Poll: 2/3 of Dems would be comfortable with Sanders as Nominee...

[thesquanderer]

...and poll has him beating every other candidate on that metric. Warren second, with 60%. (So much for more people wanting a moderate!)

Keep in mind that people could pick multiple candidates for this question. More Dems are comfortable with Sanders or Warren than they are with Biden or anyone else.



That was from this morning's CNN Inside Politics. Poll is NBC/WSJ.

[Garrett78]

1. DU is a bit out of touch.

[jalan48]

10. Not a whole lot of Underground here.

[redqueen]

59. That's quite an understatement. nt

[Devil Child]

20. Incredibly n/t

[OliverQ]

40. I'd say that's an understatement.

People here all seem like Chris Matthews. They'd rather have Trump for another 4 years than Bernie.

[redqueen]

60. Just a bit.

A really frickin HUGE bit.

Some of the posts here are so 'out of touch' with actual dem voters it makes one wonder.

[Happy Hoosier]

63. Or perhaps smarter than the average bear

We tend to be better informed and more engaged here.

[thesquanderer]

73. Also, perhaps, more partisan than the average voter. (n/t)

[democratisphere]

76. Hardly. Most voters don't even know what is actually going on with candidates who make

wild claims with no means to back it up.

[RandySF]

2. That 1/3 will be lethal.

[questionseverything]

3. are you saying they (you) will support trump instead?

cause that would be lethal

[RandySF]

6. Nope, I will vote for Sanders if it comes down to it.

But I’m in California so it doesn’t matter. But if we have 1/3 of Dems staying home, voting for Trump or leaving the ovals blank, it’ll be a disaster.

[questionseverything]

13. i am downstate illinois

in the 2015 primary Bernie won downstate 2/3 to 1/3

downstate Illinois is a lot like rural Wisconsin, Michigan,

[guillaumeb]

27. An excellent reminder.

I am just outside of Chicago. How far downstate are you?

[Kaleva]

37. How do Democrats do in that area in general elections?

Looks like Trump won much of lower Illinois in 2016, Romney won much of lower Illinois in 2012 as did McCain in 2008.

Which leads me to believe that there are far more Repubs in lower Illinois then Democrats.

[questionseverything]

41. is very red except the college areas, compares to rural wis or michigan

Obama in 2008 is the only dem to win my county for long time

[Kaleva]

90. Yes. I live in rural Upper Michigan and it's the same.

[questionseverything]

92. one thing most peops seem to agree on is we need healthcare to be improved

it is what they liked about Obama and what they like about bernie

[Happy Hoosier]

65. That's great in the primary. But what are the demos for the GE?

[Garrett78]

15. I thought you were leaving this forum.

[RandySF]

19. I'm weaning off

[True Blue American]

53. :)

Will not work! LOL.

Tried that some place else. Finally went cold turkey!

[thesquanderer]

4. How so? Everyone else's "not comfortable" is even bigger! (n/t)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

7. Stop w/ the logic! Bernie cant be viewed positively under any circumstances; dint you get the memo?

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

[RandySF]

8. Did we factor No Party Affiliate?

[thesquanderer]

12. It's "Likely Democratic primary voters." So...

...I'd guess it includes independents in those states where they can vote in the Dem primary.

[RandySF]

18. I'm addressing November

[thesquanderer]

36. Ah. This is more about the primary than the general...

...though it might give you a hint about who generates the most enthusiasm and may help yield the highest turnout in November. That is, better to have a candidate who 2/3 of your base is really happy with than a candidate who only half your base is really happy with.

[octoberlib]

11. That 1/3 will decide the election.

[thesquanderer]

14. How so? n/t

[octoberlib]

17. Trump won by only 70, 000 votes. If it's this close that 1/3 could make all the difference.

I live in a swing state and too many times have seen GOP messaging and propaganda sink good candidates. I'll vote for Sanders if he's the nominee but after 2016 and the polls all saying Hillary was a shoe in , I don't trust any of this.

