democrat, stands for what the party used to be about. Also, DU is likely less MSM and DNC propagandized IMO.

Kind of like the older verison of reddit or something.

Bernie does really well among people who use the internet for their primary news source.

People that get their main news from TV will tend to support Clinton.

others who agree with them among their acquaintanceship because their views aren't fairly mainstream in their area. In places like this they are able to come together in sufficient numbers to be part of a group. My guess is that's why their numbers here are all out of proportion to the nation at large.

Maybe I live in a bluer than usual area, but I am also factoring in friends and relatives elsewhere.

I also know a number of people for Clinton...but not very enthusiastically. More of the resigned or apathetic "path of least resistance" attitude about her.

Bernie extremists (whether from the far left, anti-left, somewhere on the right) who reject, even hate, the Democratic Party and most of its people, but rather mainstream Bernie style. It is, of course, usually people out on the edges who have trouble connecting face to face with people sharing their ideology, and those are the ones I'm thinking of.

Or geographically challenged people like me, of course. I'm a pretty mainstream liberal in a solid flaming-red area. There are others and we find each other, but for various reasons, including that most living fairly close still work all day, "gatherings" are mostly in the form of an occasional lunch or dinner. Plus, few actually want to discuss politics beyond mining the news for a few laughs and moving on.

Is too idealistic. None of them are really excited about Clinton.

I know 4 people who are 4 Sanders, 2 are excited, 1 excited but thinks the system is rigged for Clinton, and another who would also vote for Clinton but they don't follow it all too closely.

I think the real thing is Sanders is a newer net feneration and Clinton is for an older I get my info from TV generation.

are split between Sanders and Trump.

Is too idealistic. None of them are really excited about Clinton.

I know 4 people who are 4 Sanders, 2 are excited, 1 excited but thinks the system is rigged for Clinton, and another who would also vote for Clinton but they don't follow it all too closely.

I think the real thing is Sanders is a newer net feneration and Clinton is for an older I get my info from TV generation.

I'm the only one that is on DU or Reddit.

in their personal circles? Come on. The GD-P can do better than this!

Now, you done done it!

But the OP is off a bit ... DU is far from a mirror image of the Democratic Party ... DU goes better than 8 to 1 Bernie.

That said, I live in a purplish city of a red state, that contains a Major University. In my daily (45 minute-City driving) commute have seen one Bernie sign and 3 bumper stickers (I have a pencil and pad in the car that I keep note with) and if there was a local Bernie event, it must not have been widely communicated, because I have heard nothing.

I am involved in the local Democratic Party (as an anonymous grunt) and I have seen 2 Bernie supporting volunteers (and 10 O'Malley supporters).

I am heavily involved in the African-American community, though my Fraternity's Alumni Chapter and two other organizations, and I haven't met a single Bernie supporter in that circle.

So I would suspect that DU reflects, more the internet, where one logs in and types, and one has an impact, than "real life", where one actually has to show up and put in work to have an impact.

should reveal to some degree the active Bernie support in your area. Maybe you are much "closer" here to a couple of them.

Very unlike where we live. Any Bernie supporters here who wanted to display a bumper sticker would have to worry about serious stuff like being shunned by normally pleasant people, possible vandalism of the car, even losing their jobs. This is the Deep South, and real, righteous hostility toward the left is common.

My office is in the middle of the Medical school's campus (population - young, educated, high income (potential, if not earning), white, and skewing, male, i.e., Bernie's key demographic), where the study body dresses very casually, including Tee shirts ... and I see no Bernie support (though I have seen plenty of politically messaged Tee shirts).

I'm having trouble squaring my observations with the "millions" of Bernie supporters I am told about.

This is really a very significant observation. I wish there were a way to rec your answers themselves. Not to make Bernie supporters unhappy but for the perspective they offer all who are interested. Of course, the poll results also do that in a different way.

Like I said in another thread, I use the DU Reverse Principle and have for years.

Whatever majorities on DU think about an issue, I IMMEDIATELY know that vast majorities of Democrats will feel the complete opposite. And that is far more often right than it is wrong.

Being against regime change in Libya? Being against capital punishment? Being against cuts to Social Security? Being in favor of legalizing marijuana use? Being against building a wall between the USA and Mexico? Being for marriage equality? Being against immediately deporting children refugees?

I think you need a new principle. Maybe the Clinton Reverse Principle would work better.

