Hillary voters voted for Senator Obama in 2008

[WeekiWater]

32. That doesn't correct the post.

I'm not sure how it applies to my comment. They make an incorrect comment and you post something about 2008. Strange.

[CentralMass]

35. Sorry. I agree with your post completely. I was adding the other detail for contrast.

[lapucelle]

56. Here's a further detail for contrast.

Link to tweet

[CentralMass]

57. Lets looks at that.

Take Wisconsin. Hillary lost by 23,000 votes.
1. Wisconsin has an open primary.
2. Several analysis of the election found that the Sanders-Trump voter were not Democrats. These voters were nit going to vote for Hillary
3. The repuplicans instituted tho voter ID law.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/
Rigged: How Voter Suppression Threw Wisconsin to Trump
I shortened ny snippet for brevity.

"On election night, Anthony was shocked to see Trump carry Wisconsin by nearly 23,000 votes. The state, which ranked second in the nation in voter participation in 2008 and 2012, saw its lowest turnout since 2000. More than half the state’s decline in turnout occurred in Milwaukee, which Clinton carried by a 77-18 margin, but where almost 41,000 fewer people voted in 2016 than in 2012. Turnout fell only slightly in white middle-class areas of the city but plunged in black ones. In Anthony’s old district, where aging houses on quiet tree-lined streets are interspersed with boarded-up buildings and vacant lots, turnout dropped by 23 percent from 2012. This is where Clinton lost the state and, with it, the larger narrative about the election."

So, i'm not blaming anyone factor for tge loss but there are many. The Sanders tRump voters were in the noise in a traditional dem stronghold.

[lapucelle]

63. Wisconsin is a great argument for closed primaries.The gutting of the Voting Rights Act

also had an impact. 2016 was the first presidential election after the changes.

[artislife]

67. So basically, she didn't lose votes she would have gotten.nt

[CentralMass]

71. There were a lot of factors. One was the Milwaukee had 41,000 fewer votes

then in 2012.

[artislife]

72. I read that Milwaukee

was on the list of where not to live because of crime, underemployment and other issues. The sheer numbers suggest a populace that has given up on believing in a government.

Sure there has to be some voter roll purges as well.

[namahage]

8. I sincerely doubt it's that high.

Votes for Stein, blank votes, write-ins of Bernie and not voting do not count as votes for Hillary and thus, your 88% figure is flawed.

[CentralMass]

31. Here is a link to one of a number of good articles on the subject.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/

Of note YouGov sturveys are sited in both the 2008 study of Hillary-McCain voters and the 2016 study of Bernie-tRump voters.
The conclusions are that 76% of Hillary voters voted for Senator Obama in 2008 and 88% of Sanders voters vote for Hillary in 2016.

So if one is flawed are both flawed ?

[Demsrule86]

9. Puma is an attack on Democrats. And Hillary worked her ass off in the general.

I can't say the same for Sanders who said Hilary had to attract his voters . In 16.

[CentralMass]

73. Your opinion may be correct but PUMA, the pac and organization existed.

[Demsrule86]

80. It doesn't exist and puma was mostly Gop pretending to be supporters . Look at the website if you

think I am wrong.

[CentralMass]

85. The organization existed until 2011. It was founded and run by a Democrat, Darragh Murphy

There are many article from 2008 and youtube links of her being interviewed on channels like MSNBC. For conciseness I linked a related wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action

[Demsrule86]

86. It was right wing and a smear. They didn't elect Romney in any case as

some nominally on our side did. With Trump. I will despise those who voted for Trump, Jill Stein and those who voted for her , people who stayed home....they electedvTrump. Folks like Nina Turner now work for Sanders.

The damage done by Trump is incalculable. It also hurts our party and policy, People won't wake up one day and say ....I am a progressive...I have seen the light. No it is a more gradual process and every time you put a Republican in office, the process is slowed or stopped. Regan and now Trump have damaged our efforts the most,. We live still with the consequences of Reagan's Two terms. It will be far worse with Trump.

[spooky3]

10. The article reported the # was 80%; 8% didn't vote

vote, or voted for Stein or the libertarians, etc.

[Celerity]

29. around 30% total of Hillary 2008 primary voters did not vote for Obama in the general

around 24 or 25% voted for McCain, around 5% did not vote

https://isps.yale.edu/research/data/d130

https://sites.duke.edu/hillygus/files/2014/06/hendersonhillygustompsonPOQ.pdf



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/

Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.

