Sat Mar 26, 2016, 02:59 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
Polls, both recent and in the past several months, show that the majority of Americans prefer
Sanders over Clinton to be president. It is true that Clinton is ahead of Sanders in the Democratic
Presidential Primaries thus far, but I think this is because The DNC wants Clinton to win, and they have been showing unfair and sometimes rigged practices that have been favoring Clinton ever since Sanders declared his candidacy for the presidency in May, 2015, and the job of the DNC is to remain neutral. The latest national poll from the Hill (Thurs. A.M.) shows Sanders and Clinton to be tied: Sanders 49% - Clinton 48%. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/274161-sanders-clinton-tied-in-national-poll http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ And for months hypothetical elections between Sanders vs Republicans and Clinton vs Repubs., Sanders has never lost to any of them, and he has been beating Republicans by larger margins than Clinton did. Clinton has been losing to some Republicans. Sanders never lost to any of them. Looking at the above information objectively, it would seem that Sanders would stand a better chance of winning over the Republicans, because more of the American people favor Sanders as president. Only the DNC and the Clinton supporters favor Clinton. I am wondering if the DNC is blind to the above? Do they realize that even if Clinton should win the Democratic primaries, she stands a better chance of losing to the Republicans in the General Election, and Sanders has a better chance of winning? I realize polls are not all too accurate, but to some degree they do show in which direction things are leaning. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
|
53 replies, 3636 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | OP |
MattP | Mar 2016 | #1 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #7 | |
noretreatnosurrender | Mar 2016 | #2 | |
Lucinda | Mar 2016 | #13 | |
noretreatnosurrender | Mar 2016 | #21 | |
PatrickforO | Mar 2016 | #29 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #40 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #18 | |
BernieforPres2016 | Mar 2016 | #31 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #53 | |
Yavin4 | Mar 2016 | #3 | |
TDale313 | Mar 2016 | #5 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Mar 2016 | #6 | |
CajunBlazer | Mar 2016 | #16 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Mar 2016 | #19 | |
Post removed | Mar 2016 | #23 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Mar 2016 | #24 | |
CajunBlazer | Mar 2016 | #43 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Mar 2016 | #45 | |
CajunBlazer | Mar 2016 | #46 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Mar 2016 | #47 | |
CajunBlazer | Mar 2016 | #49 | |
Ed Suspicious | Mar 2016 | #51 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Mar 2016 | #52 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #20 | |
CajunBlazer | Mar 2016 | #50 | |
TDale313 | Mar 2016 | #4 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #12 | |
CajunBlazer | Mar 2016 | #15 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #25 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Mar 2016 | #37 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #41 | |
CajunBlazer | Mar 2016 | #44 | |
DanTex | Mar 2016 | #8 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #35 | |
mythology | Mar 2016 | #38 | |
CajunBlazer | Mar 2016 | #9 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Mar 2016 | #11 | |
Karma13612 | Mar 2016 | #17 | |
CajunBlazer | Mar 2016 | #22 | |
pdsimdars | Mar 2016 | #27 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #33 | |
mythology | Mar 2016 | #39 | |
CajunBlazer | Mar 2016 | #42 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #28 | |
Godhumor | Mar 2016 | #30 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Mar 2016 | #10 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #32 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Mar 2016 | #36 | |
Name removed | Mar 2016 | #14 | |
pdsimdars | Mar 2016 | #26 | |
CajunBlazer | Mar 2016 | #48 | |
Bill USA | Mar 2016 | #34 |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:07 PM
MattP (3,304 posts)
1. So the primary is rigged and only one poll counts
And every poll showing Hillary ahead doesnt count, ok
|
Response to MattP (Reply #1)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:18 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
7. I did mention that Clinton did beat some Republicans and lost to some others. Sure it
counts. Sanders didn't lose to any Republican, and he beat them by higher margins
than Clinton for the past several months. This shows that he has a better chance of winning against them. Isn't it logical to choose the one with the better chance of winning? |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:07 PM
noretreatnosurrender (1,890 posts)
2. DNC
fears Bernie much more than they do the Republicans. They get along just fine with the Republican establishment. They DO NOT want a liberal in the WH. It's very clear from everything that has happened.
|
Response to noretreatnosurrender (Reply #2)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:30 PM
Lucinda (30,926 posts)
13. No one is afraid of Bernie.
Not the GOP, and certainly not Hillary.
