Poll: Clinton still up big in South Carolina

[ProgressiveEconomist]

Source: Politico.com

From “Poll: Clinton still up big in South Carolina” By ELIZA COLLINS 02/18/16 05:02 PM EST

“Clinton has the support of 59 percent of the state’s African-American Democrats, while Sanders has one-third of that (20 percent).

Sanders is ahead of Clinton 45 to 42 percent with whites and holds a much wider margin for whites under 45 — 67 percent to her 22 percent.”

See http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-south-carolina-poll-219452


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-south-carolina-poll-219452

---

IMO, part of this SBS advantage with SC whites may come from strategic thinking by white Republicans who do not want to “waste” their votes, even if they favor The Donald over the others still riding in the Clown Car.

Some whites who supported candidates who have dropped out – Huckabuck, Krispy Kreme, Carly – may be dissatisfied with remaining alternatives. So, to increase the odds of a Republican victory in November, they may support SBS temporarily and strategically to make a Democratic victory less likely in the GE.

Others who support the R frontrunner may assess that he’s so far out in front of the others he’ll win even without their votes. So again, strategically and temporarily, they’ll vote for SBS to soften Democrats up for the GE in November.

Here’s a photo that may explain why SBS went on Fox News Sunday last weekend:
“”

[ProgressiveEconomist]

4. Do you have a better explanation why SBS went on Fox News Sunday last weekend?

I'm waiting, now that you've made things personal with an alertable ad hominem attack.

[Ned_Devine]

15. I didn't see the interview but did he say anything that was unbecoming?

As much as I loathe Fox, the candidates need to make the rounds and his media time is dwarfed by that of Trump and Clinton. Beggars can't be choosers, you know. I haven't spoken with his campaign manager as to why he went on Fox News Sunday, but he probably knows. And again, thanks for comparing Bernie voters to republicans. You're definitely not my type of person.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

19. See this GDP thead from last weekend with DUers possible explanations

of SBS's FN attacks on HRC as "bought". I believe someone posted a video link, IIRC.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511229961

[Ned_Devine]

21. Actually, instead of reading that link, I'm going to phone bank for him today...

...and then my girlfriend and I are going canvassing for him tomorrow. If you don't think Hillary is bought, that's your thing. I think that anyone who accepts as much money as she and Bill have from the financial institutions for their "speeches" does not have random average Americans like myself and many others' interests as a top priority.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

25. Are you saying that she has "New York Values"?

She did, after all, represent New York in the Senate, where the financial sector is one of the largest employers of everyday people.

Why are wall Street scandals any different from scandalous farm subsidies that many of SBS's VT constitutents get. Those subsidies compete DIRACTLY with funding for SNAP (food stamps). If you will recall, the first version of this fiscal year's farm bill ZEROED OUT SNAP entirely, to allow funding to "grow" for corporate farm welfare. See the recent GDP thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511187218 , which tried to investigate SBS's positions over the years on the VT euivalent of Wall Street corruption. It's well worth reading, if only for the many awful puns about cows.

[Ned_Devine]

31. Back off and don't put words in my mouth

I don't like the Clintons. I think they're sleazy opportunists who will stop at nothing to attain power. You're barking up the wrong tree with me and I don't care for your tone or your spelling. It's "dirEctly" for future reference. Let's end it here.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

32. You think I don't know how to spell "directly"?

I just don't think it's worth my time to nitpick about trivial spelling errors. I try to address more substantive matters, using logic and policy research.

I think SBS is a supremely cynical sleazy pol who gets a free pass even from the media because, like George McGovern in 1972, he comes from nowhere and never has been held accountable for anything (except being Mayor of Cabbageville in the 80s). See the GD thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511222636 .

[Ned_Devine]

33. Your words "subsidies compete DIRACTLY with funding"

Yes, I think you don't know how to spell it, or at least you didn't until I spelled it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. He would go on Faux to bash Obama and has done so many times. Any other time, Faux News

wouldn't give Sanders a pot to piss in. But if wants to bash Obama or HRC, they let him on.

They know that Bernie Sanders probably cannot beat the Republican nominee; that's why they're rooting for him.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

64. Agreed. THANK YOU

for, unlike most DU posters, using your head for more than a hatrack.

