I've yet to meet a Hillary supporter in real life. Almost everyone I've talked to is supporting another candidate or says well I guess if I HAVE to vote for someone I'd pick her, but I don't like XXX about her, and would like to vote for someone else. I'm from New York too!

Maybe it's because I'm part of the younger generation (I'm 25), which was the demographic that Sanders was doing best in.

But even among them, she leads by over 10 points.

I dunno. I'm the opposite here. Everyone I know (except one) is supporting HRC, though a couple more would LIKE to support him, but don't think he can win the general.

But we'll have to see, there should be a whole bunch of national polls coming out over the next few days because the Repub debate cutoff polling is next Tuesday I believe.

If Sanders is still stuck in the teens in the next group that would be bad news, if he's between 20-25 it's decent news, and if its 25 or above that would be excellent news.

Based on demographics of supporters. Basically, Bernie is attracting liberal white voters and little elsewhere. Since that group makes up only 30% of the Democratic world, and he won't get every one of those votes, he will top out somewhere below that threshold.

Basically, Bernie needs Clinton to drop out or find a way to make considerable inroads with all other demographic areas.

But he needs Iowa.

Liberal white voters can propel him to victory in Iowa and afterwards he would certainly win New Hampshire which would be about 3 weeks of non-stop favorable media coverage of his insurgent campaign and of Hillary's 'demise.' At that point who knows what happens, maybe someone else jumps in the race. The difference here is that Bernie would probably not pull the AA vote as easily as Obama did, but will probably pull white working class easier.

There could be a situation where the coalition is a bit different than 08, with Bernie taking affluent whites, working whites, and millennials, and Clinton taking Blacks, Latino's and women. I'm not sure how that map would pan out.. It might look something like this. (I made a map) . Bernie = blue, Clinton Red. Still a Clinton advantage, but there's a small chance.

I think your map us very optimistic for Bernie, but not completely out of the question if he really gets rolling.

eom

make such a map possible.

And most likely the most delegates. Similar to this map from 08:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Democratic_presidential_primary,_2008.svg/1280px-Democratic_presidential_primary,_2008.svg.png


That is assuming Bernie continues to climb in the polls and manages to pull off a victory in NH in Iowa.

....are winner take all, and then there is a huge pool of "Super Delegates" which generally are long-time Democrats, Congress members, Governors, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2008

Based on his party affiliation up until a couple of months ago, not many Super Delegates will be committed to him.

Bottom line - he can't win.

You need to brush up on your primary rules

They super delegates jumped ship when Obama started winning primaries because they didn't want to go against the will of the people. Also, there are no winner take all primaries in the Democratic nomination process in 2016.

Bottom line: never say never.

but as expands his message to speak to African Americans, he runs the risk of losing those conservative supporters.

I think his numbers are already close enough to 20 that I almost expect the low 20s. But mid or high 20's would show a continued trend. We'll have to see how this coming batch sorts out.

I only know one Sanders supporter. I have been an active Democrat in my region for many years. Everyone I know who is involved at the state and county level is supporting Clinton. That goes across age and race.

It will be interesting to see what the polls look like over the next few weeks.

Last edited Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:19 AM - Edit history (1)

Just not here on DU.

Not sure if you thought my statement was in regards to Bernie.

Bernie supporters are the majority on DU (and leftist sites, except a socialist site I went to) ... But nowhere else in the Democratic world.

Apparently I need to clean up my original post to stop confusion.

But you will see that exact thought among Bernie supporters.

But it is conducted online, which does tend to skew results slightly.

Morning Consult has been trying to build a weighting model that accounts for that, and their results are MOSTLY in the middle of other more traditional surveys, but it is still a less-preferred methodology. As always, read it in context with other surveys.

The poster's experience constitutes a "self-selected sample".

of pantsuit wearing netbots.

Nobody I know likes Bernie Sanders at all.

I kid, I kid, but I would be curious where you fall socioeconomically.

...are there that many 1%ers in the Democratic Party?

who wanted (and still want) to see a female President. Still, you wouldn't expect EVERYONE someone knows to want Hillary, unless they're surrounded by people who all share some common denominator, and one of the most common ways people are segregated in the US is by socioeconomic status.