![]() |
Response to Lucinda (Reply #13)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:45 PM
noretreatnosurrender (1,890 posts)
21. You are entitled
to your opinion, I just happen to disagree.
![]() |
Response to Lucinda (Reply #13)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 04:04 PM
PatrickforO (14,005 posts)
29. Not true. Bernie is the only candidate in decades who has been directly
addressing issues Americans actually care about instead of the establishment pabulum we usually are fed. The establishment fears him because his policies will raise taxes on big corporations and billionaires and devote that revenue to programs that actually make Americans' lives better as opposed to merely funneling more money into the forever war we have going. Not to mention the war on drugs, privatized prisons and all the rest of the capitalist cancers that beset our society.
Bernie is talking economic justice, Lucinda, and that makes Wall Street and the MIC fearful. Correction: I should point out that it isn't just Bernie. By himself, Wall Street and the MIC would just laugh. But with millions of supporters ready to write, email, petition and march for better policies, you bet they're quaking in their expensive boots. The only thing the oligarchs have ever feared is...US. |
Response to Lucinda (Reply #13)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 06:28 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
40. You are right. Most people admire and love him.
Response to noretreatnosurrender (Reply #2)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:40 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
18. Yes, they seem to enjoy this " status quo" which the majority of Americans find appalling. We
already are in the gutter, and going down still further -- except for the 1%.
|
Response to noretreatnosurrender (Reply #2)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 04:11 PM
BernieforPres2016 (3,017 posts)
31. This^^^^^^
The DNC is entirely concerned with maintaining the corporatist status quo by putting Hillary Clinton in the Presidency. My guess is most of them would prefer John Kasich to Bernie, who would bust up their little club.
|
Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #31)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:55 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
53. Corporate Power people have been ruling over America the past 4 decades. The harm
their greed has done to this country is difficult to imagine. It's about time that they are
stopped. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who has repeatedly stated that if elected president, he would bring them down to size, and the majority of American voters agree with him. Go, Bernie, go !!! |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:08 PM
Yavin4 (34,255 posts)
3. Bernie Sanders has not been campaigned against yet
No hard ads. Nothing. Of course his numbers will look good in the polls.
|
Response to Yavin4 (Reply #3)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:15 PM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
6. Clinton gave up???
No hard ads. Nothing.
|
Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #6)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:36 PM
CajunBlazer (5,648 posts)
16. Are you still here?
No, it's simple - Hillary doesn't need to attack Bernie to win
|
Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #16)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:44 PM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
19. Why wouldn't I be here?
Are you still here?
|
Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #19)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #23)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:51 PM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
24. Well, I've been here for 15 years without being kicked off.
What makes you think I will now?
|
Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #24)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 10:11 PM
CajunBlazer (5,648 posts)
43. Then you have been quite about voting for Green Party candidates all of this time.
Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:09 AM - Edit history (1) Haven't you. Lying by omission is still lying.
|
Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #43)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:03 AM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
45. Nope. I voted for Green candidates in 2008 and 2012.
I may very well do so again.
My vote. Not yours. Not any party's. Not any candidate's. My vote. Some call it democracy. |
Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #45)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:10 AM
CajunBlazer (5,648 posts)
46. But you didn't advertize that fact here did you?
Otherwise you wouldn't be here now.
|
Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #46)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:12 AM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
47. Yes. I did.
And, I'm still here.
