Bernie Sanders Reaches New High in Support: Poll
Source: NBC News
Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-hillary-clinton-holds-steady-support-among-democrats-n466641
I'm not someone who puts much faith in nationwide polling in a primary race, especially when the first votes to be cast are still months away, but I'm glad to see steady progress.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)
Hillary, Bernie is coming for you! 
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)9/17: Clinton +12
10/13: Clinton +14
11/15: Clinton +16
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)doing a Lois Griffin wins
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)I like that trend, but bear in mind it's a national poll ten weeks before the Iowa caucus.
George II
(67,782 posts)...the poll a week later had Clinton up 5% and Sanders down 1%. Sanders lost ground after those two withdrew.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But now we are back to the real contest, and Bernie is gradually gaining on her.
George II
(67,782 posts)And here are the trends as calculated by Huffington Pollster:
Sept 27 44.1 25.2 1.1 +18.9
Oct 14 48.3 25.4 1.2 +22.9
Oct 21 51.1 27.0 1.5 +24.1*
Nov 1 54.2 30.4 2.3 +23.8**
Nov 8 54.3 30.5 2.5 +23.8
Nov 10 54.3 30.4 2.6 +23.9
Nov 18 54.2 30.1 3.0 +24.1
* After 1st debate and Benghazi hearing
**After Biden, Webb withdraw
In the last seven weeks Clinton has gained 10.2%, Sanders 4.9%, O'Malley 1.9%, and the gap between Clinton and Sanders has widened by 5.2%.
If there was any kind of sympathy reaction, it would have been 7 weeks ago and temporary. And Bernie is definitely not "gradually gaining on her."
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)You are using the Huffington Pollster, not the numbers posted above.
Bernie is gaining and will gain more. According to the poll in the OP, Hillary has come down since the Benghazi bump.
You are citing a different poll, I believe.
The OP is citing the NBC poll.
Shows how polls can differ. One is wrong. I suppose if you search far and wide, you can find a poll that agrees with your opinion.
Based on my personal experience talking to voters, I am amazed at the enthusiasm and depth of excitement about Sanders. I am also amazed by the number of voters who tell me they don't like Hillary. She is not a very likable person. I note that the polls don't ask whether people like her, just whether they will vote for her. Since most people assume she will be the candidate, they will tell pollsters that they will vote for her. That's like asking Democrats whether they will vote for a Democrat.
But Sanders is definitely the favorite. He is the one people want to vote for. He will win because in the end, the people who vote want to feel comfortable with their vote. In the end, people vote for the candidate they like.
I for one, do not like Hillary. I will vote for all other Democrats, but if Hillary is the candidate, I will not vote for her. Most voters will just stay home and not vote for any candidate if the presidential candidate is someone they don't really like.
I was at the polls from early morning till they closed when Obama was elected. There were two precincts voting at the location, one African-American, one white. The voting machines in the African-American precinct broke down (we were told) and the voters stood in line a long, long time just to vote for Obama.
You will not see that kind of determination in the resigned voters for Hillary. But Sanders voters will vote for Sanders come Hell or High Water. Wait and see. Sanders will win.
The polls only tell so much of the story. They do not measure the fervor or dedication to voting. That's what matters most. If no candidate has that kind of fervor among his/her voters, then the polls are more meaningful. But Bernie voters feel the Bern. How many times has someone responded to my mentioning Bernie with that phrase: "Feel the Bern!" You just won't find that enthusiasm for Hillary. It simply is not there. The numbers don't measure that.
George II
(67,782 posts)...that they happened.
In that one poll, Clinton is down a mere point, Sanders up three. But the rolling average algorithm that Huffington Pollster uses shows her up the % that I indicated.
Incidentally, RealClearPolitics, which also has a rolling average algorithm shows the numbers at:
40.8, 27.6, and 0.8 on September 27 Clinton +13.2
55.4, 30.2, and 3.5 on November 19 Clinton +25.2
She's gained 12.0% over that period.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And after the students go home for Christmas and maybe even Thanksgiving vacation and talk to their families, there may be a difference. Students are really keen on supporting Bernie. And for good reason. Their futures are at stake.
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)That silly math
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)slowly moving up.
That's what the chart tells me.
Clinton's Benghazi bump was only temporary.
Bernie is back on track to win in the end. The more people see and hear him, the more they like him and prefer him to Hillary.
Plus there are Bernie forums all over the country. We're going to one next week. Go Bernie Go!!
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Is a logical necessity. Follows from the premises, like the proof of a theorem. The truth is unstoppable.
