Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Democratic Primaries

jcmaine72

(1,843 posts)

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

Reply to Polybius (Original post)

Tue Feb 18, 2020, 04:18 AM

Feb 2020

3, 2, 1....

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sanders up by 19 in Nevada [View all] Polybius Feb 2020 OP

BOOOOOOOOOMMM!! InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2020 #1

I nqever heard of the "Data for Progress" poll. SunSeeker Feb 2020 #2

Bloomberg is not on the ballot in Nevada Bumperstickers Feb 2020 #3

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2020 #4

So if Sanders at 35% is accurate, that means he slipped 12 points from 2016. SunSeeker Feb 2020 #6

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2020 #7

well, no. in point of fact -- it isn't. (nt) stopdiggin Feb 2020 #8

Why hasn't he hit 50% in NV with his name recognition alone? SunSeeker Feb 2020 #10

Spare us that tired argument Polybius Feb 2020 #9

Why "of course"? He ran in the Dem caucus there just 4 years ago. SunSeeker Feb 2020 #12

It's unrealistic to think that he'd have the same numbers. tecelote Feb 2020 #14

I'm not the one grasping at straws. SunSeeker Feb 2020 #22

Hillary had around 52% Polybius Feb 2020 #15

"Different time" doesn't explain it. It is the same electorate. SunSeeker Feb 2020 #19

Thanks another excuse Polybius Feb 2020 #23

Nope. SunSeeker Feb 2020 #25

O'Malley never got any traction Polybius Feb 2020 #26

Do you get group talking points ? CentralMass Feb 2020 #13

Do you always resort to insults? SunSeeker Feb 2020 #20

With 60% of the vote in, Sanders has 46% of the vote Polybius Feb 2020 #29

LOL. Sanders got 47.29% in NV in 2016. He slipped even in NV. SunSeeker Feb 2020 #30

1% is basically identical Polybius Feb 2020 #31

1% is all Trump needs to win. Hell, he did it on less than that. SunSeeker Feb 2020 #34

See, now that he tied 2016 with 47%, it's "why didn't he build on 2016?" Polybius Feb 2020 #37

Are you serious with that messed up logic? Bonobo Feb 2020 #39

No he didn't. squirecam Feb 2020 #38

Cue all the people saying Nevada is too White and not an accurate reflection of "real" America in jcmaine72 Feb 2020 #5

Warren second MoonlitKnight Feb 2020 #11

Bernie and Liz 1 and 2 would make me very very happy. Nanjeanne Feb 2020 #24

Sigh, a poll with a conflict of interest no matter the accuracy of one poll uponit7771 Feb 2020 #16

Impressive he found 19 people whistler162 Feb 2020 #17

Data for Progress has a political agenda, and unless other pollesters who do NOT have a political still_one Feb 2020 #18

You were right, they were way off. Bumperstickers Feb 2020 #32

Reading is fundamental. I never said they were way off, I said they had a political agenda, and was still_one Feb 2020 #33

The reply was meant to another post sorry. Bumperstickers Feb 2020 #35

Everything is fine. We are just discussing our differences, and that is a good thing still_one Feb 2020 #36

Never go by just 1 poll. Look at an aggregate. Garrett78 Feb 2020 #21

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2020 #27

It's hard for me to see a scenario where Bernie isn't the nominee now Alhena Feb 2020 #28