Why are you so anxious to get rid of dissenting voices? |
Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #47)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:18 AM
CajunBlazer (5,648 posts)
49. Well do it again after Hillary is named the nominee
and I'll make sure you are shown the door this time.
|
Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #49)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:24 AM
Ed Suspicious (8,879 posts)
51. Why don't you go away?
What the hell is wrong with you, badgering this person?
|
Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #49)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:24 AM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
52. You overdosed on your testeronios this morning.
We'll see.
|
Response to Yavin4 (Reply #3)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:44 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
20. Campaigning against Bernie would only give him more exposure to the public. This is something his
opponents wish to avoid at all costs. And it's his opponents' own doing. It's what they chose to do.
|
Response to Cal33 (Reply #20)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:18 AM
CajunBlazer (5,648 posts)
50. BS, and you know it.
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:12 PM
TDale313 (7,765 posts)
4. I don't know what they're thinking re: the general
Despite the evidence to the contrary, are they buying the "she's more electable" argument? Is it about protecting the status quo even if that means letting a Republican win? (Bad calculation if that Repug is Trump, btw) Is the hold of the Clinton machine over the party insiders so strong they wouldn't dare cross her no matter what? Is their dislike of outsider Sanders so strong that they wouldn't support him no matter what? A mixture of all of these?
One thing seems clear- the establishment is fucking pissed at him and us for crashing "their" party. We didn't get the memo that the 74 year old Democratic Socialist was *never* supposed to be a serious threat to their chosen one. They only let him run as a Dem to throw us on the left a bone. Boy did that backfire. |
Response to TDale313 (Reply #4)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:28 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
12. There is plenty to be dissatisfied about with the DNC. Quite a few Dem. members are leaving. The
same thing is happening with the Republicans. Yes, things are coming to a head. Changes are
going to come about. I can just feel it. It's only a question of time, I think. |
Response to TDale313 (Reply #4)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:34 PM
CajunBlazer (5,648 posts)
15. You know why Sander is doing well in head to head polls with Republican
One simple answer - no one, including Clinton, has attacked him where he is most vulnerable. Why hasn't Hillary really attacked Bernie as the Republicans obviously will in the general election, she doesn't need to. She feels she can beat him without getting nasty and avoid ticking off many of his supporters. That's a smart strategy.
It really too bad that Bernie's supporters will never get a chance to see Sanders crushed by the Republican hit machine. They have enough ammunition to take him down without even lying about him, but lie they will. You already complain about "red baiting" on DU - LOL!!! - that's nothing compared to the Koch brothers and their friends spending $100's of millions on their red baiting efforts on every TV channel in the country. Everyone who understands politics in this country knows that even Donald Trump will look like a good alternative after the Swift Boat team gets done with poor little Bernie. If you don't understand that you know very little about politics or you are lying to yourself. |
Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #15)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:52 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
25. Another possibility the Republicans are holding back on propaganda and lies against Sanders
is that they, too, wish to avoid giving him more exposure to the American public. It might
help him to win the Democratic Primaries. And they'd prefer to have Hillary as an opponent because they think she is easier to beat. |
Response to Cal33 (Reply #25)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 05:21 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)
37. The reason HRC can't attack SBS is because the attacks the GOP will use have little or no...
The reason HRC can't attack SBS is because the attacks the GOP will use have little or no resonance in a Democratic primary. The paradox of American politics is most folks like a lot of government benefits but don't want to pay for them or have somebody else pay for them. The GOP will tell the voters they are that "somebody else".
|
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #37)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 06:40 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
41. Yes, it's quite well-known by now that Corporate Welfare costs the American tax-payer far
more than welfare for the poor does. And corporations spend a lot of that ill-gotten gain
doing what? They use it to suppress the 99% who are doing all the work and helping to make the 0.01% still richer. |
Response to Cal33 (Reply #25)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 11:17 PM
CajunBlazer (5,648 posts)
44. You realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?
If they wanted to face Clinton instead of Sanders they would be attacking Sanders instead of Clinton.
