beats him. That is VERY good news. I think if we can get Sanders pass the primary that he will win the general election hands down.

Margins that small are both within margin of error.

Last poll of this kind had Mr. Sanders in the 30-ies.

Clinton 46.3 Trump 43.5 Clinton +2.8
Trump 42.7: Sanders 42 Trump +0.7

Clinton 45.2 Bush 44.0 Clinton +1.2
Sanders 43.3: Bush 42.7 Sanders +0.7


If you are going to make the case for Sanders, don't cherry pick. Sanders has a ways to go before he is polling nationally on par with Clinton. There's time for him to catch up, but at this point in time, he is behind.

Bernie's numbers will soar, and Clinton's numbers will sink like a rock.

The Trump Effect.

There's no dishonesty in highlighting Bernie, and no one here owes Hillary a damned bit of our attention

Pretty much by definition, that invites comments from all sides.

The rights of others to post topics of their choice is impeding on your need to tell others what their posts should say?

Boo fucking hoo

Last edited Wed Sep 23, 2015, 05:48 PM - Edit history (1)

My comment was in response to your apparent need to tell others what their posts should say. You just replied to me with basically the same message I sent you in the first place, except you put it less politely.

I'm a Bernie guy, but I don't see any need to call out anyone who brings a HRC perspective to a thread that is not in the Bernie group. That's why the Bernie group exists... so people have a place where they can post without hearing any "counter" info if that's their desire. GDP posts, OTOH, are supposed to be open to all perspectives.

Get serious.

I think you mixed me up with "Thor_MN" (post #3)

But do carry on.

trolled by Sanders supporters. No one owes you anything, that's why you get to hear all opinions. If you like one sided debate, maybe Faux would appeal to you. They like and support lockstep thinking.

If one is going to tout Sanders numbers in national polls, it is dishonest to ignore that he isn't leading.

I like Sanders message, but if he gets the nomination and loses the general...

Long time to go, he has time to catch up, but if one is being honest, he isn't in the lead.

He's DOING WELL against both Bush and Trump. Trump is narrowly ahead, Bush narrowly behind, and all with the MOE, so all are essentially tied...same story for Hillary. Considering that all three have great name recognition, it's entirely honest to say that Bernie is DOING WELL.

BTW - I DON'T like Hillary's message. What if she gets the nomination and loses the general... ????

Long time to go, but currently Sanders loses to Trump. Anyone that finds that irrelevant is a mindless follower.

same with Hillary

to show that Bernie wouldn't be a guaranteed Republican victory if he won the primaries like some argue. There's probably no intentional dishonesty here as Clinton's strength against the big GOP candidates has been known for a long time. Though I'm surprised she isn't higher in the numbers you posted, I thought her lead in the polls was bigger than that. Has she lost much ground?

If Donald Trump is so magnificent, so amazing, so god-damn good and nigh unto unbeatable, that you really beleive that hilalry clinton, and only Hillary Clinton could ever hope to successfully challenge him? Then you are telling us you think the Democrats are shit, and the republicans are fucking awesome.

The poll aggregation cited in the OP says that Sanders loses to Trump currently. The people polled believe that. Sorry if that clashes with your opinion, but facts stand on their own.

Although the poster decided to cherry pick and ignore that fact...

American elections are binary; you win, or you don't win.

How does that sit with you? President Donald Trump, with possibly the House and the Senate.

I'd rather win, and right now, that would be Clinton. Like I said lots of time to catch up, but unless you don't want to be honest, right now, today, the polls say that Sanders is not the best choice.

Tell me this isn't the best argument you have. C'mon, don't treat me like I'm a bum in your haute couture shoppe. Show me the good stuff.

I find it is best to read, rather than knee jerk.

I pointed out a fact, qualified it with that the election is a long time away, and you take offense to the facts of the OP..

Then you decide to get derisive and condescending.

I like Sanders, but some of his supporters drive me away. If only they could follow the same principles as Sanders.

It's a silly argument, and I'm not going to treat it like anything else. The election isn't now. it's not remotely close to now. yours is just an argument worth making.

If getting your silly arguments called silly "drives you away" from Sanders... well, so what? It's not as though you were supporting him in the first place, were you?

I personally don't care who you support. If you think I said that Sanders loses to Trump to discourage you, go read the link in the OP. (really, go look, you obviously can't trust me. Sanders loses to Trump, at this point in time.)