An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)

Thus, the 6 percent or 12 percent of Sanders supporters who may have supported Trump does not look especially large in comparison with these other examples.

snip

[guillaumeb]

39. Excellent points.

Thank you.

[spooky3]

53. Agree, but their choices were VERY different from

The 2016 choice. McCain was conservative but he was not insane or corrupt. Just to be clear I was a Clinton supporter in 2008 and 2016 but I voted for Obama twice.

[Celerity]

59. he was a super dangerous neocon war hawk though, a nightmare waiting to happen

[Hassin Bin Sober]

60. And let's not forget

[spooky3]

61. But in a completely different league from this cabal--

Who were also racist, sexist, biased against people with disabilities—and we knew about this well before Nov. 2016.

[crazytown]

62. *** 9% of Obama Primary Voters voted McCain in the GE ***

In others words in some cases it just people changing their minds.

[Celerity]

70. but 25% is almost triple the rate of Obama to McCain primary switches, and around double

the amount of McCain to Obama switches.

Also, look at the 'other' Dem primary voters, who had a horrific fall-off, a full 53% did not vote for Obama. 44% of those voted McCain and another 9% did not vote.

The Hillary primary voters and the 'other' Democratic primary voters fall-offs or outright switches positively dwarf the Republican defectors, who only had 13% switch to Obama and 4% non voters in terms of the McCain primary supporters, and then the 'other' Republican primary voters who switched even less, 9% voting for Obama and 4% who became non voters.

That last group of Democrats (the 'other' primary voters) defected at a rated over 400% greater than the same cohort for Republicans. If we had had those levels of defections in 2016 Trump would have probably won the popular vote (only a 1.1% switch from Hillary to the orange bloat gives him that) and won the Electoral College by as much as 350-188 (which, BTW, is the absolute MAX, perfect scenario ceiling for Trump in 2020 as well). That 350 is also OUR max possible in 2020 (that is giving us a few stretches, ie. AZ, GA, sweeping the closest swing states, and losing the not so close swingers, IA, MO, and OH) unless something huge blows up on Trump (which is a possibility always with that fuck).

[crazytown]

75. Right.

Small though it was, it would be interesting to know who were in that ‘Other Democrats’ who went 44% to McCain. I can’t imagine too many Edwards voters heading in that direction.

Anyway, the point I was making was that in general something like 10% of voters in a primary might be expected to change their mind / jump ship and vote for the opposing nominee in the general.

If so. the 12% of Bernie to Trump voters is nothing out of the ordinary.

[George II]

90. That's a good distinction, primary "voters", not as some here have said, primary "supporters" -

Everyone should remember that there are a number of open primaries where independents and republicans voted. Many of those republican voters chose the candidate they didn't want to win, a weaker candidate that would eat into the votes of the candidate they didn't want to run against the republican.

It's probably impossible to do, but it would be interesting in which states these so-called "Obama" voters or "Clinton" voters were - my guess is the the bulk of them were in states with open primaries.

[lapucelle]

55. How many? Not enough to deny Obama the White House.

Link to tweet

[Hortensis]

58. Fiendish, the 3/4 who voted for Hillary are US, fellow Democrats.

This discussion is about the other quarter of Sanders voters who were instrumental in electing Trump, a Republican-controlled congress, and hundreds of Republcans to governorships, state legislatures, and judicial seats.

In an era when most elections will be won or lost by narrow margins, this is an important subject for all those who currently have no intention of voting for any Democrat...except Sanders. Our votes don't create power so much as they only determine WHO will get it. As Trump so dreadfully illustrates.

Everyone in that quarter of Sanders supporters who voted third party in 2016 effectively helped elect Trump, and they own all that's happened since. Not just the 12% who voted for Trump.

These people need to know all the atrocities and attacks on progressivism are their legacy so they can either vote Democrat to stop the Republicans or refuse to repeat their hypocrisy by voting directly Republican.

But we have to face the reality that most are already determined once again to NOT vote Democrat if Sanders is not the nominee, which means they will not vote Democrat in 2020. These are, by far, not our people to keep, they're Trump's to lose to third-party candidates. And those caught up on the wrong side of this need to understand it; only the most extreme literally cannot change their minds.

