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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Purveyor

(29,876 posts)
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 02:49 PM Feb 2016

Poll: Sanders Has Slight Edge Over Clinton In Matchups With GOP Opponents

Source: USA Today

Susan Page and Jenny Ung, USA TODAY 1:01 p.m. EST February 17, 2016

WASHINGTON — Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders fares a bit better than rival Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups against Republican presidential contenders, a USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, and he has pulled within 10 percentage points of her for the Democratic nomination.

The nationwide survey, taken Thursday through Monday, underscores how formidable an opponent the 74-year-old democratic socialist has become against one of the Democratic Party's most established figures.

Clinton — a former first lady, two-term New York senator and secretary of State — is backed by 50% of likely Democratic primary and caucus voters, down 6 points from December. Over that time, Sanders' standing has surged 11 points, to 40%.

While Clinton argues that she would be more electable in November, Sanders shows somewhat more strength against four possible Republican opponents, although almost all of the matchups fall within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/02/17/usa-today-suffolk-poll-whos-more-electable/80452560/

30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Poll: Sanders Has Slight Edge Over Clinton In Matchups With GOP Opponents (Original Post) Purveyor Feb 2016 OP
good stuff. secondwind Feb 2016 #1
Good. ananda Feb 2016 #2
Good. mpcamb Feb 2016 #3
So the American people will pick an asshole Republican over Clinton katmondoo Feb 2016 #4
Romney didn't have Hillary as his opponent either. Romney would have beat Clinton easily. eom Purveyor Feb 2016 #5
Pure BS. RBInMaine Feb 2016 #7
He got caught saying cannabis_flower Feb 2016 #15
Trump's against Iraq, outsourcing, corporate healthcare, and says Bush should hang for 9-11 MisterP Feb 2016 #19
Yeah I think a lot of people are missing Trump is to the left of Clinton on some issues. hollowdweller Feb 2016 #21
That's my take, as well. libdem4life Feb 2016 #26
Romney would destroy Clinton this year with a 40+ state win Reter Feb 2016 #24
Not without his tax returns. rocktivity Feb 2016 #25
This does not mean SHIT right now. TOTALLY MEANINGLESS. Bernie hasn't been challenged. RBInMaine Feb 2016 #6
WHARGLEBARGLE WOLVERINES!!! frylock Feb 2016 #10
Yawn. That's what a large percentage of Americans are doing with That One. Just bring up FDR libdem4life Feb 2016 #27
Its like bizzaro world youceyec Feb 2016 #8
Heard the same shit in 2008. frylock Feb 2016 #11
Heard it in 2004 hollowdweller Feb 2016 #12
Yep. That worked out pretty well for us, as I recall. frylock Feb 2016 #13
Doesn't mean much this early on. Beacool Feb 2016 #9
Yes she is a 'well known commodity' and that right there is Purveyor Feb 2016 #14
Exactly. Willful blindness. dchill Feb 2016 #20
What stands out to me.... Blasphemer Feb 2016 #22
Yes, at this point, I'm not worried about the match ups. Beacool Feb 2016 #23
It's the Anti-Establishment Election Year. That's the Hair on Fire. Enough is Enough. libdem4life Feb 2016 #29
Again this poll uses cannabis_flower Feb 2016 #16
That makes sense to me rocktivity Feb 2016 #17
With Electoral College POE-PurityOfEssence Feb 2016 #18
Hypothetical match up polls are worthless and should not be relied for anything Gothmog Feb 2016 #28
Hypothetical match ups mean very little, and national polls even less. Elections are still_one Feb 2016 #30

katmondoo

(6,457 posts)
4. So the American people will pick an asshole Republican over Clinton
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 03:25 PM
Feb 2016

I don't think so. They wouldn't pick Mitt Romney and he was not even half as bad as this years candidates

cannabis_flower

(3,765 posts)
15. He got caught saying
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:46 PM
Feb 2016

Something horrible. He might have won if he hadn't said this:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ...These are people who pay no income tax. ...and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

 

Reter

(2,188 posts)
24. Romney would destroy Clinton this year with a 40+ state win
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 02:41 PM
Feb 2016

He picked the wrong year to run. Thank your lucky stars he won't be the nominee this year.

rocktivity

(44,577 posts)
25. Not without his tax returns.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:22 PM
Feb 2016

In the beginning, Romney actually had an edge over Obama with independents. But by refusing to show his returns (a tradition started by his own father!) he effectively folded his own trump card...if you'll pardon the expression...


rocktivity

 

RBInMaine

(13,570 posts)
6. This does not mean SHIT right now. TOTALLY MEANINGLESS. Bernie hasn't been challenged.
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 04:12 PM
Feb 2016

Wait until a billion dollars worth of !!!!!SOCIALISTCOMMUNIST!!!!! attack ads come out. So much for the lead.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
27. Yawn. That's what a large percentage of Americans are doing with That One. Just bring up FDR
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:35 PM
Feb 2016

and Social Security, and they fold like cheap fans.