[thesquanderer]

35. Yet every other candidate does worse. The good news is, this still doesn't mean...

...that the other third would not vote for him if he was the only alternative to Trump. WHat it does mean (if it's accurate) is that every other candidate creates a less enthusiastic Democratic base vote than Sanders. This would be an interesting metric to keep an eye on in coming weeks, if they keep polling for it.

[Chainfire]

77. Exactly what I was thinking

2/3 aint enough.....

[Voltaire2]

25. Well certainly if activists in that 1/3 work at

sowing dissent, at convincing people they’ve been cheated, that somehow the results are fraudulent, it could be a problem.

Then again maybe it’s time for centrist Democrats to take their turn at enthusiastically supporting a candidate they don’t like.

[Spider Jerusalem]

39. He's doing nine points better than your guy in that poll (n/t)

[berni_mccoy]

75. And that 50% for Biden would be as well.

[Dragonfli]

97. So those with even lower numbers are really screwed I guess

We better go with Bernie due to best odds.

[Meadowoak]

5. I'm comfortable with Bernie as the nominee, I'm confident he can beat Trump.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

16. For ur kind words & to make you even MORE comfortable, you win the prize for the Bernie Post of Day

Congrats Meadowoak!! Enjoy your custom-made Bernie All-Star Chucks...



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

[handmade34]

9. means little

in the general

[emmaverybo]

21. Ah. Sanity.

[thesquanderer]

26. True that this is a thread about the kind of support candidates have in the primary...

...which, of course, is also of interest to people here, but I wouldn't say it's completely irrelevant in the general. You could make an argument that we are stronger in the general with a candidate who the greatest number of non-Republican voters are excited about or at least comfortable with... because people "on the cusp" may feel less motivated to come out of they're not excited about (or even particularly comfortable with) the Dem candidate.

[ms liberty]

54. Good point. n/t

[Cha]

30. Exactly!

[uponit7771]

22. That's horrible

[itsrobert]

23. Trump has 95% Republican support and Bernie has 66% Democrat support

Hmmm......

[thesquanderer]

28. And every other Dem has less! Yeah, a little scary. n/t

[CentralMass]

79. Joe has 56% Democratic support

Last edited Mon Feb 24, 2020, 12:00 PM - Edit history (1)

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. How could that be? I read on DU that WE ARE GOING OVER A CLIFF,,!,!,,!,!

Do I need the sarcasm thingy?

If 2/3 are comfortable with Sanders now, that would likely grow after the convention, if the moderates unite behind him.

[Joinfortmill]

29. That may or may not be true, but

we need more than Dems to win the election. And just a reminder, if Trump wins our democracy is screwed.

[delisen]

31. ..and the big winner is Putin who would have the Dem and Republican candidates he wants

Any analysis of a presidential election in the US must factor in Russia/Putin.

Lately we always have 2 elephants in the room and many keep trying to ignore them

1. Republican Party-history of election interference
2. Russia/Putin--history of election interference

While the Russian involvement in choosing our president in 2016 was mainly hidden from us, since then we have been warned that the Russian involvement is ongoing. It was a major finding of the Mueller Report, for example.

Yet candidates and many Democrats and media act as though it is not happening --act as though we are having free and fair elections.

Curious

[jmg257]

38. Yep Russia has the boxed exacta.

[aeromanKC]

32. 2/3's of Dems Trump LANDSLIDE

losing not only the White House, but the House and Senate as well. (and by default the SCOTUS for the next generation)

Dems need 90% Dems, 50% Independents and 20% R's

[thesquanderer]

34. But every other Dem does WORSE! But the silver lining is...

even though we don't have ANY candidate who more than 65% of us are enthusiastic about (or comfortable with)... that doesn't mean that most of the rest of us won't vote for the Dem nominee against Trump regardless. Though lower enthusiasm could mean lower turnout compared to candidates who engender more enthusiasm.