Kucinich than anyone else in 2008. And on a Dem board, your "surprise" that people support marriage equality is incredibly interesting. Please don't try these lame and laughable attempts at rewriting history with me. I guess I should have qualified my post by saying "I take the opposite of what these people say about Democratic politicians" because that's where so much has gone so terribly, if hilariously wrong.

These folks grudgingly went for Obama (braying about the "lesser of two evils" the entire time though one "DU Darling" openly admitted that he wished McCain had won the election, to the surprise of no one) and then slammed and slimed him on every goddamned move that he made for the last 8 years with names and insults taking straight from a Freeper playbook. I will never forget any of it and neither will any of the other supporters of this president.

What are you insinuating? Did I express surprise? Very odd.

for a long time. The very name that drew me here is false advertising. Nor is it a liberal board -- I want people who might think the behavior and extremist and absolutely thinking here represent Democrats and liberals to definitely understand that! We are far better than this.

the DU Reverse Principle!

And, I've found that my comfort in my support of, or opposition to, an issue is directly (and inversely related) to the loudest voices of DU.

...yet.

Given that a bunch of them are retired, it's not that they don't have time to think about it. They're pretty busy living Real Life -- not having knock down drag out fights with their friends and neighbors.

Well, I take that back -- one neighbor picked a fight with my husband the day before we went on vacation, but that was because he wouldn't listen to her about her notions on household security because we already had that covered to our satisfaction.

Oh, and one lady is already busy volunteering with the local Democratic Service Club because she really likes the thought of Hillary as POTUS.

But DU .... is nothing in the world like real life.

The majority of forums IDs here at DU are 'real Democrats.'

and a few other things like that.

The Internet is a welcome place for political extremism. Both sides.

That sort of characterizing went out of style with McCarthy, and I don't mean Melissa.

Why?

It's not what I said. Try responding to what I said. You are calling Bernie and Martin supporters political extremists. Own it, it's already recorded here for all to see.

There is no Equivalent to Rush or Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or Hannity on the right. There is no equivalent to the tea party. "Far Left" ideas are actually pretty mainstream.

lots of discussion, some argument, where is the extremism?

seems thats happening a little less often from what i see...and my "can you be on a jury" requests are thankfully less frequent

which was truly unjustified and the product of Bernie supporters conspiring to silence her.

i don't mind provocative topics and even some contentious conversation, but anyone trying to bait someone into a hide is pretty shitty imo, no matter which candidate they support.

just out of curiosity, how long is a "vacation"?

in her last run for the WH. They dismissed Obama's popularity online then also. I think it's because she has of the support of older Dems who still depend on the Corp Media for their news. It is the reason why Bernie has so much more crossover appeal, he has always been savvy when it comes to the new media where more and more people now get their news

I think people are fearful of change and most Democrats are fine with four more years of a status-quo, Obama type administration. Plus, I think a lot aren't paying attention much at all and they are going along with what they might see in poll numbers.

Your definition of moderate seems to be very limited

supporting any candidate, except those things all of us gain when a good candidate becomes President.

Those two things distinguish us from a population that can't name the VP, let alone the Speaker (even Boehner) and those who hope to benefited individually by getting Hillary into the Office and/or keeping Sanders out of it. Or who have already benefited from Bubba, Hillary or the Third Way generally and "owe" allegiance.

At the very bottom, it's about self interest. Mine is solely with Big Voter, whether Big Voter groks it or not.

A very high percentage of DUers get their news largely from here and are absolutely low information voters.

Jay Leno and others have proven to us time and again that such people exist on the streets and TV studios of America. I doubt any exist at DU.

The simple truth is, I accept things I hear here (even stuff with which I agree)
with the same grain of salt I do with things I hear elsewhere (MSM, other internet
sources, Fred...the clerk at the 7-11, etc).
As with anywhere, there's a lot of garbage on here (That isn't a dig at anyone,
supporters of anyone, or the site itself. It's just an observation). Also like anywhere
else, DU's garbage has a distinct smell all it's own. Should someone only decided to
get their information solely, or mostly, here (And there is a lot of good information here,
the large majority of stuff is good. I wouldn't even be here if it wasn't) then they'll start
to grow accustomed to that smell, and eventually, forget that they're eating a little bit of
trash with their salad. I would certainly think that was a case of "low information," or
rather, poor information.
I try to always diversify my information "eating habits" so that I never forget what
any one variety of garbage smells like. That way, I can hopefully avoid finding out what it
tastes like.

who can't tell you who the VP is?

