Sanders up by 19 in Nevada

[Polybius]

Brand new poll. Feel the Bern!

http://filesforprogress.org/datasets/2020/2/nv/nv_2_17_2020.pdf

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

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. BOOOOOOOOOMMM!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[SunSeeker]

2. I nqever heard of the "Data for Progress" poll.

Apparently the poll to watch, as mentioned by Lawrence O'Donnell tonight, is coming out at 5 am Eastern time. It will determine if Bloomberg makes the debate. This Data for Progress poll does not even mention Bloomberg, seems off.

[Bumperstickers]

3. Bloomberg is not on the ballot in Nevada

Tomorrow is the marist national poll.

Data for progress has been the most accurate pollster so far in the the first 2 states. Had Sanders beating Pete by 2 points in NH he won by 1.3

[SunSeeker]

6. So if Sanders at 35% is accurate, that means he slipped 12 points from 2016.

He got 47% in the Nevada caucus in 2016. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nevada_Democratic_caucuses_and_convention#Results

[stopdiggin]

8. well, no. in point of fact -- it isn't. (nt)

[SunSeeker]

10. Why hasn't he hit 50% in NV with his name recognition alone?

He was on the ballot there just 4 years ago.

[Polybius]

9. Spare us that tired argument

2016 had only two serious candidates. Oh course he was gonna have more support.

[SunSeeker]

12. Why "of course"? He ran in the Dem caucus there just 4 years ago.

His name recognition alone should have gotten him the 47% he got last time.

[tecelote]

14. It's unrealistic to think that he'd have the same numbers.

If Hillary ran, she wouldn't have the same numbers either. It's a larger field, you know.

And, you do know. 'Just grasping for straws because it's all you have.

[SunSeeker]

22. I'm not the one grasping at straws.

Opining about what Hillary's performance would be now says a lot about where your head is at.

Hillary started off with a relatively large field in 2016, and hit 50% in Iowa, whittling the field down quickly after that. Why can't Bernie do that, with his immense name recognition?

[Polybius]

15. Hillary had around 52%

If she ran in 2020, she'd be polling around 15%. Can't compare times. Trump got what, 35% of the primary vote in 2016? This year he'll get over 95%. Doesn't mean he's more popular, just a different time and different people running again him.

[SunSeeker]

19. "Different time" doesn't explain it. It is the same electorate.

Interesting that you would bring up Hillary and Trump. Trump started out getting 35%, but as the primary wore on he started winning states outright. Now that he's an incumbent and the GOP electorate knows he can win, he's getting 95%. And sure, after losing the GE, it's a safe guess Hillary would not get 52% again in Nevada. So by bringing those two up I guess you've answered my question, whether you meant to or not: Sanders is only getting 35% this time because less Dems think he can win in the GE than in 2016.

[Polybius]

23. Thanks another excuse

He ran against one person in 2016. Many who voted for him did so in protest then. Many wanted another choice besides Hillary.

I don't care if he gets 30 or 40%, he's gonna win.

[SunSeeker]

25. Nope.

There is no evidence that Dems voted for Sanders in 2016 because of a "protest vote" against Hillary. Otherwise, O'Malley would have gotten out of the single digits. The lack of a Hillary "protest vote" does not explain why Bernie dropped 12 points from 2016 to 2020 in Nevada.

[Polybius]

26. O'Malley never got any traction

Bernie was more well know. I liked Hillary in 2008 but sad to say she had higher negatives in 2016, and many wanted to vote for someone else in the primary. Problem was, no one major ran.

No matter how you spin it though, Bernie will win Nevada and probably the nominate. He wasn't my first choice but I stand behind him 100%.

[CentralMass]

13. Do you get group talking points ?

[SunSeeker]

20. Do you always resort to insults?

[Polybius]

29. With 60% of the vote in, Sanders has 46% of the vote

So what's the excuse now?

[SunSeeker]

30. LOL. Sanders got 47.29% in NV in 2016. He slipped even in NV.

What's the excuse now?

[Polybius]

31. 1% is basically identical

You lost the argument that Sanders slipped, try a new one. If he goes to 50% (still could), you'll change your tune and say "But but but he only gained three points in 4 years!" It's time to thrown in the towel on this one and say "I'm sorry, I was wrong."

[SunSeeker]

34. 1% is all Trump needs to win. Hell, he did it on less than that.

Where's the Revolution groundswell? He's been running for 5 years.

[Polybius]

37. See, now that he tied 2016 with 47%, it's "why didn't he build on 2016?"

You were blasting him for getting way less than 47% last week. He’s doing great, just give him credit.

[Bonobo]

39. Are you serious with that messed up logic?

You remind me of the scene from Spinal Tap where the guy says "This one goes to 11!"

Face palming so hard that I'm getting a concussion when I see this shit.

[squirecam]

38. No he didn't.

Sanders got 35% of the vote.

He got 46% of the delegates.

They are not the same thing.

[jcmaine72]

5. Cue all the people saying Nevada is too White and not an accurate reflection of "real" America in

3, 2, 1....

[MoonlitKnight]

11. Warren second

I will take that.

[Nanjeanne]

24. Bernie and Liz 1 and 2 would make me very very happy.

[uponit7771]

16. Sigh, a poll with a conflict of interest no matter the accuracy of one poll

[whistler162]

17. Impressive he found 19 people

who would vote for him!

[still_one]

18. Data for Progress has a political agenda, and unless other pollesters who do NOT have a political

agenda confirm this, I do not hold much credence in their polling:

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/data-for-progress/

[Bumperstickers]

32. You were right, they were way off.

They clearly underestimated sanders by 12 pts, but they were right on with Biden and Pete in the moe

[still_one]

33. Reading is fundamental. I never said they were way off, I said they had a political agenda, and was

waiting for other pollsters without an agenda to confirm it

The other pollsters did

I hope you feel better to bookmark my post, misrepresent what I said, and come me back believing you are taunting me

[Bumperstickers]

35. The reply was meant to another post sorry.

This post was bumpwd by others as I have just seen it. But actually you may have slandered a polling company with no concrete evidence to your claim. A suspect website is not a good reference imho.

[still_one]

36. Everything is fine. We are just discussing our differences, and that is a good thing

[Garrett78]

21. Never go by just 1 poll. Look at an aggregate.

[Alhena]

28. It's hard for me to see a scenario where Bernie isn't the nominee now