They also would be trying to attack Clinton using Sanders' talking points: Strange Bedfellows - Republican Operatives Try to Help Bernie Sanders “Picking your opponent” is an age-old political manipulation tactic. Republican operatives are having a strange crush on Bernie Sanders. During Sunday night’s Democratic debate, the Republican National Committee made the unusual move of sending no fewer than four real-time e-mails to reporters defending the self-described democratic socialist from attacks by Hillary Clinton or echoing his message against her. Based on their content, one could be forgiven for thinking the RNC communiques came from the Sanders campaign. (snip) "Sean Spicer, the chief strategist and spokesman for the RNC, spent much of the evening tweeting Sanders-friendly commentary on the debate, often with the pro-Sanders hashtag #FeelTheBern. At one point, Spicer gently chided Sanders for what he deemed a poor response to a question and added, “come on we are trying to help u.” (snip) Meanwhile, American Crossroads, a group co-founded by Karl Rove, is airing an ad in Iowa bolstering a core tenet of Sanders’s case against Clinton: that she has received large sums of campaign contributions from Wall Street, and therefore can't be trusted to crack down on big banks. “Hillary rewarded Wall Street with a $700 billion bailout, then Wall Street made her a multi-millionaire,” a narrator in the ad says. “Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?” These Republican operatives are attempting to pick their Democratic opponent in the general election, and they’re making clear they’d rather face Sanders than Clinton. It is age-old political manipulation tactic, typically used with some subtlety. It comes as recent polls show Sanders as competitive in Iowa and leading in New Hampshire, where back-to-back Sanders victories could endanger Clinton's national lead. (snip) The efforts indicate that Republicans aren't buying recent polls that show Sanders out-performing Clinton in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups against GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump. One reason may be that, unlike Sanders, Clinton has been through the wringer of Republican attacks. While a spokesman for Sanders didn't immediately return a request for comment on the Republican attempts to boost him, the senator went out of his way in Sunday's debate to invoke recent surveys to make the case that he's electable. |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:20 PM
DanTex (20,709 posts)
8. Are you suggesting that the DNC should override the Democratic electorate
because of some poll numbers?
|
Response to DanTex (Reply #8)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 04:31 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
35. No. I'm not suggesting anything. It looks to me like they are already doing it.
Response to Cal33 (Reply #35)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 05:26 PM
mythology (9,527 posts)
38. Yeah, that makes sense
The more than 2 million extra votes are plants or DNC moles or some other such nonsense.
Why is it so fucking hard for some Sanders supporters to accept that at this point in the primaries Clinton is substantially ahead because more people have voted for her? Instead you invent some grand conspiracy, point to irrelevant general election polls (which are not only irrelevant to the primary, but also aren't predictive for the general election) and selectively cite polls that show the race tight rather than the majority of the primary polls which show Clinton with a consistent lead, including in the larger states that still remain. |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:20 PM
CajunBlazer (5,648 posts)
9. Selective BS - Here are all of the 6 most recent polls from RealClearPolitics.com
Poll / Poll Dates / Sample size /MoE /Clinton/Sanders/ Leader & Margin
Bloomberg 3/19-3/22 311 5.6 48 49 Sanders +1 FOX News 3/20-3/22 410 5.0 55 42 Clinton +13 Quinnipiac 3/16-3/21 635 3.9 50 38 Clinton +12 Monmouth 3/17-3/20 391 5.0 55 37 Clinton +18 CBS/NY Times 3/17-3/20 388 6.0 50 45 Clinton +5 CNN/ORC 3/17-3/20 397 5.0 51 44 Clinton +7 Average Clinton 51.5 Sanders 42.5 Clinton +9.0 |
Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #9)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:23 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)
11. See Post #10...They really think we're stupid. They really do...
If they are going to hold themselves out as the smart ones it would behoove them to get their facts straight.
|
Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #9)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:36 PM
Karma13612 (4,331 posts)
17. Is this head to head?
Or is it their lead over the republican?
If it is just Clinton vs Bernie head to head, then an average of 9 point lead by Clinton over Sanders is quite remarkable considering he started with almost zero name recognition when he started this revolution. And some of the individual ones you quote are single digits, some most likely within the margin of error. Thanks cause this is good news to me. |
Response to Karma13612 (Reply #17)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:45 PM
CajunBlazer (5,648 posts)
22. Oh, its a moral victory!
My team isn't getting beat as badly as predicted.