[Garrett78]

42. People don't seem to be understanding the poll, or the basic fact that every other Dem does worse.

A similar poll in 2016 showed only 46% were enthusiastic about Clinton. 65% is fantastic by comparison.

[uponit7771]

46. this poll was more of a popularity poll, the center left is split ... we know this so Sanders

... is horrible at 65%

[still_one]

55. We have no idea if this translates to votes or not in the GE, and that the other candidates fare

worse should not provide any comfort to anyone, because in all cases we don’t know those who feel uncomfortable will translate into not voting or not

It is like the favorability polls, what do they mean, and does it translate into votes?

The only thing we can say for sure is that 2/3 of the Democrats polled, feel comfortable with a Sanders nomination, and 1/3 do not

[thesquanderer]

62. No, it tells us more than that.

re: "only thing we can say for sure is that 2/3 of the Democrats polled, feel comfortable with a Sanders nomination, and 1/3 do not"

It also tells us things like, for example, around half feel comfortable with a Klobuchar or Bloomberg nomination, and about half do not.

And "Democrats polled" represents "Likely Democratic primary voters" so that tells us something too.

By inference, it tells us that, for example, more Dem primary votes will feel better about voting for a Sanders or Warren in November than the number who would feel good about voting for a Klobuchar or Bloomberg. That doesn't mean they WON'T vote for a Klobuchar or Bloomberg, but that it's not their preference. I think a relevant extrapolation is that, in general, November turnout is probably higher for candidates people prefer than ones they hold their nose for.

[still_one]

68. I disagree with your last paragraph because you are subjectively inferring something

that was not asked by the poll, and should have probablybeen, regarding their vote


I also haven’t seen the internal stats f this poll, MOE, etc.

Just the percentages presented in the OP, which makes the other inferences you brought up even more ambiguous

[thesquanderer]

80. Yes, the part where I said "I think...probably" was not in the data. I try to be clear that way. n/t

[uponit7771]

70. True, this is an eye candy poll

[still_one]

71. I think some people are reading too much into this poll that isn't there

I haven’t seen the internal stats of this poll, just the.graphic that the OP put up.

The poll question itself can be interpreted different ways by different people answering the question. It isn’t necessarily a yes or no question. There is a gray zone in this kind of question

[thesquanderer]

82. Here's the way the question was asked

I'm going to list people who have said they will run for president. For each one, please tell me whether that person is someone you would (a) be enthusiastic about, (b) be comfortable with, (c) have some reservations about, or (d) be very uncomfortable with. If you don't know the name, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE)

MoE is +/- 4.75%

If you want to see the full report, it's at https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/200085NBCWSJFebruary2020Poll.pdf

[thesquanderer]

58. Remember, respondents could vote for more than one candidate. So I'm not sure...

...what point you're trying to make when you say "center left is split". People could vote for as many candidates as they are comfortable with. (And with Sanders and Warren on top, it shows that more Dems are comfortable with someone toward the left.)

If Sanders is "horrible at 65%", what does that say about everyone else?

[Happy Hoosier]

66. When Bernie entered the race this cycle...

... I warned it would split the party. And so it has.

[uponit7771]

44. +1, thank you ... someone else gets that this poll is horrible for Sanders

[Garrett78]

45. No, it isn't. But even if it was, it would be horribler for every other candidate. See post #42.

People seem to be completely misinterpreting the poll, while ignoring the fact that every other candidate does worse.

[uponit7771]

47. delete

[Garrett78]

49. Huh? There's no moving of any goalpost.

The question wasn't, "Will you vote for Candidate X?" It was a question about enthusiasm.

But regardless of the meaning of the question, Sanders comes out on top by a good margin. So, again, if it's "horrible" for Sanders, it's absolutely catastrophic for every other candidate.

[uponit7771]

50. True, I deleted it and looked at the poll again. It doesn't matter if we're comfortable with any of

... our candidates this seems like another M$M horse race eye candy poll.

