Sanders outpolls every republican.

[HooptieWagon]

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-support-2016-republican-presidential-candidate-poll.html

[Sheepshank]

1. Very bad news for Reps...great news for Dems!!!

Team Dem is strong!!!

[brooklynite]

2. ...in the Primary, not in a general election matchup.

The media treats Republicans like Carly Fiorina (2%), Ted Cruz (6%), and Rand Paul (7%) like they are serious candidates, but Bernie Sanders has two to seven times more support than these three Republicans. Why does the media treat Sen. Sanders like he is token opposition to former Sec. of State Clinton instead of as the legitimately popular stand alone figure that he is?

Perhaps because none of the Republicans are polling at 55-60%?

[AgingAmerican]

5. Right, because the clown car inhabitants are so alluring

With their vision for America!

[brooklynite]

8. Bottom line, eventually there'll be only one Republican

The question is how does Bernie do against that one candidate, and is it in excess of 50%?

[AgingAmerican]

10. If he beats Hillary he destroys the Republican candidate

nt

[brooklynite]

12. First things first...

If he polls 30% against Hillary I'll start to worry

[Thinkingabout]

33. This was not a poll comparing Bernie with the the Republicsn candidates.

This was a poll comparing candidates in the Republican field, there are about 20 interested candidates. With this number each candidate could average 5%. The number in the Democratic field is just a few and one candidate getting over 50%.

[immoderate]

53. ...But, 50% of the Democrats is a LOT more people than 5% of Republicans.

--imm

[Thinkingabout]

54. Yes, 50% is much better than 5%

[daleanime]

13. +1

[sabrina 1]

21. I'm not worried about the GE, once he gets past the primaries, he will wipe the floor with whoever

Repub candidate is.

Why? Because all polls show that Bernie's record, not just his campaign rhetoric, his RECORD on almost all the important issues, is in line with a MAJORITY of Americans.

And he is an excellent debater. Because he speaks from the heart, from never having to change his positions as he 'evolved' or whatever.

I know some Repubs right now who are very impressed with him. And I'm working to get them to register as Dems, NY here, so they can vote for him.

Got one non-voter signed up this week. She hasn't voted for years, now she's excited and will be a registered Dem in a few days.

[woo me with science]

60. Well said.

[BlueStater]

56. That's inaccurate.

Paul and Cruz, sure, but I've never seen anyone treat Carly Whoever as a serious presidential candidate.

[kenfrequed]

3. Yeah

Remarkable that the media is treating all the republican candidates like they are serious when they all sound insane.

[global1]

9. Media Is Treating The Repugs Like They Are Serious When They All Sound Insane & Are Treating Bernie.

like he is insane and he really is serious.

What kind of bizzaro world do we live in?

[kenfrequed]

14. Yup!

Tell me about it!

Not a single one of the republican candidates approaches sanity. Every single one of them are climate change deniers, believers in randroid-regan trickle down bullshit, and constant irrational fearmongering.

[arcane1]

15. A world so bizzaro that the media is called "liberal"

[sabrina 1]

22. That's what Jon Stewart pointed out on his show this week. He's a better newsman than all of the

Corporate Media stooges put together.

[NCTraveler]

4. While this shows a blatant disrespect for statistics.

I love it.

[MineralMan]

6. Wrong comparison, really.

This has to do only with primaries. There was no direct comparison between Sanders and any Republican in this. It was two separate polls. One for Democrats and one for Republicans. There's no connection there.

[seabeyond]

7. as i have been saying. i see this election a win for the dems.... nt

[tritsofme]

11. The real story here is the weakness of the Republican field

That none of them can even match the support of an acknowledged minor candidate in the the Democratic field.

[sabrina 1]

24. The real story here is that people are getting to KNOW Bernie Sanders. Had this question been asked

Jan, the results would have been very different.

And it would have been posted all over DU, 'see he can't even beat the right wing loons in the primary'.

A Bernie's name and record become more familiar to voter, his polls rise each month.

And he will wipe the floor with any one of the those loons in the GE when we get there.

[whatthehey]

16. Well, really available shares of a fixed numerator tend to get smaller with larger denominators yes.

So when the Republicans have several times as many "candidates" competing for support than Democrats do, they will automatically average a lower slice of that 100% each.

Really all this tells us is that the Republicans, at this early point, have no clear favorite, unlike the Democrats.

A similarly misleading use of the exact same numbers could easily trumpet that he is behind his leading primary opposition by many times the amount that any Republican is behind theirs. Both would be bullshit, but only one has been seriously suggested as salient analysis....

[silenttigersong]

17. Honestly

Hillary Clinton will not be able to win the general.The GOP whack a mole will put her time and energy into defence mode.Benghazi combined with her Irag war vote .