I didn't say Trump beats Sanders, the people that were polled said that. If you can't deal with that fact, find a moon to howl at, you can't affect results of a published poll.


I am not currently supporting a candidate. What I do support, at this time, is truth and honesty. Cherry picking one's results out of polls to support a preconceived notion is dishonest. Faux news does that. I'd like to think we are better than that, but there re always the ones that can't accept published facts.

As if this hypothetical were meant to be persuasive or something. Well... the general ISN'T now. Nothing is going to make it be now. What the polls say now about the general is thus pretty irrelevant either way.

As for your support, I simply noted you're not supporting Sanders. Now that you want it to be an issue, you seem pretty adamant that posting Sanders' numbers instead of Clinton's is somehow "dishonest." It's not. it's just posting sanders' numbers; Clinton's matchups against Bush or Trump simply aren't relevant when talking about Sanders' matchups vs. those two, nor vice versa. But talking about sanders without throwing Clinton in front of him really seems to peeve you off.

Do you not understand how polls work?

I'm not trying to persuade anyone, not even you. I am presenting the facts that the person who posted the OP chose to leave out of the post. You seem to have an issue with the facts presented at the link, my suggestion would be to write to the authors and tell them how their article was flawed because it doesn't agree with your opinion.

I didn't bring up who I support (no one), you did. Find a mirror if you want to argue about that.

If you believe that leaving out data from polls is honest, well, that's about you...

And I brought up who you didn't support.

I'd Google it for you, but you can do that for yourself. It's interesting, and much of real life is based on statistical polling, you should check it out.

You can't dodge the fact that you raised the topic of my support by saying you accused me of not supporting someone.

As for Biden, please provide a link that shows he has actually entered the race. If you can't find that, it is a interest ing hypothetical, but hardly news.

All your distractions aside, the polls say Sanders loses to Trump right now, but there a lot of time until people are voting in the general.

A lot can - and very likely will change in the thirteen and a half months between "now" and the general election. Trying to frame yoru argument as if it were right now is just nonsense.

precisely because the election isn't this week. See, I already, a long time ago, before you tried to distract with it, addressed the very nonsense that you are trying to claim.

I see your "very likely" and raise you "almost certainly". The chance that these poll results will remain the same are virtually non-existent. Within the confines of the cited polls, however, you appear to be unable to accept the results.

I'm really sorry, but neither of us can change them. You can continue to deny facts and reality though, but please try to keep aware that would only be your opinion and not reality.

The only thing here is that I think your "non-supporter" outrage over someone talking about Sanders' numbers instead of prioritizing Clinton's (you label it "dishonest" while yourself omitting Biden) is silly. I think your "if the election were now" argument is silly, too.

I think you are a silly person, basically. I don't much give a damn about the poll.

You ignored that a while back, so now you are getting circular.

For someone who doesn't give a damn about the polls, you have been quite tenacious in trying to distract from their results.

Please respond to the OP poster, and say that you don't give a damn about polls and that they were way too early to make the OP. That person deserves to know that you thought their post was a waste of time.

And you resort to the personal insult, proving that you have nothing more to support your fact denying position.

I accept you thinking me silly, since your opinion matters naught.

Have a good night.

That point has nothing to do with HRC - other than one strong point in her favor was always that it was assumed she would win the GE in a landslide. In fact, your own data shows that this could very likely be a close race - no matter who the candidates are.

The differences here are very small and it might come down to something not captured in this poll. If it is Bush/Sanders we might win the enthusiasm gap - and the number of extra votes encouraged to get out to vote could easily make up for that .5% difference.

It's not my data.
Sanders currently loses to Trump, according to the polls cited.

Any problems dealing with that reality should be addressed to the authors of the linked sites.

I am fully aware that Sanders is slightly losing to Trump in a poll more than a year before the election.

I will try to be MUCH clearer. A major HRC team talking point was that Bernie Sanders was completely unable to win the general election. A poll with him beating Bush and losing to Trump by a very small amount - with more undecided than in the HRC match up at this point disputes the meme that he has no chance. There is a difference from the point where they didn't poll Bernie against Republicans and HRC was winning by 10 points.