It matters if swing states like them and whether there could be some momentum built up around them and no other candidate has a historical win over trump outside MOE but Biden.

Sanders sure doesn't

[thesquanderer]

72. re: "It doesn't matter if we're comfortable with any of them...It matters if swing states like them"

What "matters" depends on the information you are looking for. I mean, if ALL that matters is whether swing states like them over Trump, then EVERY Dem primary poll saying how one Dem candidate does against another Dem candidate doesn't matter, because they don't give you any such insight either. (And you can make that case... that every Dem-vs.Dem poll is "another M$M horse race eye candy poll," and I would not dispute that.)

That said, this poll does tell you at least a little something about November desirability, if you think that (as I said elsewhere) November turnout tends to be higher for candidates people prefer than ones they hold their nose for. That could have some relevance, maybe it does matter how many of us are enthusiastic or comfortable with our candidate.

And if you do care about the Dem-vs.Dem horserace, it is good news for Sanders... because if more of the likely Dem primary voters are enthusiastic or comfortable with him than anyone else, that increases the chance that he gets the most votes, which is not a bad position to be in regardless of whether he goes into the convention with a majority or not.

It also tells you that, contrary to some common wisdom around here, more Dem voters are enthusiastic-or-comfortable with someone on the left compared to how many are enthusiastic-or-comfortable with someone more moderate.

That being the case, you may ask, why isn't Sanders (or the combined votes of Sanders+Warren) running away with it? Well maybe that's exactly what's happening. We'll see.

But if it turns out they are not, one could talk about things like the fact that many people in the poll are enthusiastic about or comfortable with more than one candidate, but they can only vote for one. It will be interesting to see what happens.

This is not a magic survey that reveals everything you need to know about the election. But I think it is an interesting data point, and is encouraging for people who would prefer our party leaned more leftward, as it shows our candidates who lean left seem seem to be the ones more of us are happy with. I think that is worth knowing. Though admittedly, it's just one poll, just one data point.

I think it's also interesting that some of the results are way outside the MoE so are that much more likely to be giving us info we can count on, i.e. the fact that 65% are comfortable with Sanders as our nominee and only 47% feel that way about Bloomberg.

re:

"no other candidate has a historical win over trump outside MOE but Biden. Sanders sure doesn't"

Historical? Sanders definitely does. I seem to recall lots of such polls in the 2016 election. But even this year, yes, there are some...

* Quinnipiac earlier this month has Sanders up 8 over Trump in a poll with a 2.5 MoE.

* LA Times/USC late January has Sanders up by 7 in a poll with a MoE of 2.

Want some swing states?

* Michigan, Univ. of Wis/State Journal this month, Sanders up 7 over Trump, MoE of 3.

* Florida, Florida Atlantic University last month, Sanders up by 6 with a MoE of 2.6.

So yeah, Sanders definitely has had polls where he beats Trump outside the MoE.

[uponit7771]

74. Your first 2 sentences are 100% correct and you could stop RIGHT THERE. If Bloomberg, a candidate

... I loathe was historically out polling Biden in swing states I'd switch to him quick fast.

Me or your feelings on the matter would not matter outside of that for me seeing its swing states that matter the most in any of these elections.

[thesquanderer]

83. I agree. If the only polls you care about are the ones that help you determine who will win...

most polls are pretty useless, except for the ones that are head-to-head against Trump in swing states. For the most part, the others are kind of curiosities, though they may inform your views in other respects.

I'm also with you on winning being most important. I also don't like Bloomberg, but if he were the only candidate consistently out-polling Trump by more than MoE in the swings states, yeah, I guess I'd have to go that way.

The funny thing is, that's the number one reason I went with Sanders last time, he was pretty consistently substantially out-polling Clinton when pitted against Trump (nationally... we didn't have as much focus on specific states then). In that context, I really was surprised this site was as hard on Sanders as it was. I wonder if people are even more scared of Trump now than they were then.

