Sanders now leads Clinton in New Hampshire, Maine, Utah, and Vermont

[Attorney in Texas]

Most recent polls in each state:

New Hampshire - CBS/YouGov poll November 15–19, 2015 = 52% Sanders; 45% Clinton

Maine - Critical Insights poll September 24–30, 2015 = 28% Sanders; 27% Clinton

Utah - Dan Jones & Associates poll November 5-14, 2015 = 26% Sanders; 18% Clinton

Vermont - Castleton University poll August 24 - September 14, 2015 = 65% Sanders; 14% Clinton

[PatrickforO]

1. Very nice. He'll likely carry Colorado as well.

The right candidate at the right time.

[lewebley3]

105. Hillary is still ahead in New Hamshire and Iowa

[JaneyVee]

106. And 45 other states by huge margins.

[Attorney in Texas]

115. Since Sanders was ahead in the last two polls in New Hampshire, that seems unlikely, but you are

welcome to interpret the data however you wish.

Personally, I think Clinton is ahead in Iowa but the polling trends in Iowa look good for Sanders.

Here is a graph of the past year's worth of Iowa polling with smoothing to highlight the trend lines:



Here is a graph of the past month's worth of Iowa polling with minimized smoothing to highlight the detailed high and lows:



With more than two months before the caucus, both Clinton and Sanders are in a strong position in Iowa but because of the unique caucus rules, I think the greater enthusiasm for Sanders plays to his advantage.

[Progressive dog]

124. Real Clear Politics has graphs that differ from yours.

They show Hillary still well ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Attorney in Texas]

150. Real Clear Politics uses different polls from Pollster and both different graphing methods.

Here are the last 5 New Hampshire polls included in the Real Clear Politics aggregator:

Sanders +7
Sanders +1
Clinton +21
Clinton +3
Sanders +15

In the Real Clear Politics aggregator, Clinton holds a slight lead because of the Clinton +21 in a robo-call poll done on 11/11/2015 by Gravis.

If you put a lot of stock in that Gravis poll, you would believe Clinton was either 15% behind or 3% ahead before 11/11/2015 and then she jumped up to a 21% lead on 11/11/2015 and then fell back to being either 1% or 7% behind. If you average the polls with that Gravis poll in the mix, you get a slight lead for Clinton.

PS - I don't think anyone doubts Clinton is currently ahead in polling in Iowa. I think the trend is toward Sanders rising and Clinton falling in both the Real Clear Politics and Pollster aggregators:

[lewebley3]

145. Real Clear politics: Has Hillary enlarging her lead 30 over all: Hillary is crushing Sanders

[Hepburn]

146. Reminder: Clinton and Obama, 2007

Hint: Don't count your Clinton votes until they hatch.

[lewebley3]

153. Obama didn't win: He didn't have enough to degelates to win; They Gave it to him

[Major Hogwash]

155. Well, that was nice of them.

[Fawke Em]

147. Yawn: We don't vote nationally.

The "beauty contest" of national polling means absolutely nothing.

[lewebley3]

148. She crushing Sanders in state polls and delegates

[Attorney in Texas]

151. That implies she is ahead in the vote scheduled for national primary, a contest which does not exist

[Eric J in MN]

2. Did you find these polls at one website? If so, which one? NT

NT

[Attorney in Texas]

5. I cross referenced Pollster, Real Clear Politics, Polling Report, Dailykos, Democratic Underground &

Wikipedia to make sure I had the latest polls from each state.

[onehandle]

3. Outlier polls (with no links) from four small states.

Meanwhile voting starts in ten weeks and Hillary is ahead in states containing 90%+ of Americans.

[LovingA2andMI]

37. Facts can be amazing things...

And can be hard to accept! #KeepItGoingBernie!

[Plucketeer]

39. Like by whom someone's campaign is financed?

[Nitram]

126. Try to stay on topic, Pluck.

We're talking about polls, remember? Seems to be a contagious tic, the compulsion to get that comment in during every discussion.

[roguevalley]

51. the polls that show that have missed a vast ocean of voters that

will show their preferences then. It would due us all well to remember that. I personally don't know anyone who is prepared to vote for her where I live and I have asked. The only enthusiasm I have encountered is for Bernie.

[SCantiGOP]

83. Thanks onehandle

For pointing out you don't win by losing 45 states

[mikehiggins]

4. Where did he start?

Something I think is never stressed enough--though I think the opposition is keenly aware of it--is that Sanders started so far down that he had to look up to see bottom.

I think it is great that a balding Jewish guy outa Brooklyn is doing so great, it is even better that he is not the campaign. Like he says, this isn't about Bernie Sanders, it's about the future of our nation. No matter HOW this turns out it is great that IDEAS are finally being talked about as opposed to personality.

Too bad whatsername won't allow more debates. Something like Lincoln/Douglas might do this country a lot of good.

Too bad "winning " is more important than working to keep our nation great.

Something else I think is never stressed enough--this is the oldest democratic nation on earth and there is no reason to think that will last forever. One of those old white guys, probably a slave owner to boot, said something to the effect that they gave us a Republic. It was/is up to us to keep it.

((this is where I should write something snarky about the opposition but you've heard it all before))

[1monster]

24. Ben Franklin

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.

http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html

[Gothmog]

6. These are four small states with few delegates and few non-white voters

Lets look at the number of delegates at stake in these states:

New Hampshire - 32
Maine - 30
Utah - 28
Vermont - 23
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-Alloc.phtml
Texas by itself has 237 or more than twice the number of delegates of all of these states combined. Sanders is welcome to all of these states

[Attorney in Texas]

8. Please feel free to take comfort in that if it helps. I just got tired of "Hillary's winning in 49

states and Sanders is only winning in New Hampshire."