Ignoring the Bernie/HRC question, what is disturbing is that where it seemed that generic Democrat was a big winner over generic Republican a year ago -- all these polls - with most Republicans (a few are real losers) are tighter than they once were. This as they have showed themselves to be completely not ready for prime time. The take away is that we will have to work hard to keep the Presidency unless things change in our favor.

I'm not making any other point than what the poll cited in the OP states. I never said Sanders has no chance, just that the poll says Clinton has a slightly better chance (at this point, with plenty of time for him to gain support). Cherry picking Sanders supporting numbers out of data that says second place is not honest. I posted the fuller numbers and have gotten grief for posting facts.



I currently see:

Those in the middle, like me.
True Sanders Supporters
True Clinton Supporters
GOP Trolls spreading discord
Clinton Attackers
Sanders Attackers

I have no idea what proportions those groups hold, but I dislike the last three groups. Although, I honestly see the second to last group vastly outweighing the last group.

You cite the relevance to the numbers in the OP, correctly so. If that had been raised in the OP to qualify it, it would have made it a much better post and avoided the dishonesty of cherry picking results.

I agree that it is disturbing that the GOP has made large inroads in getting the Democratic party is disarray. Retaining the White House is critical, unless the House or Senate can be won. Who ever our nominee is, they must win.

any responsibility.

What I was commenting on was that you questioned if it was honest to quote just the Sanders numbers to make the point that they are better than many had feared - by a lot. To me, that was exactly how I interpreted the OP.

I don't believe the GOP has had inroads in getting the Democratic party in disarray. Maybe because I suspect that - other than when we have a reasonably popular incumbent President -- what is happening now is pretty standard. There is an element of nastiness that I would prefer doing without, but this really is the time to seriously speak of the issues and to seriously consider the candidates.

Both sides say they greatly prefer arguing FOR their candidate, but it seems the longer threads are not on the detailed policy announcements, but on the negative stories. However - that was the case in 2008 and in 2004.

I think the Democratic Party is holding it's own and that the squabbling here on DU has very little to no effect on the real world. But I sometimes forget that. And I must be forgetting 2004 and 2008 as well, or at least made a better effort back then at avoiding the ugliness.

I much prefer the "Pro-candidate" people supporting their choice than the "Anti-candidate" people attacking the other candidate, the people they perceive to be supporting the other candidate, random bystanders and kicking stray dogs and cats for good measure.

Through looking at archived threads.

One difference I see is there are more attacks on posters - many pretty nasty. In 2008, the attacks were on the candidates more than on other posters. I don't understand the shift.

I am really unconvinced that it is Republicans. For instance every thread on Clinton ' s email is not really just rw nonsense, but on each thread that will be the accusation.

because the president isn't selected by popular vote. (Just ask President Gore.) State-by-state matchups are much more informative.

and both Trump and Hillary have "name recognition" advantage over Bernie at this point.

The term is used when “we lack the statistical power to know for certain which candidate is ahead,” said Mr. Blumenthal, a former longtime Democratic pollster. “It doesn’t mean we know that they are ‘tied.’ ”
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/whats-a-statistical-tie-anyway-234/

In a plurality voting system, where the winner is the candidate with the most votes, it is important to know who is ahead. The terms "statistical tie" and "statistical dead heat" are sometimes used to describe reported percentages that differ by less than a margin of error, but these terms can be misleading.[11][12] For one thing, the margin of error as generally calculated is applicable to an individual percentage and not the difference between percentages, so the difference between two percentage estimates may not be statistically significant even when they differ by more than the reported margin of error.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

oh, and Welcome to DU. Sheesh -- 40 posts in a day. Unemployed?

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

I like Bernie, but my worry is that he won't have the organization moving forward in other states. Is that fair, or am I being paranoid?

depending on the specific states, when they fall in the primaries, etc.

I read a very interesting article the other day about his southern strategy. Making inroads at smaller venues such as churches, marches, a lot going on "under the radar."

His initial splash got him press, supporters, donors and 200,000+ volunteers.
Now he's in the south doing things a little differently than he did up north where he was more known to begin with.

Thanks for the thread, magical thyme.

Overall, Hillary lost 40-45 to Trump, while Sanders lost 41-45 to Trump. But Sanders does better relative to Hillary than that. Among the 58% who said they were paying a lot of attention, Hillary loses 36-54, while Sanders loses 39-53.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d950cadf-05ce-4148-a125-35c0cdab26c6