I've also resigned myself that there is a good chance I'll have to switch away from Warren, as she's running out of time to put up those poll numbers.

[uponit7771]

85. +1, the national polls last election was M$M horse race candy in 16 & now there's a focus on swing

... states especially from MJ who is setting the tone on that issue.

I'm non white, ... I'm sure more scared of Trump now then last time because I believe Trump will expand his abuse of non white children and jail those in opposition parties and media figures.

There will be few people to speak up against it once the media figure killing start because of shock.

I don't put anything past the racist sexual predator we have in office right now, I used to live in Germany and studied how so many people got took by Hitler and Hitler won his 37% fair and square without Russia's help.

[pecosbob]

33. I think about two issues only

Who will beat Trump and who willl put him in jail. If you can't or won't do both then go away.

[Democrats Ascendant]

52. From the bottom....

of my Democratic heart: THANK YOU!!!
Motherfucker needs to go to jail.

[uponit7771]

43. ***** THAT'S HORRIBLE ****

[ibegurpard]

48. "not comfortable with" does not equate to "will not vote for"

[Garrett78]

51. Yeah, see posts #42, #45 and #49.

This thread is example #4,382 of Bernie Derangement Syndrome. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

DUer A: "Hey, did you see that Sanders only came in 4th in Nevada among people named Doug who were born on a Tuesday?"

DUer B: "OMG, that's horrible!!1!"

[redqueen]

61. What's really amusing is that he's doing **better than other candidates**

So what's their suggestion? We go with one whom FEWER dems are comfortable with?

[thesquanderer]

86. Yes, I said the same in Post #34 and elsewhere. (n/t)

[still_one]

56. The only thing we can say for sure regarding this poll is that 2/3 of the Democrats polled,

feel comfortable with a Sanders nomination, and 1/3 do not

We can also infer from this poll that more Democrats that were polled are more comfortable with Sanders as the nominee than the other candidates

The question we don’t know is if this translates to votes in either the primaries or the general election, and we don’t know if having so many candidates running skew the poll results or not

Too many assumptions are made from polls like this in my opinion. They are a lot like favorability
polls in my opinion.

[Blue_Tires]

57. Doesn't reflect any real-life Dems I know...

they're scared shitless...

[thesquanderer]

64. re: "they're scared shitless" - I think they're represented in the poll by the one third who are...

...not enthusiastic about--or even comfortable with--ANY of our candidates.

[USALiberal]

67. LOL, ok! nt

[NurseJackie]

69. Only 2/3rds? He'll need more than that. Trump will easily defeat him.

Not enough people will be motivated to vote "for" a Socialist, but MANY MANY more will be exceedingly motivated to vote AGAINST A SOCIALIST.

There are no two ways about it: Trump/GOP/Russia will destroy Bernie. Trump wins regardless.

We need a candidate who isn't divisive and who can bring in more votes from the center and center-right.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287570879

We know that most Democrats will vote for Bernie over Trump. But we need more than that. We need to persuade those who are disgruntled with Trump to see us as a viable alternative. We need a candidate who offers viable solutions to the nation’s problems – NOT a candidate who is causing division among our own party members, while making pie-in-the-sky campaign promises that have zero chance of ever coming to fruition.

We know that Trump, the Russians, and the GOP are dying to see Bernie as the Dem nominee. That’s not because – as many Bernie supporters keep saying – “they’re afraid of Bernie”. No, they’re not. They are promoting Bernie because they already know that defeating him will be an easy task. They started collecting the oppo-research in 2016 when it seemed possible he would be the Dem candidate – and they have now redoubled their effiorts to collect even more.

[thesquanderer]

89. A few points...

... Yes, only 2/3. But all our other candidates do even worse.

... Just because only 2/3 of the Dem voters are enthusiastic or comfortable with him, that doesn't mean that the other third (or most of them) won't vote for him in November anyway, just as a vote against Trump. (Same if we put up Biden, for example, even though even fewer Dems are comfortable with him than are comfortable with Sanders.)