[brush]

77. 88 percent doesn't wash the stench off the 12 percent who voted for fucking trump. Stay the fuck...

or vote for Stein of Johnson but voting for trump—there is no way to excuse that they helped elect the orange criminal in office now.

Inexcusable.

[WeekiWater]

2. I think we need to look at more than that one metric.

How many voted for Trump and how many voted for Stein. They are really the same thing.

"But very troubling is that huge numbers of actual registered voters cannot be bothered to vote."

Agree with you there.

[guillaumeb]

6. Agreed.

Stein was, in my view, another tool of Putin. So that means that 2 of the 4 candidates were Putin controlled and/or influenced.

Probably by money for both of them.

But how can we motivate the apathetic? What will it take to motivate them?

And we are not talking about voter suppression here, we are talking about actual voters who are registered.

[WeekiWater]

18. And how can we motivate them....

and how can we do it in a way that they keep coming back.

Negative campaigning is as real as it gets and is one of the most influential methods of campaigning. It isn't going anywhere. That is going to continue to keep vote counts low. It is something that cannot be overcome. We don't discuss the devastating impact of negative campaigning often enough. In my opinion, it's because it works for us as well.

[guillaumeb]

40. That is the question, is it not?

In my opinion, it starts with education, both in school and in the media. But many schools teach a redacted version of history that makes it difficult to understand the modern GOP.

And the corporate media prefers celebrity style contests to any real analysis.

[FBaggins]

5. The same kind of thing is reflected in current polling

In the lates Emerson poll, Biden leads Trump 53-47, but Warren trails him 52-48

That means that there are a significant number of Biden supporters who would prefer Trump if the nominee is Warren.

We could spin that as Biden supporters who ultimately vote for Trump... but we could also spin it as Biden having the ability to draw people from the other side that some other Democrats lack.

[guillaumeb]

7. At this point, we are looking at multiple matches.

But in the actual election, if it were Warren versus Trump, or Biden versus Trump, how many of the other's supporters would vote for Trump as a form of self destructive protest?

[FBaggins]

17. Quite a few... but not as a protest

There's a common misperception that voters are generally either republican or democrat and the real swing is between those who are energized to vote and those who aren't.

While turnout IS always a large factor in races, the perception is entirely false. There are a large number of voters (including primary voters) who could vote either R or D depending on the specific candidates. There really were Reagan Democrats and (Bill) Clinton Republicans. Until this most recent presidential race, it was a good thing that a candidate could draw voters away from the other side.

Looking that the specifics, Sanders could be seen as expanding the base. He brought in people on the left who considered the party to be too conservative previously - and I doubt many of them voted for Trump. He brought in people from center - who absolutely could have gone the other way once he wasn't in the race. And he brought in younger voters who had never participated in politics - I doubt that they would support Trump, but I don't really know.

[artislife]

49. Thank you posters

for having such a grown up conversation. There are many people who vote the candidate and not the party from all sides. And even though there is pretty much just a two party system, more and more people see themselves as unique and not a knee jerk member of either of those. The Libertarians are just one group that comes to mind.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

46. Interesting viewpoint.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[thesquanderer]

11. re: "I can see no rational reason that any voter who supported Sanders would have chosen Trump"

There was a significant contingent of people who wanted an "anti-establishment" candidate. Sanders and Trump were their two choices, and only one was on the ballot in November.

[guillaumeb]

13. But of the two,

one has experience in government, with actual, articulated positions.

And the other is a fool who fails at everything except for self promotion.

So if any voter who claims to be aware of the issues actually voted for Trump, I would suggest that the choice to vote for Trump shows a need for further study by that voter.

[hlthe2b]

14. Honestly... how could ANYONE vote for Trump, but especially someone who'd supported Sanders?

Can anyone see any rational explanation for that? The only thing I can come up with is blatant misogyny vis-a-vis HRC.

[guillaumeb]

19. No, I personally cannot.

Was it spite?

Was it misogyny?

Was it both?

[UrbScotty]

15. There were a number of people in closed-primary states

...who only voted for Bernie because they could only vote in the Democratic primary.