Besides, a ton of people who watch FOX know who Biden is. Do you believe that makes them informed?
"Informed" is a lot more than knowing facts or something. It's also about what you learn, how it's framed,
how broad of sources you draw from...
If all I ever read of political news was from DU, no, I would not be particularly well informed...at least not about
anything except what people on DU think and write about.
In a simple analogy, it would be like saying a juror would be well informed if he only listened to arguments from
the prosecution. Even if he got ALL the information and all evidence was addressed, if he only hears it from one
perspective, he's set up to be poorly informed by it.
In other words, you can know a lot and still be low information if you cloister yourself in a community of like minds.

What you're arguing is basically "well, we're more informed than that, right?"
Relativity is nice, but "relatively better" doesn't necessarily equate to "good."

(Otherwise, republicans are right when they say "Buck up Billy, at least you're American Poor and not Third World Poor!&quot

why I did not post that every DUer was well informed.

DU is, like a lot of places on line, a collection of like minds, that accept/reject information based, primarily, on whether it supports whatever they already believe ... from whatever source.

on the personal reading habits of fellow DU'ers. However do you maintain such a colossal job, and keep up with the news as well?

You cannot do it?

Pity.

Just because we don't agree on who we support, you paint folks as "low information" or "sold".

I hate seeing things like this, it's not okay. I'm not personally offended because I know why I support her, but jeez...

Again any candidate that wants to win needs to build consensus between supporters, posts like this just don't do that.

Both sides are guilty, I wish it would stop.

generally than the rest of the population generally.

Well, to be more precise, not only DU posters, but posters on all political message board. They tend to have more political info than people in the general population. So that is one difference between DU and the general population. I think that is undeniable. I did not say only DU's Bernie supporters have more info than the general population.

And I do believe that people vote their self interest, one way or another. I don't know many who say, this person's policies will decrease my income or cost me my job, but he or she will benefit others, so I'll take the hit. Ben and Jerry are among the exceptions, I think. Maybe I am too, who knows? But, most people will vote their self interest.

That is my opinion and I am sticking with it, but I did not say DU's Hillary supporters are more low info than DU's Bernie supporters. On that, I think there's no difference. Some individual DUers are higher info than some others. I freely admit some know more than I do, for example. But, as a group, basically the same.

rights and a long list of other issues. This Party, the Democratic Party, is a Party that has not bothered to pass the Equality Act, first introduced in 1974. That's what the mainstream of this Party is and why those of us who know better have to drag them along toward progress.

You didn't join until 2007 so you apparently missed the huge DU purge of LGBT people after the 2004 election. We were blamed for Kerry's loss because we did not sit down and shut up about our issues.

in the wider population. Same for the other issues I mentioned. Better than does not mean perfect, it means better than, ahead of the timeline. Most of DU was in favor of marriage equality before Kerry, Hillary or Obama. That's just how it is, kid.

Waaaaaay ahead of the Party.

There are those here who feel we really missed a solid bet when we passed on Dennis.

Sanders over Hillary, DK eg, among others.

Of people who choose to actively participate in political discussion boards. Every one of them is still nonrepresentative of the vast majority of voters.

Sorry.

He's hugely unpopular among them.

And DKos is anything but "non-partisan". They're partisans, all right, just not partisan for the Democratic Party.

I belong to many Latino for Bernie groups. I listed out for h supporter luna magica..I think is her screen name. It was a pretty big list..but I am on the phone about to brave the storm grocery buying that is happening in my neck of the woods.

In the 2008 primary election, Senator Hillary Clinton beat Senator Barack Obama, who campaigned heavily for the Latino vote, by 2 to 1 among Latinos.

She is loved and well-known in the Hispanic/Latino community. And Hispanics/Latinos are deeply loyal people.

“Rarely have Hispanics prospered economically like they did under the Clinton administration, which transferred goodwill and good feelings,” Democratic pollster Fernand Amandi said, noting that 2008 was the first year the Hispanic vote was competed for in a major way.

because ... well ... they represent low information voters and sell out!

It's easy for a small but highly motivated group to overwhelm polls that aren't limited to one response and aren't demographically representative.

From Reddit and a score of other, smaller forums, to imgur, to twitter, to instagram*. The vast majority loves Bernie and are not very fond of Hillary Clinton. Hillary wins with the sea of people who are not very politically active, most likely because of name recognition.

Can that change as we get closer to the actual election? When less interested people start to pay attention, will they find Bernie as appealing and Hillary as disappointing as the majority of us that have been following this for months now? I guess we'll find out!