That shit gets tiresome.

[Gothmog]

15. To my knowledge, no one thinks that Clinton will win Vermont

Sanders current base is limited to mainly white voters and Sanders is not polling well in states with more typical democratic demographics.

When Gary Mauro filed for the Clinton campaign to run in Texas, he made this observation https://www.texastribune.org/2015/11/24/clinton-ballot-texas-supporters-look-next-step/

On Tuesday, Mauro said he has nothing against Sanders, an independent senator, but questioned his electability as a self-described socialist. The label has gotten more attention in recent days following a speech last week in which Sanders offered a defense of his brand of "democratic socialism."

"I'm very glad that they're taking Texas seriously," Mauro said of Sanders campaign officials. "If Sanders is going to be a serious candidate — we don't know that yet, by the way — but if he's going to be a serious candidate, he's got to prove he can carry a really diverse state like Texas."

Mauro added, "I like everything he's saying about income inequality and equal rights and all of that — but the reality is that he's spending a lot of time explaining what a socialist is, and every time he has to explain that, I think he's narrowing his base."

Mauro knows Texas and I think that he is correct in that Sanders may not play well in Texas

[iamthebandfanman]

21. Fine, 48..

like that really made a deference in the statement the poster was making.

some of you will argue over anything, I swear. (and by some of you I mean people in general on DU, not Hillary supporters specifically)

[Attorney in Texas]

25. Don't wanna piss on your day or cast further doubt on our state, but Texas ain't voting for Hillary

either.

In the primary, it is a fool's game to try to predict how the post-New Hampshire votes will play out because the primaries and caucuses in those states have historically reflected the momentum (if any) out of Iowa and New Hampshire.

If Clinton wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the race will be effectively over before Texans vote in our primary.

If Sanders wins Iowa or New Hampshire, we just have to wait and see how that affects the subsequent contests.

[Tommy2Tone]

35. I live in Texas

What makes you think Texas is Sanders country?

Latest poll I could find was Oct 27th and Hillary was in first place with 58% of the vote. Undecided was next 27% and Sanders was at 8%.

[Fed up in NJ]

46. I think what Attorney in Texas means is...

Texas ain't voting for Clinton because the majority are voting the Repuke ticket. Clinton can take 100% of the primary votes but ain't walking away with Texas in the General Election..... that be 'W' territory!

[Tommy2Tone]

49. It would have been nice to make made that clear.

The post was about the primary not the general election.

[Attorney in Texas]

50. I suspect Texas will go Republican in the general election. In the primary, I suspect the race will

come down to two scenarios:

Either Clinton wins Iowa and New Hampshire and the nomination will be effectively over by the time we vote in Texas or

Sanders wins Iowa or New Hampshire (or both) and the momentum from that will affect the race in Texas.

In both scenarios, the race in Texas won't have much bearing to what we see now in Texas, but -- from what I see now -- the Texas Democrats are excited about Sanders or resigned about Clinton but I don't think that is predictive about how things will look in Texas on Match 1. By then, Clinton will either have consolidated support or Sanders will be insurgent and Biden will be wishing he jumped into the race because Clinton will be replaying 2008.

The Clinton-wins scenario is more likely but the Sanders-insurgent scenario is my preference because I don't think Clinton wins the general election where the voters clearly want change and Clinton is the archetypal establishment-status quo candidate.

[Tommy2Tone]

55. Yea, nothing says change like a 74 year old white man n/t

[Attorney in Texas]

61. The longest serving independent member of Congress in American history sounds like change to me, and

if you want to make age an issue, 68 year old grandma Clinton would be only 8 months shy of being the oldest president ever elected so this is really an issue for someone like an O'Malley supporter to raise and not a winning issue for Clinton.

[Thinkingabout]

79. Hillary will take the Texas primary.

[Attorney in Texas]

80. Should we call off the Texas primary or are you OK with the voters having a say, too?

[PosterChild]

90. He's just telling it like it is,..

... based on what the voters are saying. The hopeful hype surrounding the sander's campaign isn't presenting a reality based assessment of his chances .

[Nitram]

140. Kinda silly, Lawyer, to imply that Clinton supporters want to deny anyone the vote.

Sly courtroom rhetoric.

[Samantha]

71. Great post and then there is the fact that we cannot predict how many Republicans in Texas

will cross over and vote for Sanders anyway. And there is also the Independents who will come into play. And when the music stops playing, what percentage of the Latino vote will support Sanders' plans for immigration as opposed to Hillary's. And will the African-American vote stick with its historic position of supporting Clinton, or will people be rethinking (and possibly moving into a new direction) based simply on issues? We just do not know.

I believe it is impossible for anyone to say with certainly what is going to happen where and when, because the volatility of the matter seems very much on the move.

I continue to have a lot of hope that Sanders succeeds.

Sam

[okasha]

92. Texas Republicans will eat ground glass

before they vote for anyone who does now or ever has identified as any kind of socialist. And I can tell you without hesitation that Bernie Sanders is not going to make a dent in Texas minority support for Clinton. She has had a long-standing relationship with both African Americans and Hispanics here, going back to the 70's.

Now what just might persuade at least some Republcans to jump ship is the ongoing spectacle of criminal charges against our ex Governor and current Attorney General. But they aren't going to land in Sanders' lap. More likely they'll go Libertarian, That's still a good thing, though, because it will bring down Republican numbers.

Texas has a long history as a Democratic state. We can reclaim that if we offer quality candidates.

[Gothmog]

129. Socialism is not a good concept to discuss in Texas

[Major Hogwash]

154. This same dire scenario is being discussed, as we speak, in Idaho and Arizona, too.

The Democrats have an open primary, so anyone can vote in that primary, even Green party members.
However, the Republicans passed a law in Idaho last year forcing primary voters to pledge allegiance to the GOP in order to vote in their primary.
They have to first register as a Republican in order to vote in the Republican primary.