 

youceyec

(394 posts)
8. Its like bizzaro world
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 04:29 PM
Feb 2016

What part of this don't pollsters and some of you understand? GOP has NOT been attacking BS other than a few blurbs about socialism here and there. Once they start attacking him his numbers will SINK.

Think about it.

Beacool

(30,253 posts)
9. Doesn't mean much this early on.
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 04:42 PM
Feb 2016

Hillary is a well known commodity, Sanders is not. Either one of them is going to get viciously attacked by Republicans. After 8 years of Democrats holding the WH, they are salivating to take it back. That's why party leaders are in despair that they haven't been able to stop Trump.

dchill

(38,537 posts)
20. Exactly. Willful blindness.
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 12:48 AM
Feb 2016

Incredible how they can't see the YUUUGE swath of the electorate that she has alienated and disgusted.

Her nomination would cost us Democrats the election.

Blasphemer

(3,261 posts)
22. What stands out to me....
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 02:49 AM
Feb 2016

Is that Sanders's numbers used to look significantly better (outside the margin of error of a given poll) but now that he's better known, the numbers are virtually identical. They're both running neck and and neck (and losing) to Trump. This makes perfect sense to me. In an election year like this, no Democrat is going to really have an edge over any other Democrat. The same applies to the inflated numbers Biden was getting. His numbers if he had decided to run would look just like Sanders's and Clinton's.

On the flip side, the numbers for the Republicans are also likely inflated. Trump is well-known but we have yet to see how his schtick would stand up to a GE fight. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich have yet to be fully exposed to the public. Overall, this poll is not bad news for the Democrats at all. It's normal for the party that is out of power to poll much better (a la Bush's early polls in 2000) initially and then the numbers become closer as we get closer to the election. The GOP is only managing a tie right now. That doesn't bode well for them come November.

Beacool

(30,253 posts)
23. Yes, at this point, I'm not worried about the match ups.
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 01:47 PM
Feb 2016

It's way too early in the electoral season to know who people will really favor in November. I kept saying that the two challengers of both parties wouldn't be the nominees. I still feel that Hillary will prevail, but I'm not so sure about Trump. It seems that the Republicans are on their way to nominate the one candidate running who is unfit for office.

It's one crazy election year......




 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
29. It's the Anti-Establishment Election Year. That's the Hair on Fire. Enough is Enough.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:39 PM
Feb 2016

Trump has his own money and Bernie is getting his in $27 checks. Let's see, what do All of The Others have in common? Right, they bow down and kiss the rings of Big Donors. That would be The Establishment. Not exactly breaking news.

We're getting sick and tired of being sick and tired about that shit running our country.

cannabis_flower

(3,765 posts)
16. Again this poll uses
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:01 PM
Feb 2016

Likely voters and aIso does a 65-35 landlines/cellphone ratio. However, even by 2013 that ratio was 59/41 and is likely closer to even now. I'm hoping that means it is a closer race than it appears.

http://time.com/2966515/landline-phones-cell-phones/

rocktivity

(44,577 posts)
17. That makes sense to me
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:02 PM
Feb 2016

Last edited Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:04 PM - Edit history (1)

if only because I can't see the Republicians who can't bring themselves to vote for Trump bringing themselves to vote for Hillary.


rocktivity

18. With Electoral College
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 09:59 PM
Feb 2016

This is pretty much moot - is there a tabulation of who would fare better state by state? Then we can calculate electors and see who really fares better, and if Trump or Rubio can beat either of them.

Regardless - with so much at stake I'm voting for whoever gets the nomination- Hillern Cliders or Bernary Sandton

Gothmog

(145,563 posts)
28. Hypothetical match up polls are worthless and should not be relied for anything
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:39 PM
Feb 2016

Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.


The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Match up polls are worthless because the candidates have not been fully vetted. Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.

still_one

(92,403 posts)
30. Hypothetical match ups mean very little, and national polls even less. Elections are
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:43 PM
Feb 2016

decided by states, not by national polls

Right now at this point in time the state polls favor Hillary for the Democratic nominee. That may change. The republican state polls have Trump for the state polls for the Repugs nomination, that could change

Any hypothetical match ups of presumed candidate dates are just that, hypothetical

Once the respective nominees are chosen it becomes real

That is why including Biden when he didnt announce was artificially skewing the results



Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Poll: Sanders Has Slight ...