Nitram
(27,712 posts)Reminds me of Zeno's Arrow Paradox.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)
corkhead
(6,119 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)corkhead
(6,119 posts)
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Perhaps he can outperform Obama.
Guess we'll find out.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)But he didn't have the organization or level of support Bernie has and Edwards (a much more well known name) was running on a populist message. '07/'08 was also a very different time than now: the full horrific effects of the Great Recession had not yet been felt and the wealth disparity in this country was not well understood (Occupy changed the entire conversation).
Sanders has built on the entire reason Occupy occurred and has struck a deep and wide chord.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)If this were an eight person race, Sanders would likely suffer from the same campaign deficits Kucinich faced. And would likely be polling in the single digits.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Dennis Kucinich never achieved 33% favorability among Dems for candidacy.
Dennis doesn't have the amazing voting record that Bernie has, nor the long running history of being a social justice warrior.
He also was never named the Amendment King, like Bernie was.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)
ejbr
(5,892 posts)but I have to ask: to what end? You are not addressing policy. You are just "shoving Sanders supporters faces" in poll numbers like a miserable bully.
Are we supposed to change our minds and vote for Hillary? Stop hoping for whatever slight chance that Bernie can pull this off? Concede defeat and accept your perspective on where our country should go? Please, explain your reason for being so obnoxious.
I know it is difficult to read posts about what we see as Hillary's shortcomings, but this tactic does not address those.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)My focus on convincing people happens out in the real world.
As for these discussions: You're welcome to vote for whom to want. Sanders is welcome to stay in the race as long as he wants (I expect he'll keep running to focus on his issues up until the Convention).
As for dashing your "hopes": you have a safe space in the Bernie Sanders group. It's not our job to make you feel good by hiding data points that show Clinton is consistently preferred by a majority of Democrats. I presented an informed observation: Sanders' gradual increase, if maintained, will still have him below 50% by the time more than half the delegates have been selected. If you disagree with the data, do feel free to counter it; nobody else on Sanders side is willing to.
I've worked on political campaigns for 35+ years; many of my candidates have lost, and I've never tried to hide from the cold realities of how they were doing. I suggest you consider doing the same.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)That seems to be driving most of these "he's not going to beat Hillary" posts.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)All those great shows and hosts from the bygone days of Air America;
The Ring of Fire,
Thom Hartman,
The Young Turks,
Norman Goldman,
Bill Press,
Ed Schultz,
Mike Maloy,
Rachel Maddow
Randi Rhodes,
Kieth Olbermann,
Sam Seder...
All of them support Bernie Sanders and not hillary.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)She's enthusiastic about her preferred candidate without being obnoxious. Not easy to do but she does it.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I'll take you at your word, though, and remove her from the list.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)She and Chris were a bit dismissive of his chances at first, but it's not like they hated him for running against Hillary. I think they've either had him on in the past, or know him through Thom Hartmann and his Brunch With Bernie.
I haven't listened to Thom lately, has Brunch with Bernie been suspended until after the primaries? I always liked that Bernie set aside time to talk with regular Americans.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I do love that segment. Sanders' willingness to answer questions from the average citizen makes me genuinely respect him. So few are willing to open themselves up to the public like that.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=brunch+with+bernie&search_sort=video_date_uploaded
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)support for Hillary and so much enthusiastic support for Bernie.
Hillary is just not likable. In the end, the fact that Bernie is respected and loved by so many actual voters will put the lie to these polls.
It's quite phenomenal. I have done a lot of grass-roots campaigning and the only thing close was the enthusiasm for Obama in 2008 and that was not nearly as strong as the enthusiasm for Bernie this time around.
People are very angry about the economy, especially young people are angry about how they are going to pay for college. Bernie is speaking to the real concerns of Democrats.
Hillary cannot. Her solutions are half-measures and people don't like her nayway. They tell me htat.
Hillary stands for corruption -- what with all her corporate money.
Bernie stands for working people -- with his support from the nurses (and who works harder?) and from average wage-earners.
That's what I am learning from being out there on the street.
Bernie is almost too easy a sale. And his speech yesterday, once it filters through to voters, is going to help him enormously.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...and if I post something about polling that you don't believe, it shouldn't bothet you at all. Just sit back and wait for us to be surprised.
FWIW - my experience, and that of the Clinton staff that I know is different. I'll note that there have been many times I've questioned supprt for a candidate on the grounds that their campaign is hopeless, only to be told that I don't know what's going on "on the ground". Invariably I'm correct, because I don't let emotion cloud my judgement.
to what end?