In West Virginia, for example, "39 percent of Sanders voters said they would vote for Trump over Sanders in the fall."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-supporters-boost-bernie-sanders-west-virginia-n571791

[guillaumeb]

20. And they would be in that 12% that voted for Trump in the general election. eom

[MarcA]

36. Agreed and these people are not "swing" voters. n/t

[vsrazdem]

21. And here's how many Hillary suporters voted for McCain.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study

Moreover, defections from a primary to general election are common. More voters went from Hillary Clinton to John McCain in 2008 than went from Sanders to Trump in 2016; about 13 percent of Trump’s 2016 voters also voted for Barack Obama in 2012.

[Go Vols]

24. ty

[radical noodle]

81. Once again, that doesn't seem to

take into account the Sanders voters who voted for Stein.

[radical noodle]

83. I knew several women personally who

were not Democrats who supported Hillary in 2008 because they wanted a female president. Once Hillary lost, even though she worked hard to drag them into the fold, some went elsewhere and McCain did have a female running mate (no matter that Palin was an idiot).

[FakeNoose]

22. There's another side of this - not all Bernie votes were really for Bernie

Don't assume that all the primary voters were honest. Don't assume that a primary vote for Bernie Sanders meant that voter wanted to see Bernie as President. Some of those votes were anti-Hillary votes, and those primary voters had no intention of voting for any Democrat in the general election.

Never trust a Repuke, they will always cheat.

There are enough Repukes in this country (maybe not even caring who their own candidate might be) who only wanted to see Hillary Clinton lose. Is it so hard to believe there was quiet cheating going on in 2016 where Repukes voted against Hillary in the Democratic primary? Then they voted for the GOP candidate in the general, which turned out to be Chump.

That would be one explanation why the polls were off by so much.

[guillaumeb]

41. Nice points.

And, referring to the disparity between polling and results, we cannot overlook actual cheating by the GOP.

[radical noodle]

82. I can almost guarantee there

was a lot of that in Indiana. I have no idea about other states. Indiana has an open primary where you just say which party you want to vote for when you walk into the primary. For decades, there have been many people who delight in voting for the weaker candidate of the other party in order to give their candidate more of a chance. I did it occasionally myself, as did my parents.

[MichMan]

23. How many voted for Bernie as a write in ?

In Michigan, write in votes are only counted if a candidate registers as a write in. Since Bernie did not, all those were counted as undervotes

[Mosby]

26. IIRC 90 million elgible voters didn't vote.

That's pretty standard for a general election. Midterms the rate drops to 38-40%.

[guillaumeb]

42. And that is a huge problem.

How can we, or can we, motivate the unmotivated? After 2 plus years of Trump, what percentage of voters still feel that both sides are the same?

[qazplm135]

27. some people just vote as a middle finger to something or someone

some of those Bernie votes were that. A middle finger to Clinton. Then they turned around and voted for Trump.

I'm not too focused on trying to get those folks on our side. Who knows who they vote for this time around.

Heck, they might vote third party.

Quite frankly same with nonvoters. Those folks never come out and wasting energy on them to me is a waste of time.

New voters, young voters, people of color, and our base.
Focuses on those and we win.

[guillaumeb]

43. The unmotivated include the young,

non-whites, and people who should be our base.

[qazplm135]

47. partially then again

the single highest voting demographic in America is black women.

[CentralMass]

28. This number, relative to previous election is small. A study of the 2008

election showed that 24% of Clinton voter s voted for McCain in the general. This was the same group that came up with the 12% number for the Sanders-tRump voters in 2016. Another study showed that 6% of Sanders voters voted for tRump.

[BlueFlorida]

33. The engineered angry frenzy against Hillary Clinton

and top Sanders' aides like Nina Turner, David Sirota, Johanna Gray and Cornell West advocating against Hillary played a part in this.

[question everything]

34. Thank you. I have posted here, several times, that we may never know how many did

so it is good to read about concrete numbers.

And... it was not, is not surprising. Both Sanders and Trump appealed to the same sectors: the forgotten middle and lower class who lost their jobs, about whom the "elites" did not care (nice to come from multi millionaires..)

Thus, for many Sanders' supporters, Trump was the next best thing.

As for lower turnout: Back in 1996, after Clinton won the cover of the elections in Orange County CA (where I lived), interview a college student who did not bother to vote and who majored in.... political science.

[guillaumeb]

44. I agree with your analysis about motivation for some Sanders/Trump voters.

But, in my view, they focused on Trump's slogans and ignored the fact that all he had were slogans.