* I'm p.sure Hillary is more popular on Pinterest though

Look at who sides with each candidate. If Sanders is attracting younger, white males, the odds are that they will be on the Internet and sussing out political forums to engage in riotous and contentious political tournaments in support of their chosen team.

The demographics for Clinton followers look to be a bit older, they're more likely to be female and POC, but although they are also visiting political forums on the Internet, they are the silent majority of lookie loos. It's not that they aren't just as impassioned and strong in their opinions, only that they are less likely to engage in the sort of machismo, antagonistic displays of testosterone that often trails any positive remarks for Clinton or criticism directed at Sanders. Still, as demonstrated in national polling, regardless of their silence, they are a power not to be underestimated.

DU trends older, for example.

Democratic demographic.

i know not everyone gives their age and gender, but has the site ever shared any data...average age, m/f, geographical distribution, etc

could be interesting

There have been DU polls, but those aren't particularly reliable. The only thing that could be done remotely scientifically would be for the hosts to figure out the geographical distribution of IP addresses used to access the site.

But, other than that, since DU is anonymous, there's no real way to know anything except for just having a sense.

in the numbers how du stacks up compared to the general pop or members of the dem party, or whatever group


du ers vs freepers... THATS a data comparison i would like to see!

It's not easy to find a link. I remember that DU skewed much older, but do not have the data handy.

He's said DU is older, whiter, richer, and male-r than the country at large, from the data they have. (Though this was years ago, and IIRC only applied to star members, which might explain the "richer", at least.)

despite all the claims of crushing poverty.

I base that on all those willing to shut down government (that supports the poor and working classes), in favor of tax increases for the wealthy and/or undefined "income inequality" arguments.

the national voter demographics of the candidates, if you will provide the link to DU's demographics, I'd really be interested in reviewing that data in comparison. Thanks.

I believe it was during DU2 that Skinner posted demographics of star members, and DU skewed older. I don't remember values, and it's not easy to find.

And it's going from memory, so there's plenty of ways this could be inaccurate.

First off, on several issues, economics and foreign policy in particular, DU is well to the left of the average Democratic voter. The typical DUer has a political ideology very similar to Bernie's, whereas the typical Democrat has an ideology more similar to Clinton's.

Another factor is that Bernie is very popular with the online activist left, of which DU is a part. Some of this is because the activist left has been wanting a political revolution of the sort Bernie is advocating for a long time. On DU, and on liberal blogs generally, you frequently see groups like Third Way and the DLC discussed and criticized at length. Many less activist Democrats have probably never heard of either of these.

Also, DU generally trends whiter and more male than the Democratic party at large, and those are groups where Bernie has stronger support. Although on the other hand, DU also trends older, whereas Bernie does best with younger voters.

On edit: yes that was offensive in some ways. My apologies.

Definitely seems odd.

In fact, since I have a Bernie 2016 sticker on the back of my car, many people come up to me to talk. There are the nutcase tRumpets, a few times, but most come up to say how much they like Bernie. I have had people tell me that under no circumstances will they vote for Hillary -- she is not very well liked. I have not had one person say to me that he/she is supporting Hillary and I have not seen any Hillary bumper stickers. Today, I saw two more Bernie stickers.

They did not know Bernie. Now they do. I am pretty sure they are Berning now.

I know a lot of Clinton supporters and all seven O'Malley supporters nationwide...

This may speak to our country's self-segregation more than anything else.

The Freepers are to the Right of mainstream Republicans and DU is to the Left of mainstream Democrats.

Note the constant carping over the DLC. The DLC came to be after years of Democrats getting their butt kicked in presidential elections. Political parties need to adapt to the era they live in. If a moderate Democrat hadn't ran in 1992, Bush Sr. would have won a second term. Despite his personal flaws, I would take another Clinton (Bill) presidency over any Republican.

Moving on to this election, I can't believe that some Democrats think that a man who refused to join the party until a few weeks ago, a self proclaimed "Democratic Socialist" who would be 75 years old on election day, is someone who could win a general election. Aside from the fact that most of the time he sounds like the elderly man who yells at the neighbors' kids to get off his lawn.

They've noticed Hillary is no spring chicken also .

at 69 (on election day) because she would be Reagan's age when he was elected. I honestly think that 75 is too old to start a presidency.

Spot on, though.

Which population polled are going to best represent who shows up in the primary?

The same polls that score Clinton the winner somehow don't reach the population who stopped voting and who will vote for Sanders.

Polls, as Bernie Sanders has recently said at his Cleveland rally, aren't going to tell you anything.