... There are many people who say they will not vote for a socialist. The majority of them are Republicans, who aren't going to vote for our candidate anyway.

... Even when people say they won't vote for something in the abstract, that doesn't mean they won't vote for an actual individual, there are too many other factors.

... We don't necessarily need a candidate "who can bring in more votes from the center and center-right." There's more than one way to approach November. As I posted elsewhere:

There was an interesting article posted a while back, basically making the point that you can theoretically win with either your base plus a bunch of non-committed toward the middle, or with your base and a bunch to your more extreme side, and there's no reliable way to determine which group is bigger.

I pointed out that, last time, we ran trying to grab a bunch of middle, Trump ran trying to get a bunch of that side's more extreme... and he won. You can't predict which route will be more successful.

[Garrett78]

93. Are you deliberately misinterpreting the poll and ignoring that everyone else does worse???

A similar poll in 2016 showed 46% enthusiasm for Clinton. Sanders is at 65%, well ahead of every other person in the race.

So, again, are you being purposely obtuse?

[thesquanderer]

96. Do you happen to have a link to that 46% figure for Clinton in 2016?

I think that really helps put this in perspective, but I hate to pass things along until I see them with my own eyes.

[katmondoo]

78. That is not true. Just another Bernie push bot.

[thesquanderer]

87. Dd you check into the poll methodology & pollster reputation? Or is that just a knee-jerk reaction?

There is a tendency for people to simply believe the polls whose results they like with and doubt the ones they don't.

[Garrett78]

91. An NBC/WSJ poll is "another Bernie push bot?" Um, okay.

[McCamy Taylor]

81. George McGovern

[lark]

84. Yet Warren is not coming in 2nd in the votes.

This doesn't track with the results we've seen so far - wonder why? And even these results are actually scary - drumpf has 92% support from repugs, 65% of Dems would be a losing number in the general.

[thesquanderer]

88. re: "doesn't track with the results we've seen so far - wonder why?"

People can be enthusiastic about (or comfortable with) more than one candidate, but they can only vote for one. So, for example, a Warren voter may also be comfortable with Sanders, and end up picking Sanders because they perceive him as more likely to beat Trump. Or because they are simply more enthusiastic about him, even if they like both of them.

[Demsrule86]

94. Potentially losing 1/3 of your party in an election is a big deal.

[thesquanderer]

95. Maybe it's not great, but it's BEST CASE scenario.

Because everyone else polls WORSE. So look at these figures with this in mind:

* True, a third are not enthusiastic or completely comfortable with Sanders as the nominee. That doesn't mean they wouldn't vote for him against Trump in November. For example. YOU probably are not comfortable with the idea of Sanders as the nominee, yet YOU would vote for him in November if he were our candidate, right?

Most Dems will vote for WHATEVER Dem we put up against Trump. Even if they have to hold their nose while doing it.

* If you think Sanders' number in this metric makes him not worthy of the nomination, who could you possibly vote for instead? EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE DOES WORSE.

So will you just not vote in the primary? Would you vote for someone even MORE than a third of Dems aren't happy with, like, well anyone other than Sanders?

Most of us will vote for whoever the Dems put up, as I said, even if we have to hold our nose to do it. What this poll says is that the candidate for whom the fewest of us have to hold our nose is Bernie.

That could be a benefit in terms of generating the strongest turnout. More people may show up if more of them are enthusiastic about the nominee. Enthusiastic people talk up candidates to their friends, hold-their-nosers don't.

So while it would be great to have someone who more than 2/3 of us were happy with, if such a candidate does not exist, then this is as close as we get, because again, everyone else is even worse.

I'm not saying one needs to vote based on this metric, or that Sanders is the best person to vote for. What I'm saying is, if you use this info to conclude that Sanders is not someone you'd want, that means you want everyone else EVEN LESS.