[artislife]

50. I believe that was the movement of 2016

Both parties were blindsided that the base they relied upon, took for granted had gone through 30 years of decline and no one was addressing their issues in a meaningful way that they felt they were being heard, let alone represented.

Big donors pulled the parties on both sides to their agendas. I am a brown woman and I feel like we are relied upon to just vote Blue and hope that things will get better, eventually.

That being said, my number one issue is climate, so I might be kind of buck what either party thinks I am concerned about.

[helpisontheway]

37. My son's girlfriend supported Bernie. Then voted for Stein in the general election. Nt

[guillaumeb]

45. Assuming that he voted for her because she ran as a Green,

to waste a vote on a symbolic gesture allowed Trump to come in and aid the GOP in devastating the environment.

[artislife]

52. Something else may be in play

This was a big point for those who wanted to break the two party strangle hold
https://ivn.us/2015/04/28/10-ways-political-parties-control-vote/

2. Campaign Finance Laws Give Political Parties Special Exemptions Even in Nonpartisan Races
Political parties, through the legislatures they control, have written campaign finance laws to give their parties special advantages that no one else gets. In San Diego, for example, political parties are the only exception to the individual donation limits for local elections, even for offices and elections that are supposed to be nonpartisan. (See, San Diego Municipal Code § 27.2934(b) and § 27.2935(a) that allow parties (but no one else) to give $30,000 to an individual candidate.)

So how hard is it for someone to funnel money through a political party to simply skirt the individual donation limits?
In local elections, this imbalance makes it nearly impossible for those without major political party affiliations to compete, even in supposedly nonpartisan elections

I believe there was something about Federal dollars only going to parties that get above a certain number of votes. I can't look up as I have to go to pick up dogs. But I remember this being discussed in states that was most certainly going to vote one party or the other and wasn't considered swing.

[guillaumeb]

64. The reality of US politics is that it is a two party system at the national level.

Failure to recognize that is its own reward.

[artislife]

66. Yes, but the more votes the other parties get

the more Federal money they receive.

Also, the two party system hasn't always been Democrats and Republicans. That should be remembered, too

[guillaumeb]

68. True, but if the goal is to make policy,

or to influence policy being made, in this system, a vote for a third party on the national level accomplishes nothing.

And to vote for Stein, a person with no history of actually trying to grow the Green Party, is a waste. If Stein were serious, instead of seeking publicity and money, she would be working to make the Green Party a force at the local and state levels.

[artislife]

69. I agree with your last sentence

But I don't agree that voting third party on a national level accomplishes nothing. I am not sure a vote is to make policy, but to influence policies that will be made. A vote is a voice to what a voter wants. Should I not vote for a Democrat knowing my state is a solid Red State because it will, in the end, accomplish nothing? If so, then the refrain that Hillary won the popular vote also has no meaning as it has no effect on the election at all.

I think votes matter, whether it goes to the winning side or not.

[guillaumeb]

74. Voting for HRC added to her winning vote margin.

And that shows that her policies appealed to more voters than Trump's recycled racist memes.

But I agree with your observation that votes do show how a segment of the voters feel, and can influence the 2 major parties.

[LovingA2andMI]

51. Enough....

To toss an election to Trump when Russian Hacking was added in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

[guillaumeb]

65. There are many reasons.

Unmotivated voters first among them.

[zaj]

54. Bernie isn't bringing any of those voters back

[guillaumeb]

76. An opinion.

And I understand your opinion, but hope that it is incorrect.

[Historic NY]

78. Why he should not get the nomination he held out to the very end when it was beyond him

getting enough electoral vote and shaved weeks off the Clinton campaign . In the end he barely muster luke warm slop...the convention bullshit was very telling. He should go elsewhere with his 12%, they're back now and they aren't changed.

[guillaumeb]

79. Should he have conceded earlier?

If he had, would the same 12% have still behaved in the same way?

[vsrazdem]

84. You guys keep saying that, but Hillary stayed in late too.

[David__77]

89. I recall that.

I didn't think that there was a possibility of Clinton getting the nomination late in the game.

[pstokely]

87. how many of them are regular faux state news viewers?

Last edited Fri Apr 19, 2019, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)

how many of them have been to a tRump rally?

[guillaumeb]

88. That is outside of the scope of the survey. eom