If Clinton is nominated, will Sanders supporters turn out for her and vice versa?

(full disclosure: I'm a Clinton supporter, but first and foremost I'm a frustrated political scientist)

All along, my sense is that the majority of party rank and file is behind Hillary; however, the activist wing of the party supports Sanders. The activist wing is further left from the center than the party mainstream, and they were instrumental in getting Barack Obama elected in '08. In many cases, these were people that supported Howard Dean in '04. They are the ones that organize; knock on doors; and phone bank. For the most part, they have not expresses enthusiasm about supporting Clinton. Will they come around? I suppose it depends on their view of the alternative. The same can be asked of Clinton supporters - will they show to vote for Sanders if he's the nominee?

To your point: In New Hampshire, Sanders has a distinct geographic advantage, and I suspect he'll win. Iowa is hard to say. There are many variables. A big snow during the caucuses (a real possibility) could throw a big monkey wrench in things for both sides. It comes down to who is more motivated.

Do I think there is a big population of non-voters that is going to appear for Sanders? I think his campaign is well organized, and he'll get his people to the polls. Is that enough to overcome Hillary? If the current poll numbers are to be believed, about half of Hillary supporters would need to stay home for that to happen. The non-voters-that-might-bother-to-vote that I've spoken to recently in Florida (purely anecdotal and non-scientific) like what Sanders has to say but all gave me some variation on "the dude is so old." Don't mistake this for gloating: the same people told me they can't stand Hillary, and all (granted, I'm talking abut 5-6 people I spoke to on a recent trip) plan on voting for Donald Trump if he's the Republican nominee (otherwise, I suspect they stay home). I think of it as Ross Perot syndrome. Those I spoke with a) like the fact he's offensive (as they are sick to death of how politically correct they perceive everything has become) and b) love that he's a non-politician.

and ducking by pointing this out; but, as a political scientist, I suspect you will appreciate this ...

The species of sea life that are abundant within the reef do not exist in the same numbers (or percentages) beyond its safe waters. If someone was inclined to believe that the reef represented ALL of the sea life in ALL of the world's oceans, then they'd be very surprised to learn that the Percula Clownfish doesn't live everywhere. From the Clownfish's point of view, the world (as he knows it) is FILLED with Clownfish. They're EVERYWHERE! But drop him in the middle of the ocean, and he'll be in for quite a surprise.

Well done, NurseJackie.

only cares about Team Donkey. Which is weird, because when Hillary becomes our nominee, the GOP is gonna clean our clocks. America doesn't like her.

As I said in a post upthread, people I spoke with on a recent trip to Florida who are a) largely non-political and b) sometimes vote in the GE all echoed exactly what you said about Hillary. Unfortunately, they also all pointed out to me how old Bernie Sanders is. They all told me they are voting for Trump. We're only talking 5-6 people here. Keep in mind, though, that at least one of them voted for Obama in '08.

Several in the thread pointed out the internet news aspect of DUers. I've always wondered if it's that these type of boards (on both sides of the political divide) attract those further from the political center.

Also -- I thought it was team Circle-D now?

All sorts of crazy things can still happen. Biden could do a sudden about face; Elizabeth Warren or Al Gore could jump in late. This is American politics we're talking about, after all.

By definition, when pollsters look for 'likely voters', they exclude people who are only drawn out by exceptional candidates, and skip voting when they're offered 'same old same old', as well as younger voters who simply aren't old enough to have voted in the last two cycles. Two of Bernie's biggest areas of support.

Among Dems

Paying attention to the 2016 election
A lot 41%
Some 34%
Not much 18%
None at all 6%
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-maintains-lead-among-democrats-cbs-newsny-times-poll/

Several months out?


Couldn't be,

Too scientific right?

That's not to say that those views won't change.

OTOH the economic news keeps getting better, which is generally to the benefit of the more "establishment" candidate in an election.

It would have to be really shoddy work to have that level of error in an 95% (industry sampling standard) level poll.

That's not to say a lot can't happen between now and February. I just think what the polls say now is reasonably reflective of what voters think now.

When I joined in 2006 I was pretty much in the center of the board (somewhat left of Kerry or Obama on most issues). Once we took the White House, the board (and I would argue the party) started moving left. My views haven't changed, but I'm now about as far right as you can be and continue on DU, and I'm still to the left of the President and the official party platform.

Bernie has a huge millennial following, many of whom either weren't old enough or weren't party members in 2007.

Plus, DU commenters are self-selected politics buffs, thus somewhat better informed than the party-at-large.