The GOP candidate will be picked by Republicans, but since the 2 separate primaries for the Republicans and Democrats are being held so far apart from each other, Republicans are going to be allowed to vote in BOTH primaries, in the same calendar year.
All they have to say is that they changed their minds . . . and they will be allowed to vote in the Democrat's primary!

[Gothmog]

128. Sanders can win both Iowa and New Hampshire without support from non-white Democrats

The four states listed in the OP are all states with low number of non-white Democratic voters. Sanders is not doing well with non-white voters in other states yet and I have seen no signs that Sanders is improving with these votes. Again, winning both Iowa and New Hampshire will not help Sanders win the nomination according to Nate Silver http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywhere-else/

Put another way, Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t representative of the more diverse electorates that Democrats will turn out elsewhere. It just so happens that the idiosyncrasies of the first two states match Sanders’s strengths and Clinton’s relative weaknesses.

Clinton performed well among Hispanic voters in 2008, and while her failure to win African-American votes was a central reason her campaign failed, she now has excellent favorability ratings among black voters that are nearly as high as Barack Obama’s. If Clinton begins to see her support erode among those groups, her campaign will have some real reason for concern. Otherwise, just as was the case throughout the 2008 campaign, the media will misconstrue voting patterns that occur because of demographics and attribute them to “momentum” instead.

This article is a little dated but the demographics described in the article remain the same and there has been no measurable increase in the amount of support for Sanders in the African American and Latino voting communities.

Time will tell but right now I do not see Sanders doing well in Texas

[Capt. Obvious]

84. This guy does

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251802159#post3

[JDPriestly]

96. Texas will not vote Democratic in the general election and is therefore barely relevant

to electing a Democratic president.

States that do matter are California, maybe Oregon, maybe Ohio, maybe Florida, Washington State, New York, Vermont, the bluer states.

Texas will not vote Democratic if Hillary is the candidate. No way.

Bernie has as good or maybe even a better chance of carrying Texas as Hillary.

The test is who will carry the blue states strongly plus a couple or so of swing states.

Hillary has a problem with her negatives. The polls show that people like Bernie better than they like Hillary.

Hillary is ahead because people think she can win. I think they are wrong. It think that Bernie will carry enough votes to win in the end. He appeals across party lines.

Hillary is also too much associated with wars and with Wall Street. Those negatives will become stronger and stronger.

The free college plank in Bernie's platform is a strong winner and for the very reason that Bernie is pushing it. A college degree is now what a high school degree was for the generation that graduated in the 1960s and 1970s. Back then, a high school graduate could get a job managing a department store. Today, you practically need a college degree for that kind of a job. A college degree is not exactly a necessity, but pretty close for any white collar job. Wasn't that way 30-40 years ago. Bernie is right. College tuition should be free.

Then there is universal health care, family leave. These are all things that exist in all of the developed countries. Family leave exists all over the world with the exception of a couple of countries and the US. I think one of the other countries without family leave is Sierra Leone.
Hillary says she is for family leave, but how does she plan to pay for it? Last I read, she wanted the employers to foot the bill. That will not happen. Bernie has a plan to raise the payroll tax by just over a dollar a week. If we raise wages -- and we have to -- that $1 plus maybe 35 cents or so will not be missed by families getting a higher wage. And babies and parents will have a little time off at an important time of life.

Bernie's stands on the issues will become better and better known, and more and more voters will support him. Here in California, he has a lot of support already, and it is growing.

[Gothmog]

127. And yet Texas has twice the number of delegates as the four states listed in the OP

Texas will turn blue one day and a number of good Democrats are working hard to turn Texas blue. It is a hard and frustrating task. The Voter ID law killed us in 2014 (Wendy Davis was a good candidate and her numbers were the result of the Texas voter id law depressing turnout by 5.8% to 12.8% of registered voters). Texas will turn blue eventually but I want to speed up the process. One key is increasing the voter participation by Hispanic voters in Texas. California used to be a reddish state until Pete Wilson cracked down on Hispanics. http://www.salon.com/2015/08/20/donald_trump_is_the_harbinger_of_gop_doom_the_devastating_history_lesson_that_republicans_are_completely_ignoring/

There were obviously many factors that contributed to California’s evolution into the deep-blue state it is today, from demographics to the culture war. But none of those things come close to the damage that then-Governor Pete Wilson did to the longterm interest of the California Republican Party in 1994, when he scapegoated Latino immigrants as the cause of all the state’s woes.

Wilson was running for re-election, and as part of his campaign to distract from the economic failure of his first term and increase turnout among his base, he ran on a platform promising to crack down on undocumented workers, and enthusiastically supported the infamous Prop 187, which set up a statewide system designed to deny any kind of benefits to undocumented workers, including K-12 education and all forms of health care.

(He also supported a constitutional amendment to repeal birthright citizenship, currently guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.)

Here’s the famous “they keep coming” ad the Wilson campaign ran that year:

.....Wilson’s California Republicans are now a rump party of angry, white Tea Partyers and a handful professional operatives. It’s a very sad motley group compared to the political juggernaut that produced Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

There used to be an old saying “As California goes, so goes the nation” meaning that California was the modern, forward thinking laboratory of democracy which started the trends that everyone else would soon follow. If that holds true in this case of this Latino bashing, the Republicans are in for a long road back from the debacle of 2016.

Trump's comments on Latino voters are having an effect and are beginning to motivate Hispanic voters to participate. On the Chris Hayes's show last night, Sec. Castro was on discussing the increase participation of Latinos in Texas. I would love to see Julian Castro be Hillary Clinton's VP pick because that would further motivate Hispanic voters and will speed the process of turning Texas blue.