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)So nice and predictable 😊
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)Don't fuck this up! #gotv
Robbins
(5,066 posts)but let's address it.the polling ended sunday so this means bernie got bumb from debate.
overall-bernie is up to 33% with clinton at 49%.in a 2 person race it's never been closer.when biden was looking like he was going to get in,in september/october it did look closer but bernie is the highest ever with 33% of dems nationwide choosing him with clinton for first time under 50% in 2 person race.
since they have bernie ahead 55 to 33 among 18-29 year olds i can take this seriously
clinton leads the other age groups but bernie has seen small upticks
Clinton now leads with men only 45 to 39.bernie has been picking up with men
among woman she leads 53 to 29 but this is best bernie has done with woman here.to be fair this is her highest number with women
among whites it's basicly a dead heat Clinton-44% Bernie-41% bernie's support among whites has been going up while her's decline.
among blacks yeah she has big lead but there has been improvement for bernie.he's at 16% nationwide while yeah she is at 66% with blacks.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)
.
Doesn't look like the gap is closing.
Add to which, Sanders is reaching the point where he won't gain much more if he can't start peeling away voters who are already in Clinton's camp.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)She's above 50% and rising.
In 2008 she was BELOW 50% and not rising
Add to which Sanders doesn't have a third candidate with a significant share of the vote to draw from when they drop out.
Response to brooklynite (Reply #16)
tex-wyo-dem This message was self-deleted by its author.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)As has also been pointed out, unless Sanders is going to pull votes from Clinton, even a non-linear graph won't get him about 50%.
Or are we back to an "anything can happen" argument?
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Bernie said early he wasn't interested in polls so much. Pollsters want more money, so they'll keep showing favorable results to those who're buying. Add to that PACs paying specifically for favorable results and it becomes quite clear that pollsters such as the PPP (for example) have been co-opted.
Ultimately, polls are just a form of propaganda anyway, regardless of who they claim is winning. Come super Tuesday, we'll all know who we need to put our support behind; Clinton or Sanders.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)The PPP poll released after the last debate pretty much proves your assertion.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)That Sanders is no Obama is really worn out.
True, Sanders does not have the resources that Obama had in 2008...he has a completely different set of resources. His campaign is almost entirely built on grassroots. I also have been following and participating in campaigns for years and have never seen one like Sanders'. Almost completely driven from the bottom up. That being said, Sanders is working against a lot of opposing forces: establishment Dems, the DNC, mass media, Citizens United, wealthy interests, etc, etc
Polls this early have little meaning, but considering Sanders was a virtually unknown four months ago, and is still unknown by many voters, his support at this time is stunning. Many who haven't been following the primary race (a considerable %) when asked "who do you support"? will choose the known commodity. Sanders and O'Malley are relative unknowns, Clinton is a household name. I think a considerable % of Clinton's support is soft and vulnerable, and it's up to Sanders and the grassroots to convince that soft support that Sanders is the better choice.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)I finally have the opportunity to vote for someone who shares my values and I don't have to hold my nose while casting it.
If Clinton wins the nomination, so be it, I'll vote for her in the general election while holding my nose because she is still head and shoulders above any of the republicans.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)general election, too, but if Clinton is our nominee, she will nevertheless be a far better choice than her opponent no matter which xenophobic idiot they choose.
I hope Sanders wins, but if he doesn't, I'm still pleased with how his candidacy has shaped the debate and how his candidacy has demonstrated that there is a thirst within the Democratic party for a candidate who is more progressive than the status quo establishment wing moderates.
Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #20)
Post removed
navarth
(5,927 posts)It is sometimes interesting to watch the dueling polls food fight but it all comes down to one thing for me: I trust Bernie because he is True Blue. Hillary is not even my second choice.
I have not yet found a clothes pin big enough to hold my nose if I have to vote for her as the lesser of two corporate evils; but if I have to find one I will. Meh.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)'I have not yet found a clothes pin big enough to hold my nose if I have to vote for her as the lesser of two corporate evils; but if I have to find one I will. Meh.'
I could NOT have said it better.
okasha
(11,573 posts)It sounds like an advertising slogan: "Coke is the real thing." "Orange Crush is the taste of peace. " (I have NEVER figured that one out.)
navarth
(5,927 posts)trustworthy, honest, someone that has your back.
I never heard the Orange Crush thing. Is that recent? It always tasted like orange pop to me.
I think it might be made in Denver, because I remember at one time the Broncos called their defensive unit the orange crush.
Oh well. Hope that helps.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The Orange Crush ad goes way, way back. But it's a good example of how promoters seize on a popular desire with emotional appeal and pitch their product accordingly
I consider "Bernie is the Real Deal" and related slogans to be exactly the same thing.