I did not realize this when I wrote the OP, but SC is only the first of 16 open Democratic primaries, mostly in the South. See my post number 59 below for a list and a link to its source. As I point out in the OP, white Rs who are dissatisfied with the Clown Car and have no primary preference--except to support the eventual Clown nominee-- can cross over to vote for Senator BS in ANY of those 16 open primary States. So can white Rs who see the racist xenophobe R front runner so far ahead they don't want to "waste" their primary vote, but rather strategically and temporary elevate the weakest Democrat to the Super Bowl of politics, the Presidential GE in the fall.

Senator BS, unlike HRC, has not yet withstood years and hundreds of millions of dollars of bad PR from the right-wing noise machine, Congress (Benghazi Committee), and R-appointed judges ( multiple strategic email release orders).

IMO Senator BS is likely to go on Faux Noise many more times over the next few weeks. The FN demographic is less than 1 percent African-Am and predominantly white R. That's a demographic that can cross over to D primaries and boost the VT backbencher's vote substantially.

But IMO going on Faux Noise to bash another Democrat, to court white racist votes, is like surreptitiously deflating conference playoff footballs to try to cheat your way into the Super Bowl.

[book_worm]

7. Ned, if I were you I'd remove the last word from your reply

Otherwise it could be alerted on.

[Ned_Devine]

12. To hell with it. Not worth my time even responding

[ProgressiveEconomist]

17. That's what I thought. You've got no logical rejoinder

[6chars]

2. is that Peter Brady on the right?

[stillwaiting]

3. Weren't those kids punking Jeb?

I think they really DO support Sanders. I think they opened their jacket and took off their jacket at the last minute after Jeb agreed to be in the picture.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's true that Bernie gets quite a few self-identified Republicans to vote for him. The BIGGEST liberal in the Senate does this. Interesting ain't it?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

5. Nice attempt at reverse spin! But EPIC FAIL.

Occam's razor and all that.

[JonLeibowitz]

13. You are very mistaken.

[stillwaiting]

41. I'm not ATTEMPTING to spin anything. I remember when that picture first came out.

I could be wrong, but when I first saw it I was told the kids were punking Bush.

Look at their faces. They are laughing their ass off.

[stillwaiting]

44. Found some info.

http://reverbpress.com/politics/wonkery/republicans-for-sanders-photo-jeb-bush/

It appears that they ARE for Sanders genuinely, and this was NOT a prank (despite what was being said around the internet).

The truth is always good to know!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

63. THANKS MUCH! Your link

verifies the provenance of the photo URL I got from a post on another blog site. There are just too many details about the context for the picture for it to have been a "plant".

[DisgustipatedinCA]

62. No, actually the other poster is 100% correct, Dr. Capehart.

[Helen Borg]

8. I think you are right, actually.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

10. THANK YOU for using logic rather than slogans and undifferentiated hostility

[davidthegnome]

6. Hmm.

Ahem - actually, I want Sanders as the democratic nominee, just me, and millions of others at home and abroad. Yes, democrats who have been voting democratic since we were old enough to vote....

If I were to find a picture showing various CEOs of giant companies, you know, super delegates, for profit prison industry leaders, financial institution leaders..., monsanto and Walmart people... do you think you might be offended? Seems to me, those are the people who really want Clinton as the Democratic nominee - as they have the most to gain through her success.

Just a thought.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

9. Another EPIC FAIL. What's the "Billionaire Class" equivalent

of Faux Noise? I'm waiting.

[davidthegnome]

22. Oooh.

It's so much more powerful when you do it in ALL CAPS. OMG, EPIC FAIL, OMG, I AM SLAIN.

Give me a break, your OP was ridiculous - and you know it.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

23. Please exlpain why an objective person might find my OP "ridiculous"

I'm waiting.

[davidthegnome]

38. Seriously? Okay.

Have you seen the recent polling data that indicates a Sanders victory by several points over any of the leading republican candidates? Even an "objective" person looking at that might consider that Sanders is a more capable opponent than you seem to think. Such polls are a bit immature and uncertain - I'll give you that, but evidence suggests that Bernie is a genuine threat to the right, not just with his candidacy, but with his policies (which are very popular among the masses).

Not just that though - Sanders is, as I'm sure you're aware - a democratic socialist. You think think the right wing wants him anywhere near the white house? Hell, he even makes plenty of democrats nervous. No, I don't think they (republicans) do want to run against him, I think they want Clinton to win by a landslide because they are more confident of defeating her. That, of course, is a matter of perspective... however...

Your little image - and it's caption, makes a pretty blunt, pretty ignorant comment about who wants Sanders to win the nomination. Unless you think every Sanders supporter here is a republican in disguise? Because, you know, we really want him to win the nomination. It's not just a smear directed at Sanders, it's one directed against every supporter he has.