...but of number of Sanders' supporters DO seem to be saying that everyone THEY know is supporting Sanders, and that they can't understand how someone who's not a hedge fund manager could possibly support her.

The original comment that started it all:

I live near and work for a major University (which is why the city is purplish). I do between 15-20 hour/mth volunteering with low income advocacy groups. I am active in the local Democratic Party and several civic organizations. I have a fairly wide social circle. AND, I drive 20 miles to work and 20 miles home ... and I have yet to meet a Bernie supporter, nor have I seen a Bernie bumpersticker.

Apparently there was a few in your area that was in range.

Even if you didn't - you should at least watch the organizational event video.

and Yes, I could watch the video ... But none of that changing what I have actually seen, to this point.

who is supporting Bernie. I suspect the demographic reason is certainly possible but everyone I know is supporting Hillary. Everyone.

I'm in my 30s. My first election was Bush/Gore, and I almost voted for Nader. Then I watched the ensuing debacle, and some of the few things that kept me sane were Jon Stewart, Paul Krugman, and DU. Those were pretty rough times. Bush's approval numbers were like 80%, he was about to invade a random country, anyone who challenged him was "anti-American". And, yeah, they actually renamed the french fries in the congressional cafeteria to "freedom fries" because of France's reluctance to go into Iraq. Not to mention cutting taxes for rich people, declaring that high energy consumption is part of the "American way of life" and so on. So that period sucked.

The cliche is that you get more conservative as you get older, but my political views are about the same. One thing that I think many people of my age group or older got from the 2000 election is more emphasis on the importance of electing Dems, or more specifically, the importance of not having a Republican president. Gore was an imperfect candidate, he was waffling towards centrism, and he represented a continuation of Bill Clinton's politics, which moved the Democrats in a more centrist, pro-business direction. But, in retrospect, compared to Bush, Gore would have been a godsend. What's more, with all the anti-"New Democrat" fervor of the time (which still continues), people (including me) lost sight of all the good things Gore stood for, including his strong environmental stances.

I live in NYC also, and the people I know mostly support Hillary. Basically, when Bernie comes up, the talk is, yeah, he's great, but he can't win, and we can't afford a Republican. On the other hand, when Hillary's negatives come up, it's like, sure, she's a politician, she voted for Iraq, etc., but she's still a Democrat, more liberal than Bill for sure and probably more than Obama also, and overall a Hillary presidency would be good.

It's called a circular argument, DanTex. You won't vote for him because "he can't win" but of course the only way a politician can win is to vote for them. You advise people around you to not vote for him "because he can't win" when, again, the only way to win is to get people to vote for him.

You insist you think he's the "best candidate." But you clearly don't want him to win. And you actively work against that possibility.



Don't cry to the left if Clinton loses in 2016. Our votes don't matter, remember?

Last edited Fri Jul 31, 2015, 07:17 AM - Edit history (1)

...because he can also LOSE if you vote for him, since other people, who aren't privy to DU debates, will be voting as well.

Have you ever engaged in a Creationism vs. Evolution argument, DanTex? I don't recommend it, but i'll use it as an example. Every now and hten you will run into a creationist who presents occam's razor as proof that their idea is the true one. After all, "goddunnit" is so much simpler than the long complex data offered by science to explain the same things, right? God is a simpler, more concise answer, so it must be the correct one.

Of course, this fails because the presumption of a sentient omnipotent creative being who is responsible for everything ever... is VASTLY more complex than anything proffered by the sciences. To make any sense, "god" must of course be explained. And as i'm sure you know, the more anyone tries to explain god, the less anyone actually fucking understands.

So it is with your argument. You present "Sanders can't win the general" the way creationists present "goddunnit." As a 'simple answer." Unfortunately it's not actually simple - it's just easy and self-affirming. You want sanders to be unelectable, so you promote this as solemn truth, the same way creationists want their religion to be correct, so they promote goddunnit. And it's easier for you both to just squawk this all day long than to apply serious and objective thought to the situation.