I remember Orange Crush from way back. It's ok for orange pop, but I'm not into pop anymore so....
Yeah "Bernie is the Real Deal" or "Ready For Hillary" they're all campaign slogans, it's just part of politics. I go by the candidate's history and quality more than clever sets of words. I guess they must be effective? Because they get used.
I try and ignore that part of it.
Take care
okasha
(11,573 posts)touts a man who is, after all, a pretty average polirician, while the other says more about another candidate's supporters than about the candidate. The Man on a White Horse is a harder sell than it used to be, though. It hasn't't really worked since JFK.
navarth
(5,927 posts)You might want to fix the spelling of politician there. Yeah it wasn't easy to sort out what you meant there, but I'm sure it was worthwhile. Slogans are slogans, right? I haven't really seen references to men or women on white horses, but I'm at work and I'm probably too distracted to get your meaning, sorry. My best to you.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)There hasn't been a strong Progressive candidate since RFK ... Teddy would have been wonderful, but he never countered the Chappaquidick debacle ...
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Tarc
(10,601 posts)Sanders' support has leveled off.
Simple math, folks.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)Tarc
(10,601 posts)Sanders has hit his ceiling. If polls show him cracking 45%, then we'll talk.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)I consider that to be 'statistically significant' ...
If Bernie continues to gain support at this rate, he will be in the 65% range in less than six months ...
Yeah ... You're right ... It's not significant ...
Hillary is safe ... Don't worry ... She's got this in the bag, right? ... Uh huh ...
Tarc
(10,601 posts)do you know what the "margin of error" actually means? If it is at 3.1% (as stated in the source), then any % change 3% or under is not statistically significant.
Tarc
(10,601 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)Your superior intellect can revel in my ignorance ...
Please celebrate Hillary's guaranteed future as President of the United States of America ...
I'll sit here, and count grains of sand, passing slowly through the hour glass ... Grain by grain ...
Nitram
(27,712 posts)Is an appeal to the mathematics of polling an unfair tactic?
Powers Hapgood
(57 posts)Bernie is likely to get through the primaries as the all time top vote getting socialist in U.S. history . . . topping Debs . . . proving that there's life in the old ideas. Regardless of whether he wins the Democratic nomination, he's profoundly changed American politics. The trick will be to get more democratic socialists elected to office across the country, and build the movement to become a dominant force in the United States.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Powers Hapgood
(57 posts)fbc
(1,668 posts)Nitram
(27,712 posts)Bernistas believe in polls when Bernie's numbers go up, don't believe ion them when they go down.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)depending how mmany indepednets they polled and how many under 45 they polled.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)
--imm
coyote
(1,561 posts)All the polls say Hillary won the debate with 90% and that the polls have her leading by 50%, yet her numbers are dropping and Bernie's are rising.
Where are the Clinton poll lovers when you need them?
Nitram
(27,712 posts)Let's see: Clinton is still ahead and Bernie's "jump" is statistically insignificant given the polls margin of error of 3.1%.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Powers Hapgood
(57 posts)Take it from my college mentor who used to say: "Never believe anything until it's been officially denied." (Not sure how that works in this case, but thought it worth noting ).
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Looks like a good hold on Vermont..."but it's still early, and we still have time"! 
Key:
Green - Hillary Clinton ahead, 31 states + 5 shared
Blue - Bernie Sanders ahead, 1 state + 5 shared
Grey - No polling data in last six months, 14 states & D.C
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
DCBob
(24,689 posts)A bit misleading as many of these states have had few polls and are mostly stale.
karynnj
(60,961 posts)Obviously, their percents are negatively correlated. If there are other polls - all showing the same small changes in the same directions, it would be more believable. What it might counter is that the debate had much impact.
It will be more interesting to see whether Clinton's more aggressive ISIS position will have an impact -- or whether her hawkishness is already baked in OR that the Democrats, who we know are far more hawkish than DU, agree with her. This may especially be true as the alternative is NOT Obama's administration's position but O'Malley, who few have listened to yet, and Bernie.
Given the fact that DU is not in the inflamed mode of say September 2014 when Obama spoke of a limited targeted strike on Syria -- it might be that the political fight is one of "teams" and personalities -- as much as issues. If I saw more concern on DU, I might speculate that that speech would cause some to rethink HRC and look more closely at O'Malley and Sanders. I suspect though US politics is not that issue driven -- especially when people know that the circumstances will be different in January 2017 than now --- and we have no idea in what way.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)the first half of the year (until Sanders polling began to rise).