Moral victories are for losers. |
Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #9)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 04:00 PM
pdsimdars (6,007 posts)
27. I keep saying this over and over
To become president you have to win in the GENERAL ELECTION
Bernie beats every GOP candidate by MUCH LARGER MARGINS than Hillary. |
Response to pdsimdars (Reply #27)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 04:23 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
33. Yes, he does, and has been doing so steadily for quite a few months.
Response to pdsimdars (Reply #27)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 05:51 PM
mythology (9,527 posts)
39. And hopefully people keep telling you that general election polls in the primary are useless
in terms of predictive power.
For example, George H W Bush led Clinton by 20 points. Carter led Reagan by 15. George W Bush led Gore by 10 points. It's not really possible to know what the defining issue of the election will be this far out. In 2008 it was thought to be foreign policy, hence Obama making the argument about Iraq, and the Republicans nominating the war hero. And the election was about the economy tanking thanks to Bush. |
Response to mythology (Reply #39)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 09:49 PM
CajunBlazer (5,648 posts)
42. However, it is possible to know that Sanders has been Swift Boated yet
Heck, even someone with no experiences in making political commercials could put together ads which would crush Bernie in the general election, especially if I had the hundreds of millions of dollars from the Koch brothers and friends bank rolling me. And I wouldn't have to lie.
Clinton hasn't attacked Bernie where he is most vulnerable for four reasons, 1) She isn't going to stoop that low, 2) She doesn't have to because she can easily beat him without using those tactics, red baiting wouldn't work very well in the Democratic primaries, and 4) there is no use ticking of Sanders's supporters which would normally support her in the general election. However, none of those reasons apply to either Trump or Cruz or the PAC's run the Koch brothers and their corporate friends. And the way Bernie has been going after the 1% and corporate power brokers they should be able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to destroy destroy him. Bernie on the other hand has sworn off PAC's so he won't have the money to defend himself. It's would be very ugly. ![]() ![]() |
Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #9)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 04:03 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
28. Yes, the poll from The Hill is the latest: 3/24/16. This suggests that Bernie is catching up.
Response to Cal33 (Reply #28)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 04:06 PM
Godhumor (6,437 posts)
30. Not quite, it was reported the latest
But there are other polls that ended on the 21st and 22nd in that list.
|
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:20 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)
10. Res ipsa loquitur
The latest national poll from the Hill (Thurs. A.M.) shows Sanders and Clinton to be tied:
Sanders 49% - Clinton 48%. That poll is contradicted by seven? eight polls ? of roughly the same time period: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary Clinton has been losing to some Republicans. Sanders never lost to any of them
Governor Kasich says hi: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_sanders-5817.html |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #10)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 04:18 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
32. Okay, my mistake. I didn't see that. Kasich won 3 times and Sanders won 3 times. They're
pretty even.
I'm wondering why among the 3 Republican candidates (Trump, Cruz, and Kasich), why is Kasich so way down at the bottom. He is the only one to have sometimes beaten Sanders in popularity among the American public. Could it also be a case of the RNC having something against him, like the DNC having something against Sanders? |
Response to Cal33 (Reply #32)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 05:15 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)
36. I suspect Kasich is doing well for two reasons...
He holds himself out as a conciliator and he also has received the least scrutiny.
|
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:57 PM
pdsimdars (6,007 posts)
26. And one thing that seems to escape them altogether is that Democrats are only 30% of voters
She may do a bit better than Bernie SO FAR among Democrats but in the remaining 70% Bernie does MUCH BETTER than Clinton.
AND may I add, the secret is out. . . those other 70% of voters DO VOTE in the General Election! |
Response to pdsimdars (Reply #26)
Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:15 AM
CajunBlazer (5,648 posts)
48. We'll never know for sure will we?
Because Bernie can't event win the Democratic nomination. He can continue to hang on by his finger nails until the convention, but ultimately he's toast.
|
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 04:30 PM
Bill USA (6,436 posts)