[sufrommich]

18. Did you just call Hillary Clinton "the GOP whack a mole" ?

You stay classy.


And "Benghazi" to boot.

[HooptieWagon]

19. You read it wrong. Nt

[sufrommich]

20. "The GOP whack a mole will put her time and energy into defence"

No,I'm pretty sure I didn't.

[HooptieWagon]

23. Yes, you did.

The poster is saying that the GOP is playing whack a mole with Clinton... keep coming up with frivolous "scandals" that she then has to expend time and resources defending herself from. Example used was Bengazi. The poster was definately not calling Clinton a "GOP whack a mole" which doesn't even make sense.

[sufrommich]

25. He's reducing a democratic candidate for president down to

a mole that the GOP is taking whacks at,maybe that's OK with you.

[1939]

43. Whack a mole

Refers to problems which keep popping up and have to be dealt with one by one as they occur.

The GOP will be popping up problems and Clinton will spend too much time dealing with them instead of getting a message out.

No where was the poster calling Clinton a mole.

[sufrommich]

46. She's already shown that she can deal with the fake controversies

that the GOP throw at her. They may be attempting to play whack a mole but they aren't succeeding as every poll released so far has shown. What I resent is other democrats playing along with this faux baggage argument.

[sabrina 1]

67. He's going to be the candidate, what are you talking about? No one in this country

has a 'right' to the presidency. And that attitude is part of the reason why people are flocking to Sanders every day. Because he speaks for THEM.

I have little doubt that he will be the nominee and I hope that we hear no more 'inevitable' talk in this country which is still a democracy last I heard.

[silenttigersong]

31. yes

That is what I meant to express.Thank you.

[Eleanors38]

27. I think the "GOP whack a mole" is the GOP's time-proven method of winning...

Everyone knows their respective roles:

GOPers attack 24-7, leaving one issue, then floating another.

MSM services the GOP paradigm, and Will Not let up on GOP-sponsored attacck messages.

DEM Candidate will NOT attack GOP, and explain, explain, explain...

Pretty simple stuff.

[HooptieWagon]

35. Yes. I'm sure that's what the poster was referencing.

Whack a Mole is a children's game toy from decades ago.Those complaining just had the reference fly over their heads, and automatically assumed it was a HRC slur.

[sufrommich]

36. The reference did not fly over my head,I thought it showed a lack of

respect for a democratic candidate that seems to be reserved for Hillary and Hillary only. One of a long list of many.

[HooptieWagon]

40. Do you know the toy?

The poster was using it as a description of the tactics the GOP has been using against Hillary, ever since her political ambitions became known. That's all. Poster def is not slurring Hillary.

[silenttigersong]

41. Opinions make you see disrespect

[Eleanors38]

44. The main concern with the scenario I outlined is the Democrat's role...

It has been repeated time and again because the Democrats believe the attacks will " go away," but more importantly because an answer will flesh out a philosophy (the very notion of which the Party recoils at), a philosophy which will suggest it is anywhere left of center and hence hostile to corp power. Result: Democrats look secretive and weak, a look forged in the public's mind since the Zombies first charted.

[silenttigersong]

37. No

Take alook at Rand Paul he will be talking about war .Clinton has taken responsibility for poor choices concerning Benghazi.She has apologized for her Irag vote.Bill Clinton walked back his policy on prison ect.Really you do not think theres an issue?Whack a Mole is as soon is an analogy like Republican clown car.

[sufrommich]

39. Yes, the GOP are going after her with a vengence.

Why do you suppose that is?

[silenttigersong]

42. duh

Politics

[silenttigersong]

47. One more opinion

Seriously I am suffering from "Clinton fatigue ".Which I will say is from all the bs on both sides.Bernie Sanders speaks for me.

[silenttigersong]

49. also

Secratary Clinton is not always above fray.I seem to recall a speech during the last prez elec.She(Clinton)inferred ambiguously that maybe Prez Obama was a Muslim.Not that it should matter.But do please try to recall the times,and all the red meat thrown fromPalin to the tea partiers ect.Just saying

[Exilednight]

30. Exactly. Negative campaigning works as long as you are

Anyone BUT a Clinton. She destroys her own credibility and in the process it casts doubt in the mind of voters with every fresh scandal.

She could have a third party independent audit of her emails with 100% release, but there will always be doubt due to the fact that she stores such emails in a private server knowing there could be a possibility she could run for public office again.

My point: I don't really believe there is anything horrible in those emails, but I do question her judgement in the way she stored them and openly violating the ethics rule Obama put in place to avoid such scandal.