Then from the mid-summer to late September/early October, Clinton's polling consistently fell from the upper 60s to the mid-40s while Sanders' polling rose from zero to the mid-20s.
Since the beginning of October (which included a narrowing of the field), both Clinton and Sanders have each gained about 10% support.
These trends are more than noise, but they are national polling trends and so it is of limited relevance because there is not national primary day; instead, there is an Iowa caucus followed by a New Hampshire primary, and the results in all subsequent states have historically been affected by the results in Iowa and New Hampshire.
The more interesting trends to watch are in Iowa and New Hampshire:
The polls will most assuredly shift between now and the first votes, and this is a snapshot and not a prediction, but these trends are the most significant to watch.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Not sure that was your intention.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Sorry but its just not likely at all. Bernie simply is not anything like the Obama sensation of 2007. Hard to believe that's not obvious.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)No doubt in my mind about that.
I worry that history is repeating itself and Clinton will collapse like she did in 2007-2008 but I fear that she will do so after she wins the nomination.
I think Sanders is a better candidate with a better plan to bring about a better American nation.
But if Sanders loses the nomination to Clinton, I certainly hope Clinton wins the general election.
I'm not banking on Clinton's collapse; I'm hoping Clinton's current campaign gets vetted to ensure either that we nominate Sanders or that we inoculate Clinton so she does not suffer a post-nomination collapse.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Who knows how she would have done. Regardless, this time around things are clearly different. She is a much stronger experienced candidate now. Many of those supporting Obama back then are now Hillary supporters.. me included.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)Obama.
I worry about history repeating itself in terms of Clinton's complete and total collapse but my special worry is her collapsing after winning the nomination.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)She didnt have a complete and total collapse. She nearly won despite Obama the great. The caucus states beat her.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)tell yourself when you are alone in bed at night if it helps you sleep better.
Hillary Clinton "nearly won" in the same way that Howard Dean "nearly won."
Plus, in 2007, Hillary Clinton had high favorable polling numbers and low unfavorable polling numbers. This year -- no so much.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Look it up.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)voters, Jimmy Carter would have won a second term.
But for the Republican leaning states, John Kerry would have won.
But for ... really?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)It was more a campaign mistake than a candidate problem.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)you'd hear him repeat at every campaign stop that he nearly beat Romney for the nomination last time.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)I will leave you alone to recuperate. Ciao.
Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #117)
DCBob This message was self-deleted by its author.
Too Old For B.S.
(10 posts)It has me scratching my head that MY generation--the generation of protest, hippies, and anti-war expression--is favoring the Clintonista. WTF?!
fbc
(1,668 posts)Too Old For B.S.
(10 posts)Yeah, maybe, but I'VE gotten more radical! Watching all the dysfunction over the years has gotten me even deeper into my distrust/dislike of the status quo of the wealthy and government.
Nitram
(27,712 posts)And we haven't fallen for 25 years of Republican smears of Clinton. Of course we are now having to put up with smears from Bernistas - the last one I read on DU called her a "corporate whore."
immoderate
(20,885 posts)
--imm
Nitram
(27,712 posts)A rather immoderate statement , to say the least.
And what about Lyndon LaRouche? 
(oh, right, feasible)
immoderate
(20,885 posts)I should have said 'president' but that would have excluded Bernie. I was going for concision. I have the notion that most of those you cite did not go out of their way to denounce the Laffer Curve, and such. Jerry Brown might qualify. I'll plead the feasibility cop-out.
My main complaint here is that all the presidents, and most of the candidates showed a tolerance for supply side policies, that would be unsustainable. So call me hyperbolic. 
--imm
Too Old For B.S.
(10 posts)a "corporate whore."
....if the shoe fits....
Nitram
(27,712 posts)Please list, in chronological order, the occasions on which Hilary Clinton supported legislation as a political favor to a donor.
fbc
(1,668 posts)[img]
[/img]
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Also shows amazing consistency for Hillary at around 50%
fbc
(1,668 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Cant lose if that is maintained.
fbc
(1,668 posts)I guess that is the question.
Bernie's path to victory isn't polling higher than Clinton when the primaries start. It's being close enough that those first couple primary victories reveal him to be an electable candidate to the majority of democrats who aren't really paying attention yet.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)If she wins Iowa then NH which is close now will likely also go Hillary with a Iowa win boost. SC will be a blowout win for Hillary and Nevada looks good for Hillary as well.
Where does Bernie get any victory momentum??
Nitram
(27,712 posts)...and still not catch up.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)And then all of these polls will turn into votes at the polling booth.
Go Bernie!!!
Nitram
(27,712 posts)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)the months before the first caucus.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)