The Texas Democratic Party is officially neutral in the primary race but many people in the party believe that HRC naming Julian Castro would change things a great deal. If Texas is in play, the GOP will have to divert resources that will ensure a 2016 victory for the Democrats.

In the meantime, I and others will continue to work to turn Texas Blue. It is hard work but we will turn Texas blue

[JDPriestly]

135. I'm very aware of Wilson's hate campaign.

It would be great if Texas turned blue, but I am not going to hold my breath.

[Gothmog]

138. We are not holding our breath but we are working hard to turn Texas blue

Pete Wilson's and Donald Trump's policies are very similar and the Texas Democratic Party is working hard to be ready to use this against any GOP candidate who runs. Trump has moved the immigration issue so far to the right that this issue can be used against any GOP nominee including Jeb!. There is some great polling that Latino voters view the term "anchor baby" with the same degree of distaste as wetback and with Trump both terms are in play.

There are a large number of good Democrats in Texas and when Texas turns blue, the GOP will be done for

[Motown_Johnny]

16. Yes. Buying media time doesn't win these states.

Unlike the big states Hillary has the advantage in.


Once Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire (assuming he does) the real race will begin. Until then, these polls mean very little.

[rwsanders]

20. The doubters are ignoring this.

Once he wins in those states, people will pay more attention to him. Then he'll gain ground in the states with more delegates.

[Jarqui]

23. 47% of Texas have a very unfavorable opinion of Clinton

Another 9% have a somewhat unfavorable opinion of Clinton. Those are ugly numbers and very difficult to change over a short period of time.

I wouldn't get too excited about Texas just yet.

Bernie could make it pretty interesting before this is all said and done. He's been steadily rising. And like Obama, he could win more delegates from Texas caucuses while losing the vote. I wouldn't count your Texas chickens before they're hatched.

[Gothmog]

30. Texas no longer has the Texas two step

All of the delegates will be allocated by means of the primary with there being a 15% threshold in each senate district for candidates in that district and 15% threshold for the state.

If the Texas two step was in effect, I would not count on Sanders doing well. I worked with a number of Obama people who came straight from Iowa in 2008 to Texas. The Obama people knew how to work the caucus process and did a good job training volunteers. These same people are now working for the Clinton campaign.

In Texas Sanders is not being well received http://www.fortbendstar.com/2015/08/05/theres-no-room-for-socialism-in-fort-bend-county/

[Samantha]

73. Funny -- I read early on the same people who got Obama elected were going to Sanders' campaign

They were very excited about the prospect of working with Bernie, and when he announced, they jumped. No link about that was posted here very early on.

Sam

[Tommy2Tone]

56. Since 60% of Texas is bat shit crazy

and Republican, I am surprised she is only at 47%.

[Attorney in Texas]

67. Clinton is viewed unfavorably by 64% of Texas INDEPENDENTS and by 91% of Texas Republicans so there

is no risk of her coming within a country mile of winning Texas (in fact, only 71% of Texas Democrats have a favorable opinion of Clinton).

[Gothmog]

130. Here is the polling on the match up between Sanders and Clinton from the same polling source

https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/democratic-presidential-primary-vote-choice-first-choice-november-2015

Hillary Clinton 61%
Bernie Sanders 30%
Martin O'Malley 1%
Lawrence Lessig 0%
Don't know 7%

[dsc]

7. Interesting interpretation of now

half your polls are from 2 months ago.

[Attorney in Texas]

9. Each is the most recent poll in that state. We'll see soon enough who wins in Iowa and who wins in

New Hampshire and which candidate goes into the second half of February and then Super Tuesday with momentum.

Maybe Clinton wins (in fact, she probably wins and costs Democrats the general election).

Maybe it's not too late to avoid that fate.

We'll have to wait and see because that's how democracy works.

[pnwmom]

11. Two months is a political light year. n/t

[RichVRichV]

87. And we're over two months until the first primary votes are cast.

What does that say about all polls to this point then?

[Fairgo]

32. I've noticed that people struggle

with the concept of democracy. The subtle nuance of representative government requires abstract thought, critical reasoning, core values, and a tolerance for challenge. I do not root for Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Party, or the Blue Jersey. I identify with democratic values and currently see Sanders the representative most closely aligned with my vision of the social contract - by rhetoric, vetted by history. Until I enter the voting booth, I am open to persuasion in the forum of ideas. But that's the rub isn't it? We are bereft of ideological options and lacking a proper stage upon which entertain the few on offer. Forget the dog's breakfast on the right. Why are we not hearing on-going debate and discourse on every issue (or any issue)? Money should not mediate the credence of ideas. Strategy and triangulation should not supplant the building of a platform. We've lost the essential purpose of the primaries: to hammer out a consensus on the social contract our representative will be tasked to advocate on our behalf. I am starting to suspect that if we actually tried to find common ground within the democratic party though the democratic process, we would find that the schism is complete and the factions are actually distinct entities.

[SmittynMo]

85. Don't ya wish

about 250M people agreed with you. They should.

You nailed it

[pnwmom]

10. Two of those are August or September polls. They tell us nothing about NOW.

What are current numbers? Where are the links?

[Bernblu]

12. Iowa is key

Once he wins Iowa the entire campaign will shift. He will then win New Hampshire and take on the aura of a winner. The voters will then shift to Bernie and the tipping point will have been reached. He will be the favorite to win the nomination. I can't tell you how many times people have said something along the lines of "I like Bernie and his issues but I don't feel he can win." That will change when he wins in Iowa.

[KansDem]

38. !!