After all, doing so might make you question your theology, which might make you feel bad, or even feel wrong, and what a tragedy that would be!

Thankfully your explanation is more simple than presumption of generative deities, I'll give you that. That doesn't mean it's "not complicated." Your belief, that absolutely positively only clinton could ever hope to win the white house ever is so packed full of weird assumptions, cherry-picked facts, and clear wishful thinking that it's almost on the level of the creationist argument, though.

I've explained what I believe and why I believe it to you several times. Have I not made myself clear? Do you think I'm lying about my own beliefs?

I don't "want" Sanders to be unelectable. Where do you get that idea? I would much prefer if he were electable. As I've said many times, if it were just about policy, I would prefer Sanders. And if Sanders were electable, that would also imply that the American electorate is well to the left of where I actually believe it to be, which would also be a good thing.

But I don't think he is. Why not? A number of reasons. Polls, fundraising, the socialism thing, lack of broad appeal, too far left.

You on the other hand, definitely want Sanders to be electable, so if there's any risk of self-affirmation here, it's on your part. And I think there's a fair bit of that going on among Sanders supporters generally. They like everything he says, they want him to win, they can't imagine why anyone wouldn't support him. So they have to twist reality around: the polls must be skewed, the BLM protesters must have been Hillary apparatchiks, the AFT endorsement must have been a conspiracy of sorts, he only polls poorly with AA and Latino voters because of name recognition, etc.

Maybe your belief that Sanders can win the GE is sincere, and you base this on some facts besides just that you like him (though I can't imagine what those might be). In this case, what we have is a difference of opinion. It happens all the time. This isn't a hard science, after all.

I'm simply describing to you the reality of your beliefs.

Basically you work downwards. You start with a conclusion - "Hillary Clinton is the only one who can win!" because that's the conclusion you want. Everything else is just you cherry-picking and spinning to support that foregone conclusion and only that conclusion.

Your network of friends is a very small sample and is probably biased.

Cause there are plenty of them right here....so dont understand your post...do you think they dont also support her in "real life"?

Make up your mind.

I'm afraid if he wins the nomination he's not going to want to engage in negative ads against the Republicans which would spell big trouble that's what happened to Kerry he didn't respond in time against the swift boating.Or Dukakis for that matter with Willie Horton and now it'seems even worst because of the suoerpacs

With your not knowing anyone who is voting for her. Maybe you should get out more.

Oh and even among the young they are in a virtual tie.

The majority for Hillary. A few like Bernie better.

No one I have asked knew anything about Bernie.

When I told them who he was they became very interested. The first Bernie gatherings were tonight and soon polls like this will have the two equal. Come January, Hillary will be in second place, so keep these polls coming!

I'm a Hillary supporter, as I may have mentioned somewhere on here.

But I believe in data, and above all, I believe in not lying to myself. If the data shows Bernie overtaking Hillary, I'll be honest about it, and I'll post those polls as well (if an eager Bernie supporter doesn't beat me).

Nate Silver is the guy to watch on this. Once he's running his models publicly, we'll have a good idea where this is headed.

Right now, my gut tells me Bernie is stalling. His support seems to be leveling (I've predicted a support ceiling nationally between 20-30%). Right now, it appears he's hovering in the high teens-low 20's. I'd expect that to rise a bit more with name recognition, and when Biden officially bows out of the race.... getting to the mid-high 20's by the debates. The effect of the debates is a matter of speculation, but maybe another 5-10% if he does really well. I still see him coming up short. He could grab both Iowa AND New Hampshire if all the cards fall his way, but I think he'll get pasted on Super Tuesday either way. That'll probably end him there.

But I could be wrong, and if I am, I'll own up to it.

Well, the trend analysis shows Bernie practically running the table.

The Hillary hate is amazingly high. Once people find out about what Bernie offers, it's all over.

Keep those polls coming!

Ten, twenty times more.

I'd go further, but you have shown all you care to do is throw darts.

but he doesn't give a lot of specifics. The angry liberal shtick will only get him so far.