[bluestateguy]

34. The Clintons have beat back a lot more than that in over 20 years

Accusations to numerous to mention, and the Clintons have always been battered, bruised and still standing in the end.

The only one who could ever beat them was Barack Obama, not a Republican.

[silenttigersong]

50. seriously

That is something that fails on 2 levels.Many people see Prez Clinton as having victimized women.That narrative backfires right back to the Clintons history.

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. Nice try!

[silenttigersong]

59. Paula Jones

Is speaking up.Oh I know she is one of the Bimboos right?Or,she was paid by the right wingers,just saying there is also that little issue @Epstien on the web.Personally,I am not one to get excited about guilt by association.I think it gets tiring to a lot of voters.One thing leads to _speculation of undecided voters ,and dont forget the google is agreat tool for voters.

[spanone]

48. you so funny.

[olddots]

26. all the repukians in the race are egotistical rich guys

they don't want to be in public service because they don't like the public or democracy .Bernie on the other hand likes to serve the public not just the people who are the new royalty or "royal scammers "

[cascadiance]

28. I think the key message here is that you don't HAVE to vote for Hillary to beat the Republicans!

And those that are voting for Hillary because they are afraid of someone like Bernie winning the nomination losing in the general election to a Republican might want to rethink their vote and vote for Bernie, if they feel he's a better candidate to be president!

Bernie isn't running as a third party like Nader was (or third parties in other elections are), where you have to select one of the two main candidates to make sure you don't vote for a spoiler that let's the greater of two evils win.

In short, hopefully this helps all Democrats feel more comfortable in voting for who they really want in the primary, and not to vote for the mythical "who is the only one that can beat Republicans" candidate.

[cherokeeprogressive]

63. Boom shacka-lacka. Diggety!

That's excellent news.

[stevenleser]

68. The reality is, yes you do. This poll doesn't attempt

To address Bernie versus Republicans head to head. The one poll that does has Bernie in a dead heat in California versus the current crop of GOP candidates, whereas Hillary is 25+ points ahead there, as any competitive Democrat should be.

[bluestateguy]

29. Badly misleading headline

Let's see the head to head numbers of Sanders v. each Republican.

Oh, Quinnipiac didn't poll that.

Politicsusa engages in persistently sloppy journalism.

[Xyzse]

32. I'm Glad! Awesome news.

As I've been saying. Could care less who wins the Democratic Primary now(even though I am leaning O'Malley), they are still lightyears better than any of the Republican bunch.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. This is misleading to the point of being dishonest.

Yes, a higher proportion of Democrats may want Sanders to be the Democratic candidate than the proportion of Republicans who want any given Republican to be their candidate.

But that's because there are about 5 possible Democratic candidates, and at least 18 Republicans, so the support is split far more ways.

That doesn't tell you anything about how many people would vote for Sanders vs a Republican in a head-to-head matchup.

This OP is misleading to the point of being dishonest.

[stevenleser]

65. It's Easley's article that is the problem. He has gone off the rails

In his Sanders support. He usually writes good stuff but his Sanders articles are full of similar truthiness.

[Caspian Morgan]

45. I think everyones getting worried

because he has a real chance to win.

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. I normally like Jason Easley's writings, but this is a very misleading headline. Head to head....

matchups are what count. Not sure why Jason thought this was worth reporting, except maybe to stoke Bernie supporters into believing Bernie would beat all the Republicans in a general election matchup.

[stevenleser]

62. The one head to head poll so far has been a California poll that shows

Bernie running even in California versus Republicans while Hillary is up against them by 25 or so points in that state.

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. But..but..you just wait. That'll all change when the tsunami known as Bernie sweeps the nation.

Kidding aside, Jason really had to dig deep to come up with such a deceptive headline. I have no doubt that Bernie could be competitive in blue California against a Republican, but not against Hillary. It's just not going to happen. As his supporters like to say, "Bernie's no Barack Obama", and that's about the only thing I can agree with, but for completely different reasons.

[rock]

55. This study/poll does not appear to pass the 'critical thinking' test

It seems to be comparing apples and oranges. It not that the numbers are wrong so much as misleading. You cannot in general do math with poll results in a willy-nilly fashion. What we need is a poll where the specific question compares each pair of candidates, one from Republicans and one from Democrats and getting the preference.

[stevenleser]

64. Quinnipiac doesn't attempt to draw the conclusion that the article writer attempted to make

I know a few folks over at Quinnipiac and they would be horrified that someone so completely mangled their poll this way.

[woo me with science]

57. K&R

[Cali_Democrat]

58. The statistics gods wept. nt

[stevenleser]

61. That is not what that poll says. I like Easley, but his pro Sanders articles are

Awful.

In this one he has completely mangled the results of this poll.