[quantass]

13. KICK!

[BootinUp]

14. New Hampshire is a toss up. The Maine and Utah

polls have nearly as much undecided voters as decided, can't tell anything much there.

[magical thyme]

47. you can tell that nobody is inevitable in those states and that

that either candidate can win.

[99th_Monkey]

17. K&R - Go Bernie!! -nt-

[RoccoR5955]

18. Interesting

If you ask another pollster Clinton is way ahead. Funny how those things work, isn't it?

[Ken Burch]

19. Question about the Maine poll...

The combined Sanders and Clinton vote shares add up to only 55%. Is all the rest undecided? And what share is O'Malley shown getting there?

[Attorney in Texas]

28. No results specifically recorded for O'Malley

but I presume that O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, and Biden were recorded as "other," which -- when combined with "don't know" and "no response" -- totaled 45%.

[billhicks76]

22. Yes!!! Praying We Don't Select A Wall St War Hawk

If people are foolish enough to select Clinton then the consequences will be our karma. Expect people to totally disavow politics.

[cantbeserious]

26. When We Stand Together - No Citizen Need Settle For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[Tommy2Tone]

57. Stand together is laughable.

Bernie supporters are the ultimate "Bernie or Bust" group. So standing together means standing with Bernie.

[cantbeserious]

65. Riddle Me This - Why Would Any Citizen Choose To Stand With The DNC DWS DLC Third-Way Establishment

eom

[Fearless]

89. *crickets*

[PosterChild]

91. Well, let's see . ..

Banks - "break 'em up"
Fossil Fuels - "Tell 'em to go to hell"

These are simplistic, idelogical "policy positions" that are impractical and ultimately destructive to our prosperity and well being. I chose like most other liberal progressive Democrats to support more thoughtful, well considered and balenced policies that aren't tainted by a socialistic ideology.

Let alone foreign policy , which we haven't even heard about.

[cantbeserious]

98. Riddle Me This - Why Is A 1% Centric Policy Perspective Not A Form Of Socialistic Ideology

eom

[PosterChild]

132. When I say bernie's policy perscrptions are tainted...

....by socialist ideology what I mean is that they will be evaluated by the electorate in the context of radically reorganizing our socio-economic system towards socialism. Which is an entirely reasonable evaluation. When clinton and other candidates propose the same or similar policies they are not seen as a radical departure from our current system. Which they are not.

Here are a relevant excerpt from up thread that helps to clarify the notion of being tainted by socialist ideology:

When Gary Mauro filed for the Clinton campaign to run in Texas, he made this observation https://www.texastribune.org/2015/11/24/clinton-ballot-texas-supporters-look-next-step/

On Tuesday, Mauro said he has nothing against Sanders, an independent senator, but questioned his electability as a self-described socialist. The label has gotten more attention in recent days following a speech last week in which Sanders offered a defense of his brand of "democratic socialism."

"I'm very glad that they're taking Texas seriously," Mauro said of Sanders campaign officials. "If Sanders is going to be a serious candidate — we don't know that yet, by the way — but if he's going to be a serious candidate, he's got to prove he can carry a really diverse state like Texas."

Mauro added, "I like everything he's saying about income inequality and equal rights and all of that — but the reality is that he's spending a lot of time explaining what a socialist is, and every time he has to explain that, I think he's narrowing his base."

Riddle me this, if our current 1% centric socio-economic system is socialist why do we need a candidate to run as a socialist ? Our current system is not socialistic (and neither is denmarks!). These sorts of comparisons are rhetorical sophistry that serve only to obscure the fundimental socio-economic distinctions that exist. Which I believe is the purpose of bringing them up.

[cantbeserious]

134. Riddle Me This - Does The US of A Have Corporate Socialism Today

eom

[PosterChild]

139. No of course not. The idea of corporate socialism . ...

..... in reference to our current socio-economic system makes no sense what so ever at all. We don't have any form of socialism whatever. We are a capitalistic, market driven economy.

The term "corporate socialism" is one of those self contradictory rhetoric phrases that is designed to link two concepts in an an attempt to ameliorate a pejorative or to depriciate a positive concept.

This is like "wage slave". Slaves don't earn wages, and wage earners aren't slaves, they are free agents in a market economy . However, to depricate the wage system it is called "slavery", which it most certainly isn't. The phrase has a rhetorical force but doesn't express a strictly valid logical concept - it's just a way of giving a neutral, descriptive term a pejorative sense.

The term "corporate socialism" is similar. It has the rhetorical effect of ameliorating the pejorative taint attached to the concept of socialism - it attempts to convey that we already have socialism, there isn't any very radical or transformative about it, and we just want to spread it around a bit more and make it work for everyone.

This, of course is not true. We have an individualist, capitalistic, market system based on private property and private ownership of the means of production. We have ameliorated that through welfare statism. We do not have socialism at all. To estsblish socialism in any real, significant sense would be a fundimental, radical reconfiguration of our society.

And in my opinion, it would be for the worse.

[raouldukelives]

99. You got it. Very simplistic to want to battle climate change.

And think of the damage it would do to our prosperity! And for what? To try and leave a planet with life on it? Like anyone alive now will even care what happens to kids, kitty cats and doggies after they depart.

We need well thought out and balanced approach. Perhaps we can get all the major oil companies together and come up with a way to rescue our climate like we did our health care system.

[PosterChild]

131. No, it's simplistic to . ...

.... say "go to hell" to the fossil fuel industry . Getting the major oil companies together along with other interests and the International community to work towards a solution is the only approach that will work. This is the approach Obama has taken, and the approach clinton will take.