..we look to past performance, ideas, and actions. Bernie has been in steadfast opposition to the current conservative course the country has been on ever since reagan.

He has never been given a fair chance to make it happen, and that is why he has decided to run for president. Because then he will have power to defeat the conservatives. That is what the people need and want and for the first time since JFK we have the opportunity to make it happen.

during his near 30 year legislative career?

Bernie's civil rights ideas and steadfast support across the board always, even since before he hiked with MLK, his anti-war stance, his anti-nuclear stances, his climate change stances --- all those and more are coming round the mountain, and Bernie has been progressively pushing those his whole career.

I am surprised I even had to mention these things, but it does give a chance for those not quite aware of what Bernie has been doing, so, thanks!

and not a single word answers the question asked!

Yes ... I know Bernie is a progressive ... so was/is Dennis Kucinch; neither one possesses a record of "past performance" that includes introducing and passing progressive legislation.

I know ... with the game on the line, let's put Billy Sullivan in ... he had a beautiful swing and he's a heck of a guy! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Sullivan,_Jr.

But at least when he had a very important vote, he didn't vote to invade Iraq, like a certain someone we know.

What, I wonder, did Obama pass as a senator?

I get you are upset and frustrated... what with the coronation plans not going so well, but don't you think you'd be at least a little less snippish?

that appears to be your role.

Instead of attacking Bernie, my advice to you would be to build up Hillary.

When Bernie is President, the whole world will rejoice, because we will have a Peace loving president and one who will unite this country in harmony as he leads us to end global warming, wars, and nuclear pollution.

Why would anyone possibly be upset with that prospect?

I have told you time and time again ... I am not a HRC supporter (though I will vote for her, should she win the Democratic nomination).

All you do is smear Bernie. That looks to me like someone who is very upset about something.

And enough with your sig line. It makes you look upset, what with all the caps and the false message.

I think I've started one thread about Bernie and that was no a slur ... it was an OP by a white guy that understood whybrid the Black community (by large percentages) can't get behind Bernie.

My other posts have been about why I can't get behind Bernie ... chief among them, your (Bernie's supporters) seemingly irresistible urge to attempt to dictate what Black people should do and how we should do it.

BTW, what is false about my sigline?

I have found that negative people are upset about something. And they have a hard time elucidating why they are upset and they usually can't even see they are upset and negative. YMMV.

There are things in this world worth being upset about and mostly those are matters of pollution. Pollution of either the Earth, or pollution of minds. I rather doubt that Bernie is responsible for either, so he is not a target in my book for negative attacks. There are those who are more worthy of my scorn. Bernie is much more on my side than anyone in such a position as he is. I do figure MLK and I would be marching together to get Bernie elected.

In support of Bernie ... just as he didn't endorse JFK, or any other politician.

He and Bernie spoke of the same problems the majority of people face from those who would make slaves of all of us.

I imagine MLK would be quite upset with the attempts at division we see coming from our own people.

Unity of those who are oppressed. Only then shall we overcome.

That's one reading of his legacy.

When they asked Trump what he would replace Obamacare with he replied, "something great." When I listen to Bernie I want to scream, "how in the hell are you going to pull this off?"

His supporters scream, "because he said so."

then how do you expect to get anything done? Do you want national healthcare? Do you want free college tuition? If so, then you should be voting for Bernie and anyone else who supports that platform. We will never get the changes we need if we keep voting for the person we "think can win" versus the person we actually want to win.

I just think between him and Trump it is hurting the one candidate that can be president. That's Hillary and that is where my attention is focused.

But I disagree with the notion of supporting someone because they're the "best chance" at winning the presidency. Call me an idealist

But it's mostly trustworthy. Take a look at the polls over the last month.... Flat.

There's about 3-4 more polls expected over the next 4-5 days, so we'll see.

Why should I?

Or, ya know, ignore my prognostications and make up whatever narrative you like.... No skin off my gut.

As you've said, we'll see as things go on. I'll be right, or I'll be wrong. But I enjoy the punditry either way.

plotting data points and drawing a straight line is NOT trend analysis.