If you still don't understand why your OP was ridiculous... keep waiting, I don't think you ever will.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

46. "You think think the right wing wants him anywhere near the white house?" Of course

not. Nut I do think they want to spend a billion or two in PAC money smearing Bernie, who's a virgin to the VRWC, rather than HRC, who's shown time after time she can handle anything they throw at her.

On the utter uselessness of GE preference polls 10 months before an election, see post number 16 above.

I'm pretty sure the one who doesn't seem to understand is not me!

[davidthegnome]

49. I notice you don't bother to respond...

to my point regarding Sanders supporters. No, if you think his supporters are right wing, it is very clearly you that does not understand. If you don't think so, then your OP was indeed ridiculous. That being said, I encourage you to keep going, smear him - and his supporters, all you want, it's just going to energize us more to get out the vote.

[trillion]

18. And since all have been in her super pacs now except Monsanto I must go google. Betcha I find

Last edited Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:50 PM - Edit history (2)

her linked to Monsanto too. I'll just have a look. I'm at work so it may take several mins to get a chance and get back.

[trillion]

42. Knew it!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judy-frankel/hillary-vs-bernie-on-fran_b_7638846.html

" How is Hillary personally involved in supporting big agriculture? The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), which gathers leaders to solve the world's problems, promotes Monsanto, the maker of RoundUp® and RoundUp Ready® seeds. Hugh Grant, Monsanto's Chairman and CEO spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative conference in September, 2014. Ms. Clinton's top campaign advisor, Jerry Crawford, was a lobbyist for Monsanto for years and is now the political pro for her Super PAC, "Ready for Hillary." Clinton spoke in favor of the government's Feed the Future (FtF) program, a USAID funded, corporate-partnered program that brings RoundUp Ready® technology to the most vulnerable populations of the world. Monsanto and Dow Chemical support Hillary and Bill's 'Clinton Foundation' with generous donations."

[RoccoR5955]

11. Yes, I want RepubliCONs to vote for Bernie!

I want EVERYONE to vote for Bernie, because he is the BEST candidate for WE THE PEOPLE, not them, the corporations.

And while you are talking about polls, the latest polls show us that if the election were held today, Bernie, Not Dr. Secretary Mrs. Clinton would beat ANY RepubliCON candidate. (see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280121036 for details)
I even know MANY RepubliCONs who would vote for Bernie before they would vote for Hillary or any of the other RepubliCON clowns!
What these CONservatives and RepubliCONs are telling me is that though they may not agree with many of Bernie's ideas, they do know that he has been honest, and has fought for what he believes in for his entire career. This is something that cannot be said of ANY other candidate, not even Clinton, who started out in politics as a RepubliCLOWN, in support of Barry Goldwater. This honesty and consistancy, they tell me, is something that is necessary in this country today, more than agreement with a candidate's ideas.

What many Clinton supporters do not realize is that we are not voting for the best person in our Party, but we are voting for the best person who can WIN the presidential race. There are so many CONservatives, and independent voters who cannot stand Clinton. We all have to keep this in mind when we nominate a candidate for president.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

16. Do you think GE preference polls 10 months before a GE

are worth anything? You can't be that naive, can you?

A BILLION DOLLARS or two will be spent by Republican PACs to attack the Democratic Nominee after the convention in Philadelphia. HRC has shown she can take it. SBS is untested, and we know how the Rs will use clips he's given them already:

"We're going to raise taxes, yes we will".

What galls me about SBS is that he prioritizes absurdly extravagant pie-in-the-sky proposals that seem to me cynical attempts to buy the votes of Democratic constituencies with money he'd never get, rather than listen to the much more sensible priorities of people like Al Sharpton, Bill Richardson, John Lewis, Paul Krugman, economist Claudia Goldin of Harvard, etc., etc.

[RoccoR5955]

24. Because I have been speaking to folks for at least that long

Yes, I do.
I know the cross section of folks who I know.

I do not believe that Bernie's proposals are unrealistic, they are what people want and many of us have been working towards for a lifetime.
I also trust him more than Dr. Mrs. Secretary Clinton, who uses the words I and me an awful lot for my taste, whereas Bernie uses the words us, and we. This tells me a lot about a person's character.

Meanwhile, people like Cornel West, Noam Chomsky, and Harry Belefonte are ones who Bernie are listening to. You want an economist, how about Richard Wolff?

