2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMcClatchy/Marist national: Bernie's margin over all 3 Republicans is 11+ points better than Hillary
He runs 11 points better against Trump. While Hillary beats Trump by 9 , he has a 20 point landslide.
Clinton 50-Trump 41
Sanders 57-Trump 37
12 points better against Cruz. Hillary only ties him, while he beats Cruz by 12.
Clinton 47-Cruz 47
Sanders 53-Cruz 41
And weve saved the most epic for last. While Hillary loses by 9, Bernie wins by 11, a 20 point difference.
Sanders 52-Kasich 41
Kasich 51-Clinton 42
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/47-delegate-front-runners-clinton-and-trump-benefit-from-each-other/
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Gothmog
(145,475 posts)Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010
The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/
Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.
No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.
jfern
(5,204 posts)And all these candidates are in the race
Gothmog
(145,475 posts)These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946
These match up polls are not meaningful at this stage
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)don't matter much either.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)Gothmog
(145,475 posts)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
Watching Sanders at Monday nights 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 doesnt 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 dont 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 thats my definition of democratic socialism.
But thats not how Republicans will define socialism and theyll have the dictionary on their side. Theyll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. Theyll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldnt be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists dont 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, youre 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 its demagogic to say, oh, youre 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 didnt quarrel, saying, P eople want to criticize me, okay, and F ine, if thats 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 these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Gothmog
(145,475 posts)I feel sorry for you
jfern
(5,204 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,321 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)NCjack
(10,279 posts)elleng
(131,034 posts)we will lose.'
Marco Rubio
babylonsister
(171,079 posts)nooooooooo!
elleng
(131,034 posts)thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)...is what happens if the opposing party ALSO nominates someone who 50% can't stand?? They can't both lose...
elleng
(131,034 posts)Any Questions?
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Why wasn't that laughable?
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)MFM008
(19,818 posts)democrats havent even started on Cruz. He has been lost in the fog of Trump.
2. I dont care if one wins by 5 or 15 as long as they win.
3. Kasich doesnt have a chance in hell.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)Three things:
1. It is not uncommon for races to get closer as time goes on. So a big lead is better than a smaller one. For example, using your example, what if the race closes by 8 points between now and election day? In that case, the candidate who started at 5 points ahead ends up 3 points behind, while the candidate who started at 15 points ahead still ends up ahead by 7 points.
2. Someone who is winning by much greater numbers is likely winning in more states and districts. That means this candidate is likely to have longer coattails for potential wins of downticket dems, and can potentially flip more seats in the Senate and House. So "as long as they win" doesn't tell the whole story, some wins are better than others.
3. Along the same lines, a President who is swept into office in a landslide may have more political capital to get things done than would a President who gets in via a squeaker. S/he can claim to have a "mandate." (Of course, W made that claim in 2004 despite the fact that he barely won... if Ohio had gone the other way, as many think it actually did but for various shenanigans, he would have lost!)
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)This poll isn't an outlier. This has been consistent for quite a while now.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I sure don't want to put either dem to the test against Kasich. He's attractive like Bush 2. Everybody will want to have a beer with him. Trust me.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)The Republicans hold their convention before the Dems. What if they actually do nominate Kasich? What if polling in July (and the party's own internal polling) shows similar results? What if the best info at the time seems to indicate that Hillary loses to Kasich by 10 points, and Bernie beats him by 10 points? Of course, no prediction is cast in stone, but wouldn't it be better to start the campaign with the candidate who is much more competitive to begin with, rather than going with the underdog out of the gate? At this point, it's true with any of the matchups, but particularly so with Kasich.
Add to that what could still be a lingering threat of some kind of legal action against Hillary between the convention and election day.
Why would the party do this to itself?
Of course, if Hillary comes into the convention with 2383 pledged delegates, she's got the nomination. But if she falls short, and it's in the hands of the super delegates, they may have to seriously consider these things. Ultimately, their goal is for a Dem to win, after all. And if Bernie somehow manages to arrive in Philadelphia with more delegates than Hillary (even though still short of the 2383), in addition to everything above, that could clinch it.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)to have those margins