I AM NOT SAYING Hillary DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE ... just because AFTER ALL, sHE never MARCHED WITH MARTIN!

0 to 16 in two months. That there is a trend.

But really, polls are pretty meaningless. Heck, Trump is trumping bush and rubio in Florduh, according to polls.

Is that Hillary's numbers are going down. Not up. Down.

But yeah, right now the polls are meaningless. It is months away; the vote.

But the numbers for Hillary going down and the numbers for Sanders going up... it's like: Duh! Of course those numbers are trending that way.

But like all data, they need to be considered analytically.

For example, you can't look at Bernie's numbers from start-up to NOW and call that a trend. Any statistician in the world would laugh you out of the room. Bernie has completed his initial phase of entry into the race.... his support FLOOR. He's being going through a maturation phase, and now it appears he may be leveling off to a support ceiling. But support ceilings are not hard and fast. They can be flexible. If Bernie tops out right now, at say, 27%, then he clearly needs to find a way to raise his ceiling. one thing that could raise it is if Biden declares himself not running. If that happens, a certain segment of Biden voters are "anybody but Hillary" voters and will be pulled into Sanders' camp by default, raising his ceiling. But his greatest challenge, IMO, will be appealing to demographics outside of his base. If you look at this numbers, he's not dominant in ANY demo, but in some, he is HUGELY behind.

Sanders had made no inroads with minority voters which is critical to winning the nomination. Without that, he's limited to the level of support he can get from white liberals which only make up about 30 percent of the primary electorate.

his supporters seem to be predominately white,male and middle class.Not exactly a winning coalition for a democratic primary.

The one Republican operation that is saving them, is that they had the foresight to gerrymander districts. Without some major policy and thereby constituency changes and influx of diverse populations, even the gerrymandering will fail.

Well. Who can argue with that?

"My gut tells me" is just another way of invoking intuition... Another way of saying I've performed a rapid, internal, order of magnitude analysis.

If you don't agree, counter with why you don't agree. It's a comversation starter, not ender.

Data for the democratic primary. What is most important is the number of people who actually know Bernie Sanders. Most polls only around 60% know enough to actually have opinion where Clinton is universally known.

The full survey. Can't do any deep analysis without it.

As was ecpected.

I've been hearing for months that Bernie's already done with. I'll wait until the voting to believe it.

Funny how it keeps changing.

Many Bernie supporters are predicting Hillary is going to crash and burn. I am predicting Bernie has peaked. Is that ok with you??

When you're saying something is happening right now, that's not much of a prediction.

LOL!!

I still agree that he's a longshot, but I still think he's got a way to go before he peaks. At the very worst, I expect him to get into the mid 30s nationwide after debates, although of course I hope he goes much higher.

There are quite a few undecideds who may go for Bernie. But I think he not going to close the gap between he and Hillary to less than about 30% nationwide.

which is why I didn't link to it. It doesn't include any of the Dem primary data.

Since it mostly doesn't have the questions we are interested in, we can't know who was counted in the responses. Did they include just Dems in the primary questions? Dems and Dem-leaning I's, Dems and all I's? Makes a BIG difference.

In solidarity

I'm thinking the polls must be whacko because the sampling is of people with land lines who don't have caller ID. Being a NH resident has made me aware of what pains in the butt pollsters can be and I know their numbers/names and never pick up. She's probably ahead, but since I've never encountered anyone who supports her it seems odd it's by so much.

Most good pollsters do both these days. There is no reason to believe this poll is "wrong" since it seems to be in rough agreement with other good pollsters.

Also, be very cautious of extrapolating your personal experience to the general experience. That's the kind of thing (using the same language" that Republicans said in 2012 when they were SURE the polls were dead wrong.

Though you are in NH, so your experience may well be very different from the national results. Bernie might very well have 30% of the vote there. NH's demos are very different from national demos.

left and right on the land line and have never been polled on the cell phone.

... and so do a lot of local papers. But their results are not usually as good as the major pollsters using cell phones, though a few cheapos have analyzed others' data to build in a "cell phone correction." Models are fun!