Bernie's "go to hell" policy* isn't going to work. Why? Because we are totally dependent on fossil fuels for our wealth, health, and well being. The fossil fuel industry has all the high value cards in their hand. They know it and the voters know it. It will take a long time and a lot of effort to get to the point where fossil fuels become insignificant. We may never get there completely. In the mean time "go to hell" is gas-bag grandstanding that does no material good in furthering progress.

Battling climate change is NOT simplistic. It's a very complex and long term challenge. So I'm voting for clinton .

*If "go to hell" can be characterized as a policy.

[Tommy2Tone]

110. Do you ever listen to yourself?

You talk of the DNC like it's the KGB. I guess being a Bernie supporter you have to believe in conspiracies?

[cantbeserious]

116. Riddle Me This - Why Did The DNC DWS DLC Third-Way Limit The Number Of Debates

eom

[AzDar]

27. We The People said "NO" to Hillary Rodham Clinton resoundingly in '08... and are preparing to

speak even more loudly this time around...

President Bernie Sanders!!!

[Tommy2Tone]

58. Voters preferred Obama in 2008

Other than a few mostly white states we the people are telling Bernie he isn't Obama.

[AzDar]

60. Thank Jeebus. We The People don't WANT another Obama...

[Nitram]

141. No, we the people did not say "No" to Clinton in 2008.

We said "Yes" to Obama.

[HockeyMom]

29. My Neighors down the street

have Bernie stickers on their cars in RED Naples, Florida.

[oberliner]

31. He seems to do well in states that are almost entirely made up of white people

Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire all have populations that are 95 percent white. Utah is just over 90 percent.

[Helen Borg]

33. Uh oh...

Looks like Hillary is toast.

[PosterChild]

93. +10 !! (NT)

[merrily]

34. That's great. However, I think the August and September polls need to be discounted at this point.

Too much has happened since, including two debates.

But, it does make for an encouraging headline.

Sanders told us not to underestimate him and I took him at his word.

[RandySF]

42. Wait, these were in Aug and Sept?

[merrily]

43. Did you happen glance at the OP post?

[RandySF]

77. Not really

Been running around all day.

[dpatbrown]

36. Very promising!

[SoapBox]

40. Go Bernie Go!

He talks issues, Issues, ISSUES.

He doesn't Flip and Flop, Spin like a Weathervane nor Shape-Shift...he is steady and consistent.

All he has to do is keep talking like he has.

WE as Berners need to keep doing what we have been doing...spreading his message and introducing people to him...then there is making sure folks are properly registered and getting them to the polls.

I've not been this excited about a candidate in many, many years.

Go Bernie!

[RandySF]

41. Where I predicted him winning

[bvar22]

44. Momentun vs Free Falling.

I back momentum.

[Tarc]

45. Cherry-picking different pollsters in small states?

[img][/img]

[moobu2]

59. It looks like thats what the poster did.

[Attorney in Texas]

74. Those are the most recent polls from each state. If I was cherry picking, Iowa, Idaho, Oregon, and

Washington have polls where Sanders has been ahead or the candidates are within the margin of error of each other. I didn't include those states -- only the states where Sanders was ahead in the most recent poll in that state.

If you can find a more recent poll with different numbers for New Hampshire, Maine, Utah, or Vermont, I'd be glad to edit the OP but I have already looked on Pollster, Real Clear Politics, Polling Report, 538, Dailykos, Democratic Underground & Wikipedia so I don't think you will be able to find anymore recent poll that I did not list.

[DCBob]

48. You are really desperate for some positive Bernie news.

Give it up... you are embarrassing yourself.

[Attorney in Texas]

63. There is more bad news about Clinton but there's no shortage of good news for Sanders. I could post

more bad news about Clinton if you prefer; shall I?

[DCBob]

68. LOL... knock yourself out.

It might be entertaining!

[Attorney in Texas]

69. OK

[Attorney in Texas]

72. You're welcome

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251854564

[Logical]

88. You whine a lot! Nt

[Nitram]

142. Brilliant parting shot, Log! Nt

[brooklynite]

52. I'm happy with where Clinton is in NH at this point....

...look over the past month, and Sanders and Clinton have been on top in the same number of polls; by comparison, in the summer, Sanders was ahead by 10 straight.

As for Maine, a 1% difference in a poll two months ago won't keep me up at night.

And being the guy that I am, I'll concede VT to Sanders.

[Attorney in Texas]

62. Both Sanders and Clinton have cause to feel good about their positions in Iowa and New Hampshire

[Dustlawyer]

101. Welcome to DU!

Gothmog is also an attorney here in Texas. While I respect Gothmog and have enjoyed many of his/her posts over the years, I couldn't disagree more on Hillary. Bernie is who we need to get our country back on track. I think that Bernie will do well here, hope he wins, but I don't have a crystal ball. I do know I am working hard to make his Presidency a reality as far as Southeast Texas is concerned!

Feel the Bern!

[restorefreedom]

53. very good bernie news!

just out of curiosity, were there any OM numbers? if you don't have them handy, don't go to any trouble. i was just wondering

[UglyGreed]

54. Gonna fly now

[Matariki]

64. You need a link in a post like this

thanks.

[Attorney in Texas]

114. The data comes from different sites so there isn't one source to link, but here are links to several

sources where I gathered and cross-checked the polls:

Real Clear Politics

Huffington Posts Pollster

Polling Report

Wikipedia

538

[Aerows]

66. He will carry Mississippi

If I have anything to say about it, and I work my behind off to talk to voters where I live every day.

[riversedge]

94. Do you have any recent polls to provide any evidence for your claim???

[Aerows]

118. For the Democratic Primary?

Yeah, I do. Word of mouth. I, in no way, need the corporate media to give me a reading on the actual people I interact with on a daily basis.

