Morning Consult poll: Hillary 57%-Bernie 26%

[JaneyVee]

http://morningconsult.com/2015/11/terror-attacks-spotlight-voters-growing-security-concerns/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Huff is four days behind...

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary



I can't wait to see the graph when this poll and the UMASS poll showing her thumping Bernie by thirty four points in included.

[George II]

25. Here is their updated graph, ahead by 25.3%:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. But still no UMASS and PPRI poll where she is >60-30!!!

EOM

[George II]

31. I haven't seen anything about either of those yet. Usually RealClearPolitics is the quickest...

...to get new polls on their list, they don't have either yet:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Salud

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251820770


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251&pid=820961

[BootinUp]

2. Hillary and Bernie tied with voters aged 18-29

[George II]

23. Voters aged 18-29 is one of the lowest turnout age-range.

Here are the %-ages of voters in the 2008 election (last contested election) by age group from the US Census:

18 to 24 years 10%
25 to 34 years 15%
35 to 44 years 17%
45 to 54 years 21%
55 to 64 years 18%
65 to 74 years 11%
75 years and over 9%

37% (more than 1/3) were over 55 years old, and 58% were over 45 years old.

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2008/tables.html

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. Taking half of the 18-29 demographic does not make a revolution. n/t

[leftynyc]

49. Big deal

Let me know when that group gets off their asses and votes.

[treestar]

55. People over 29 vote

they are known to do that

[riversedge]

64. umm. the yougin's are getting smarter.

[MineralMan]

3. Looks like the national polling is settling in a

range for the time being. I didn't think the Iowa debate would alter the results much, if at all, and that seems to be the case. Barring any major events or disastrous lapses by the candidates, I expect these result margins will hold through the rest of 2015. People are just about to start their holiday activities, and political stuff will take a back seat to those.

I predict that the poll results will be stable looking ahead, with more activity, perhaps, after the first of next year. However, should the ISIS situation blow up even further, that might possibly change, probably in Clinton's favor.

Note: This is one Democrat's predictions only, based on over 50 years of observing Presidential elections.

[JaneyVee]

6. This poll was from Nov 13-16, so it did include debate.

[MineralMan]

7. Yes. And it's in line with the others, plus or minus

a few points here and there. The 2:1 or better ratio in Hillary Clinton's favor seems very stable to me at this point. That will be almost impossible for Sanders to overcome, I'm sure.

Frankly, I think this primary campaign is over.

[NurseJackie]

15. I think it's over as well. (For all the reasons you stated.)

Maybe you've commented on this before, and if so I missed it ... but do you think that having more debates would have any effect on how the poll numbers currently stand? (Would there be bigger swings in the numbers? Or would more debates only be a source of internal strife and bickering, changing nothing, but only helping to solidify each candidate's core supporters?)

[MineralMan]

18. Personally, I think the first debate always sets the tone.

It doesn't take long for debate fatigue to set in among voters. More debates or fewer probably don't really affect percentages of those who make a decision much at all. The more debates there are, the fewer the people who continue to watch them, and the number of voters who watch debates isn't enormous in the first place, really.

Televised debates appeal mostly to people who are already interested in politics, anyhow. Unless there's some sort of gaffe on the part of a candidate, I don't think debates change opinions very much, and that influence decreases as the debate cycle continues.

Finally, the longer a campaign goes on, the smaller are the swings in opinion polling, in most cases. That's why the current results are likely to remain pretty much the same, ratio-wise as time goes by. Once a voter actually forms a decision about whom to vote for, it's difficult to change that decision, and voters often stop paying much attention once they decide.

So, no, I don't think more debates would offer any increased possibility for much change in voters' opinions.

Interest in debates will resume after nominees are selected next year. Then, the first debate will be the most important for the candidates, as always.

My opinion only, of course.

[NurseJackie]

19. … and an opinion that I value …

… thanks for sharing your insight.

[MineralMan]

21. That's very kind of you to say.

Thanks.

[Blue_Adept]

30. Primary debates can be interesting

And I think more of that comes when there's a wider breadth of candidates. The 08 cycle had a lot of people running with different views and it took time to really get them out there and exposed, which made sense.

With just three candidates at this stage, as the others have fallen off quickly realizing they had no support, no infastructure, it's a very different thing.

General Election debates in terms of viewership is far different, but I get the feeling that a lot of folks around here (not you) tend to equate the importance of those with the primary debates, which is certainly not the case.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. The debate where the VT independent couldn't focus on the carnage in Paris for two minutes...

The debate where the VT independent couldn't focus on the carnage in Paris for two minutes without segueing into his stump speech which he clings to like an ersatz "political flotation device."