I knew Al Sharpton when he was a kid, and STILL do not trust him!

If all you hear is that we are going to raise taxes, and not the part where we are going to save EVERYONE money, and most of those taxes will be waged on those who can most afford it, you are not listening. WE THE PEOPLE will get out the TRUTH, and show these people where they have been lied to all along.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

27. Money talks, Senator BS walks

[RoccoR5955]

54. WE THE PEOPLE VOTE

Certain ex-Secretaries of State lie a lot.

[JackRiddler]

58. Jury Results on Alert

Money talks, Senator BS walks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1353429

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Disruptive and rude

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Feb 19, 2016, 05:38 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh!
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is not actionable speech, although it is an all-too-typically ugly contribution from this particular poster, who works hard to sell himself as an unpleasant, pedantic know-it-all, even though his expert insights are totally conventional middle-of-the road yawners. Just talking about the projected image and usual performance of the poster, here, nothing personal. The screenname is already an attempted programmatic statement and sorely belied by the quality of the posts, of which this one, again, is typical. So here he is happy that "money talks," that's the proper order of the universe, hooray for the status quo. Etc. etc. Anyway, "leave it" is the strictly proper judgement, although if this person could stop being so pungent it would be nice.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: PUMA alert.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[ananda]

14. The South appears to be a problem for Sanders.

I can think of several reasons why, and yet even then I don't know why
in the sense that Sanders is by far the best candidate for everyone,
including Black people.

[trillion]

20. Sadly, it means the defunding of education has caused people not to vet.

I would find it hard to believe any blacks would vote for Clinton if they saw who's funding her.
She only dumped the biggest for profit prison lobbyists because she had to after being exposed for having them in her super pac on Oct 27, 2015 - less than 4 months ago. But she spoon fed the blacks that she's going to stop the mass incarceration machine right after she was forced to stop taking money from them and she supposedly gave that money to charity. Like she missed she had the GEO group at the top of her super pac all year before the Huffington Post pointed it out. Now she keeps running to Flint Michigan and feigning concern to try to get the black vote. I haven't had time (working) but expect to find the corporate links linking Hillary to the Flint water contamination crisis - why, because she can be linked to accepting dirty money from every other corp I check on her with. Gotta get back to who polluted flints water in the first place. Bet me, Hillary isn't accepting money from them!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

36. Are you suggesting that the expressed preferences of PoC do not

reflect their own best interests? And that you and Senator BS know better than they do what's "really" good for them? See UTx Journo Prof Robert Jensen's great classic essay on "White Privilege" at https://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/whiteprivilege.htm

[trillion]

39. I'm suggesting a lot of people didn't vet.

Instead of trying to drum up racism why don't you attempt to answer the things I mentioned in my post?

I will bet that many of the blacks interviewed on DemocracyNow.org's daily show who said that Hillary mentioning ending mass incarceration was what really resonated with them, do not know that she was accepting money from the biggest mass incarceration lobbyist groups who formed the GEO group super pac.

FYI, many people vote against their best interest. Mentioning the blacks doing it does not make someone a racist.

I find your attempts to make it look like white privilege to be dishonest. I'm guessing you are on some bent to create racism wherever you can. It's not serving you. I post substance and facts and you post what look like zero substance attacks on racism where it doesn't exist.

PS. Welcome to my ignore.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

56. Methinks thou dost protest too much

Did you even click on the link to Texas? Or did you fear it just might rock your smug little condescending world as it relates (or not) to POC?

It just might. Why don't you click on the link and see? Go ahead, click, or are you BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

29. SBS is "the Great White Father"?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. Because folks in the south are more conservative.

Clinton is going to do well in red states where blue dogs and Republicans get elected, because they're more in line with her ideologically. It shouldn't surprise anyone.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

26. I am not concerned about the red states

Who can win the swing states?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

28. Swing states are a GE matter. The OP talks about the

moral equivalent of secretly deflating footballs in the conference final in order to cheat your way into the Super Bowl.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

30. The swing states will win the gerenral election

the other stuff does not concern those that want to win

[Kittycat]

34. I'm more interested in how Sanders does in Battleground

Battleground & Toss-up states. This is where the presidency will be decided in 2016, not SC. We know our red states and blue states. We know he's going to pull more independents than she will and that he's more liked. If he can hold the line in battleground areas with the party, that says it all.