It's a really good idea to actually talk to people as opposed to just relying on skewed polls.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. - Mark Twain

[DrBulldog]

70. Before you poo-poo these obscure polls, remember one truth ...

. . . every wildfire starts from a single little spark.

[MADem]

75. It is polite to provide LINKS when you make assertions of this nature.

A couple of these pollsters you are citing are not common names on this board. And I found a CBS/YouGov that says--quite recently too--the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

It's easy to do. Like this:

Iowa Poll: Clinton maintains lead over Sanders
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/25/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-iowa/

Poll: Hillary Clinton maintains lead over Bernie Sanders in Iowa
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillary-clinton-maintains-lead-over-bernie-sanders-in-iowa/

Poll: Clinton opens 25-point lead over Sanders
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/poll-democrats-2016-hillary-clinton-216098

Clinton expands leads in Iowa and South Carolina, gains on Sanders in New Hampshire

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/11/23/poll-clinton-iowa-south-carolina-sanders-new-hamps/



And then, there's this..... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/message-to-bernie-stop-fr_b_8667952.html

Message to Bernie: Stop Frittering Away Your Political Revolution

....Recent polling data underscore the depth of Sanders' current dilemma. Over the past six weeks, Clinton has increased her lead over Bernie in both national polls and in early voting states. The former Secretary of State now leads Sanders by a whopping 20 points at the national level, and some pollsters believe that recent attacks in Paris will help Clinton, who is viewed as having strong national security credentials.

Obtuse Media Strategy

What accounts for such dramatic reversal of fortune? To be sure, the American public often lacks the ability to think for itself, and if pundits say that Hillary is a more plausible candidate then the polls may follow suit. On the other hand, it's difficult to imagine how the Sanders team could have pursued a more obtuse or misguided media strategy over the past few months. Rather than capitalize on early summer momentum, during which time Sanders held a series of mass rallies, the upper echelons of the campaign seem to have concluded that it is now time to cultivate a more cautious approach designed to appease the mainstream.

Frittering away much of the campaign's early energy, Sanders' media handlers have produced slick ads which emphasize irrelevant information, such as the fact that Bernie is a grandfather. Despite such packaging, Sanders himself seems to eschew small talk and tends to shift attention away from personal details during media interviews. Intuitively, Sanders seems to realize that the packaging distracts attention from his core message stressing a veritable "political revolution.".....It's a little unfair to question Sanders on his record based on the actions of a sole adviser. Yet, Bernie's tapping of Devine seems to go against the grain of the Vermont Senator's own instincts on Latin America. In fact, as Mayor of Burlington, Sanders attracted national attention for taking anti-imperialist stands like supporting the socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. In 1985, Bernie met with President Daniel Ortega and became the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Nicaragua. In his own book, Sanders praised Ortega and called his trip to Nicaragua a "profoundly emotional" experience. Moreover, Burlington even became a sister city to the Nicaraguan capital of Managua.

Whither the Political Revolution?

Perhaps more significantly, Bernie seems to have a very limited definition of the scope and parameters of political revolution. Writes Boyer, "When Bernie Sanders says we need a political revolution, he's mostly talking about turning many thousands of new people out to vote. That would obviously be a very good thing. It's just not enough to win the meaningful social changes that would add up to a political revolution." Boyer adds, "Before he died Dr. King was organizing the Poor People's Crusade to bring tens of thousands of people to Washington and shut the government down until Congress acted to end poverty. So far Bernie Sanders' political revolution doesn't seem to involve that kind of radical popular mobilization."......

[msanthrope]

97. In other words, the Clinton campaign is slowly crushing these poseurs. nt

[FloridaBlues]

76. One poll is from sept! One is on line poll take it with a large grain of salt

Utah who cares never will vote blue.
Why don't you post all other 23 polls wit her winning for equal coverage

[JoePhilly]

78. OMG ... not UTAH!!!!

[Live and Learn]

81. K&R nt

[kjones]

82. I'm so confused

Are polls good? Bad? Do we believe them or are they suspect?
Are they corporate, shilly push polls? Are only internet polls good?

I've really heard statements from across the board on DU lately.
Seems the SBS people can't decide whether they hate polls or
love polls...what polls are legitimate...or if any polls are legitimate.

[Attorney in Texas]

113. It's less confusing if you don't use polls to argue "the primary is OVER, let's crown her NOW!"

Polls are a report card of how a campaign is performing at a moment in time. This can be useful information, but it does not declare who is the inevitable winner of an election several months in the future.

Some pollsters are more reliable, and some are more suspect.

Live phone polls including both landlines and cellphones generally have a better record of accuracy than robo-call polls (generally least reliable) or internet polls (a wide variety of methods).

Polls that are not sufficiently reliable to be included in either the Real Clear Politics aggregator or Huffington Post's Pollster aggregator are probably best avoided or considered with a grain of salt.

[Moonwalk]

121. I'd say it's also less confusing if you don't use them to argue "Crown him now! He's gonna win!"

It really does go both ways on these boards.

[Nitram]

143. They love any poll that looks good for Bernie.

All the others are phony, inaccurate and influenced by Clinton corporate donors.

[Tab]

86. Good, but I'm interested in seeing how he plays out west

In northern NE, he's a known quantity (VT, NH, ME, and even MA). What about California, TX, etc?

Don't get me wrong. I'm on the Berning side.