[MineralMan]

20. Bernie Sanders has a rather thin range of topics on which he has

a solid opinion. That's probably his biggest liability. His focus on internal economic issues is his primary interest, so that's what he sticks to. If pressed to discuss other issues, he'll respond briefly, but return to the issues that interest him the most.

Unfortunately, Presidents have to deal with the full range of issues when doing their jobs. Voters realize that, and each voter has his or her own particular focus on specific issues. Any winning candidate will be able to address any major issue that comes up at length and in some detail. Voters want to see them do that, even if they may not completely agree with the candidate.

Bottom line, I believe, is that most people remember only general impressions from these debates. If asked what Hillary Clinton said, exactly, about the Paris attacks, they'd be hard-pressed to respond, even this soon after the debate. They could tell you whether she sounded knowledgeable or not, though, and whether she responded coherently. On the other hand, when Sanders moved quickly away from the topic of the day in his opening statement, people will remember that. All three candidates said that ISIS had to be destroyed, so there's really no difference between them in that regard.

The details don't matter, really. People don't remember them, except on DU and places like it, and they don't remember them that well even here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I wonder what he is like in real life...

Whether he is a monist or someone with a wide range of interests.

[brooklynite]

4. Clinton polling average by month

September: 41
October: 54
November (to date): 57

In the data biz, we call that a trend...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Somebody should do a chart of attacks on Hillary at our site and her rise in the polls.

EOM

[MineralMan]

8. Too much trouble to bother with.

That's what I think.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I wish I had your level of detachment, friend.

EOM

[MineralMan]

10. What happens on DU has approximately zero impact

on any election. It's easy for me to be detached, although I do like participating here. I just never think of DU as particularly influential, politically.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I agree but it is hard to see someone you genuinely like trashed on a daily basis.

IRL I am very outgoing and friendly and would rather make a friend than an enemy. This board turns me into something very different when I'm here.

[Walk away]

51. I think a poll on how many "recs" you can get by putting Hillary in your subject line....

and then slamming her with some simple minded blather, would be interesting! I've seen over 200 recs for desperate anti-Hillary nonsense because there really isn't one new or interesting thing to say about Bernie Sanders.

Same old speech, same 4 or 5 endorsements and apparently, same underwear! He needs a new act! Anyone have any ideas???? there must be something he can do to get some attention besides yell loudly.

[Historic NY]

14. +1

[riversedge]

62. And I call it an UPWARD Trend

Last edited Sat Nov 21, 2015, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)

[sufrommich]

12. The trend is firming up and looking good for Hillary.

[riversedge]

63. Yes, the trends for Hillary are consistant and firm.

[NurseJackie]

16. Very good news, indeed! This pleases me.

It's a great way to start a Tuesday morning!

[MaggieD]

17. Woo hoo

K&R!

[George II]

22. I'm confused.

Most of the summer we were told "wait until the debates and people get to know him", and then he would close the gap. But just as I suspected, as people got to know him they don't like him so much.

Ever since the first debate he's been pretty much stagnant (going up a little bit) and she has shot way up. It looks like many of those who were undecided are making up their minds, and deciding upon Hillary Clinton.

I'm beginning to agree with some around here, we should have had more debates. That would have ended this much earlier.

[msrizzo]

29. Also, Democrats were not looking for an alternative...

Not in the numbers that Sanders needed to overtake her. The AnyoneButHillary Crowd contains more Republicans than it does Democrats, although there are at least some in our party.

[DownriverDem]

36. Exactly

Too many repubs want Bernie to be the Dem nominee. That should make a lot of Bernie supporters wonder why.

[Goblinmonger]

34. 2007 numbers for Clinton were the same from August to this point as well.

Everyone knew that that Obama guy didn't stand a chance. And, hey, the last 8 years of the Clinton presidency have been awesome.

[George II]

37. This isn't 2007 and Sanders is not Barack Obama AND Obama was/is a Democrat. BIG differences!

[Goblinmonger]

38. Oh, the old Sanders is a socialist thing.

You do know a lot of Dems like him, right?

And I remember a lot of "Obama is a socialist" coming from the right. Oh, and he's a Muslim. So a Muslim Socialist beat Clinton in 2007.

[George II]

45. WHO MENTIONED THAT SANDERS IS A SOCIALIST????????? This is EXACTLY what I said...........

"This isn't 2007 and Sanders is not Barack Obama AND Obama was/is a Democrat. BIG differences!"

WHO MENTIONED THAT SANDERS IS A SOCIALIST?????????

You people will stoop to anything to make a misguided point, even if it means you'll make stuff up.