[nyabingi]

35. It is interesting that there are even some Republicans

who are willing to consider voting for Bernie. This is something that the Clinton sold the soul of the Democratic Party in order to do and have failed miserably. Republicans hate the Clinton's as much as many progressive Democrats do.

This is why Hillary stands no chance of winning the general election. Republicans will be inspired to vote in large numbers because they hate her, and many Democrats and independents will simply stay home and not so as not to cast a vote for her.

This goes to show that the rightward shift ushered in by the Clinton's was stupid and short-sighted.

[redruddyred]

40. i agree

i am so sick of hearing about clinton's so-called "electability"

she's not. half the people voting for her prefer bernie, but think she'll win the GE. the independents won't vote for her. i go to rallies and i canvass, i know.

the right is choosing trump: the left needs another, better populist message to combat his. enough with this "electability".

[tabasco]

45. Yeah, it takes a lot of courage to make a post on an Internet board

LMAO.

[geek tragedy]

47. she was up big in Iowa, and Nevada too nt

[Odin2005]

48. Your BS accusations are disgusting.

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Fri Feb 19, 2016, 03:36 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Poll: Clinton still up big in South Carolina
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141353324

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

OP is accusing Sanders supporters of being GOP operatives.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Feb 19, 2016, 03:47 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I would have voted to leave it, except for that picture caption. That picture was obviously Sanders supporters trolling Bush, not Bush supporters trolling Sanders. That the OP can't tell the difference is disturbing and over-the-top.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm not seeing the problem. I'm sure there are Republicans who "support" Sanders. Listen to NPR sometimes.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Reading comprehension is not your strong suit
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh noes! Someone is not worshiping Sanders properly. Alert, alert, alert!
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter, here's a clue: On DU many Sanders supporters are actually Republican disruptors.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[still_one]

51. While I have no problem with the OP, I really don't think this is LBN

[ProgressiveEconomist]

57. Check the timestamp on thr

Politico article (after 5pm Thursday) against the time I posted the OP (218pm Friday). Does that differential of fewer than 24 hours meet the standard set by DU rules?

I think so, and there are 17 hours left for recs to move this thread up the Greatest Page.

[plus5mace]

53. This is insane ramblings.

Both Republican Primaries had record turnouts, and so will South Carolina. There are plenty of options - if you are a religious nut you can back Cruz, business dudes can back Rubio/Bush(ha), and racists/populists can vote for Trump.

I do find it interesting you're already making excuses for why Clinton may not do so well in South Carolina, given the polling. If you really believe these polls, why the concern?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

59. SC is only the first of 16 open

Last edited Sat Feb 20, 2016, 12:28 AM - Edit history (3)

primaries to come, primarily throughout the South, but also in several red states in the Midwest.

See the first table up from the bottom of the page at

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

In order of their scheduled dates, open Democratic primaries will be held in SC AL AR GA TN TX VT VA MI MS IL WI IN PR MT and ND. In addition, there will be open caucuses in MN ID and WA.

In all of these open primaried and caucuses, for reasons elaborated in the OP, white Republicans CAN, strategically and temporarily, vote for Senator BS, to tilt the GE toward a Republican victory over an unvetted "protest candidate."

IMO, this is the apparent reason Senator BS savaged HRC on Faux Noise Sunday last weekend. To paraphrase a character in a movie about an itinerant penniless
baseball team touring the South during the Depression. the question Senator BS seems to be asking is, "What is it that the South NEVER will run out of?"

Hint: in the film, the fronts of team jerseys spelled out "TBLTASAMK", and the "B" character was played by Billy Dee Williams.

[dchill]

60. Mmm hmm...

How's she doing in Nevada? SC is a week away...

[ProgressiveEconomist]

61. NV is a caucus not a primary.

As in NH Registered Rs must vote in the R caucus and registered Day must vote in the D caucus. See

http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-polling-nevada-why-states-caucuses-are-tough-predict-amid-democrats-2313069

What makes today unusual and SC relevant today is that the R SC primary takes place tonight while the D SC primary is exactly a week away. Senator BS's appearance on FNS last weekend had to be aimed at white racist Rs there tonight, rather than on the 27th.

[tabasco]

65. Wrong.

2016 Nevada State Democratic Party Precinct Caucuses

Saturday February 20, 2016

11 a.m. PST


http://action.nvdems.com/page/content/caucus_faq/

[ProgressiveEconomist]

66. You are correct. It's SC where

the D and R contests are a week apart, with the SC R primary tonight. Thanks for the correction. I'm now going back to fix the error you caught, and also remove an errant for from the URL.