[riversedge]

95. According to Real Clear Politics, Clinton is ahead in NH +4.3

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

[Attorney in Texas]

108. I posted the most recent polls from New Hampshire, Maine, Utah, and Vermont. Your link confirms that

the New Hampshire poll I posted is the most recent poll; here are the 5 most recent New Hampshire polls as listed by Real Clear Politics at your link (the one I posted is underlined):

CBS News/YouGov...11/15 - 11/19...561 LV...6.9...(Clinton) 45% (Sanders) 52% (O'Malley) 3% = Sanders +7
FOX News..............11/15 - 11/17....302 RV...5.5...(Clinton) 44% (Sanders) 45% (O'Malley) 5% = Sanders +1
Gravis...................11/11 - 11/11....214 RV...6.7...(Clinton) 46% (Sanders) 25% (O'Malley) 3% = Clinton +21
Monmouth..............10/29 - 11/1.....403 LV...4.9...(Clinton) 48% (Sanders) 45% (O'Malley) 3% = Clinton +3
CBS/YouGov...........10/15 - 10/22....499 LV...7.1...(Clinton) 39% (Sanders) 54% (O'Malley) 3% = Sanders +15

Clinton has a lead in the aggregation of these 5 polls because of the outlier results from the Gravis poll. If you want to celebrate this aggregate polling lead, I'm not trying to stop you. I was just posting the most recent poll for New Hampshire, Maine, Utah, and Vermont.

[riversedge]

117. No, RCP has a new one--CBSNews/YouGov and Clinton is now +4.3 in NH

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html


New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary

National: Dem, GOP | Iowa: Dem, GOP | N.H.: Dem, GOP | S.C.: Dem, GOP | General Election Match-Ups
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample MoE
Clinton

Sanders

O'Malley
Spread
RCP Average 11/11 - 11/19 -- -- 45.0 40.7 3.7 Clinton +4.3
CBS News/YouGov 11/15 - 11/19 561 LV 6.9 45 52 3 Sanders +7
FOX News 11/15 - 11/17 302 RV 5.5 44 45 5 Sanders +1
Gravis 11/11 - 11/11 214 RV 6.7 46 25 3 Clinton +21

[Attorney in Texas]

119. You don't know how to read RCP. The CBS/YouGov poll is the one I posted in the OP. Clinton is behind

Sanders in the two most recent polls.

Clinton is shown as up 4.3% in the aggregation because the aggregation includes the Gravis poll discussed above.

[SidDithers]

144. From your own data...

In October, the CBS/YouGov had Sanders +15
In November, the CBS/YouGov had Sanders +7

Those numbers are heading the wrong way for Sanders.


Or, lets do this. Throw out the Gravis Clinton +21 as an outlier, as well as the outdated CBS/YouGov Sanders +15 (which is replaced by a more recent CBS/YouGov)

The 3 other polls have:

Monmouth - Clinton +3
Fox - Sanders +1
CBS/YG - Sanders +7

Average of those 3 polls is Sanders +1.7


Sid

[Attorney in Texas]

149. Good point. I hope Sanders beats Clinton by the 15% margin and not by the 7% margin.

[Attorney in Texas]

111. Clinton 50%, Sanders 44% in most recent (11/15–19/2015) Iowa poll by CBS/YouGov (O'Malley 5%)

Sanders last held the lead in Iowa in polls conducted in mid-September.

The polling trends in Iowa look good.

Here is a graph of the past year's worth of Iowa polling with smoothing to highlight the trend lines:



Here is a graph of the past month's worth of Iowa polling with minimized smoothing to highlight the detailed high and lows:



With more than two months before the caucus, both Clinton and Sanders are in a strong position in Iowa. Because of the unique caucus rules, O'Malley will want to get his support closer to 15% before February 1.

[nolabels]

133. And still more than two months away!

Like it's kind of strange that i had once thought of Bernie as kind of just a protest vote

[orpupilofnature57]

102. I'm getting ready to call people in PA today, need to beat those $$$$$ .

[c588415]

103. According to RealClearPolitics.com/ the poll of polls, Clinton holds a

substantial lead over Sanders Nationally and state by state

[Attorney in Texas]

109. There isn't a national primary voting day so a national poll does not reflect any upcoming primary

[OkSustainAg]

104. I see a big points that are being missed.

1. This is not sports. Where there is a winner then everything goes back to 0 after one election.
2. A real movement is building the amount of support for making peoples lives better.
3. By next election cycle the idea of socialism will be mainstream.
4. Change is inevitable. (Gay marriage legal. marijuana legal, addressing inequalities both civil and economic, environmental awareness, sustainable agriculture).
IMHO

[Gregorian]

107. Vermont must know something.

[Duval]

112. Go Bernie Go!!

[George II]

120. Pretty sketchy collection of polls - two from September (pssst, Monday will be Dec. 1!), and one...

....that has more than 50% undecided.

[lark]

122. I'll believe Bernie has a chance when he's leading in more diverse states.

Notice something that all these have in common?

[ibegurpard]

123. three of these states will most likely go Democratic

Yet we're letting solid red states like South Carolina determine our candidate?

[Progressive dog]

125. Out of 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency

those states have 17. Utah has 6 of the 17, but last chose a Democrat for President in 1964.

[demwing]

136. Irrelevant, since we're talking about the Primary. /nt

[Progressive dog]

137. Relevant, since we're talking about party delegates

being chosen.

[Attorney in Texas]

156. Party delegates are not assigned according to electoral votes.

[Progressive dog]

157. Electoral votes are one of the factors for

assigning delegates.
Leading in four states with tiny populations is not a big deal, especially when the latest national poll shows Hillary increasing her lead to 2:1.

[fredamae]

152. Corporate Poll Results VS The Peoples Choice(s)

often times don't agree. The only thing Certain is who we, individually support and the voting results are the final word...as long as Those results are Not tampered with.
Other than that-polls or not-no one "knows" who's gonna take the primary.
#GoBernie

[sheldon]

158. Call me crazy, but clinton supporters

sound a lot like REPUBLICANS when they get butthurt.

[Attorney in Texas]

159. It sounds just like Romney '12, doesn't it?