The rest of that garbage doesn't apply to me so I'll ignore it, even though it's despicable bile.

[Goblinmonger]

48. So when you said "Obama was/is a Democrat" what was your point?

Because so are Clinton and Sanders. An odd thing to bring up if you weren't trying to differentiate Sanders from Obama based on party affilitation.

[okasha]

52. Oh, bull, Goblin.

Sanders isn't much of a socialist--that and his hanging onto his Independent identity are all just part of his political shtick. He plays a role, Mr Smith Goes to Washington. And yes, so does Hillary. So far, her Elizabeth/Joan of Arc archetypes are thumping hell out of poor Mr. Smith.

[Goblinmonger]

54. I agree he's not a socialist. So does he.

Doesn't mean that isn't what was being pushed by that response.

And "Mr. Smith"? Really? He was voted into the House in 91 and Senate in 07. He's hardly a Mr. Smith outsider.

[okasha]

58. I didn't't say he is Mr Smith.

I said that's the role he plays, how he presents himself.

[Goblinmonger]

59. That's just not true.

He doesn't present himself as some naive outsider with pie-in-the-sky idealism. He is a long-time politician. That's how he presents himself.

[okasha]

61. Long time politician is how he looks to reality-focused people.

But I know you've seen, as I have, the starry-eyed reactions to him here on DU. A large number of his supporters think he's Galahad. It's naive to think he's not aware of that response, or that he's not playing up to it.

[AlbertCat]

24. I thought polls didn't matter.

[Goblinmonger]

33. November 16, 2007 Clinton 48% Obama 21%

How'd that work out for ya?

[DownriverDem]

35. Why?

All that matters is Nov. 2016. Since the repubs want Bernie to be the Dem nominee, doesn't that make you wonder why? It should.

[Goblinmonger]

39. I'm sure they have no line of attack against Clinton

And since polls mean so much to you at this point in time, you do know that the polls currently show Sanders also kicking the shit out of potential Repub nominees, right?

[msrizzo]

41. Check out twitter

They are already trying out some of their Bernie attacks. They are as preposterous as the Hillary attacks but just not as plentiful yet, but they're out there.

[JaneyVee]

43. I've seen some brutal rightwing commentary about Bernie.

Just this morning saw an article on MMFA of Fox host saying terrorists would "saw off Bernie's head" to mock him on climate change. Horrible people.

[Robbins]

44. sorry clinton supporters

the GOP wants to run against CLinton.that's their entire 2016 playbook.Of course DWS is doing all she can to help them get that.

[George II]

46. That's not 57-26.

[treestar]

57. The meme always overlooks the number of people running then

and the support the others had. Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, were all in it with a chance. Bernie is only getting 25% or so with just one real challenger.

[riversedge]

40. Nov 17, 2015 ** This is a POST-2nd debate poll: Clinton, 57, Sanders 26, O'M 2%

WHOW--a 31 pt LEAD!



Nov 17, This is a POST-2nd debate poll: Clinton, 57, Sanders 26, O'M 2%

http://morningconsult.com/2015/11/terror-attacks-spotlight-voters-growing-security-concerns/



.............Sanders challenges Clinton only with the youngest set of voters; among those between the ages of 18 and 29, Sanders and Clinton are tied at 43 percent. Clinton leads by wide margins among liberals (57 percent to 32 percent), Hispanic voters (52 percent to 38 percent) and African Americans (80 percent to 8 percent), the bedrocks of a Democratic primary electorate.

Democratic voters who cite national security as their most important issue trust Clinton much more than the broader electorate: Those voters favor the former Secretary of State by a 61 percent to 13 percent margin.

The survey continues to find President Obama’s approval ratings struggling. Just 41 percent of Americans say they approve of the job he is doing as president, while 30 percent say the country is headed in the right direction.

The Morning Consult tracking poll surveyed 2,001 registered voters between Nov. 13 and 16 for a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. Subsamples of 774 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and 874 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents carry margins of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points and 3.3 percentage points, respectively.

[Gamecock Lefty]

42. And Just to Think . . .

She's tied with Bernie on 18-29 year olds - of which Bernie supporters say there are 75 million all voting for him!!!

Someone needs to remind Bernie that surges go up, not down!!!

Pour it on, Hillary!!!

[George II]

47. 75 million voters 18-29? In 2008 (admittedly there are more Americans now) there were only.....

....27 million registered voters between the age of 18-29. I wonder where the additional 45 million are coming from?

[DCBob]

50. Nice!

[Alfresco]

53. Outstanding!

[treestar]

56. The oligarchs are at it again!

They must own "morning consult."

[Bobbie Jo]

60. K&R

[artislife]

65. Poll!