Democrats want 'major role' for Sanders: Reuters/Ipsos poll

[askeptic]

Source: Reuters

More than three-quarters of Democrats say Sanders should have a "major role" in shaping the party's positions, while nearly two thirds say Hillary Clinton - who beat him for the nomination - should pick him as her vice-presidential running mate, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

snip

We will not let Donald Trump become president," Sanders told supporters last week.

The poll, conducted June 7-10 - right after Clinton sewed up the delegate majority to become the presumptive Democratic nominee - showed that while most Democrats want Sanders to line up behind Clinton, about 44 percent would like him to make an independent run for the White House. Some 47 percent said he should not.

The poll included 455 respondents and has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 5.3 percentage points.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-sanders-idUSKCN0YY0F9

---

I'm not sure the Democratic party leadership was expecting this many folks to call for Bernie to play a big role.

[John_Doe80004]

1. the one thing he can not do

is run as an independent. maybe a bigger role in policy decisions and being picked for VP but definitely no independent run. that would be disastrous for the democratic party and assure Donald a win.

[yurbud]

20. Has there been any polling on that? I suspect if he did, Trump might come in third.

[roguevalley]

23. bernie can do what he wants. The hell with the establishment.

[midnight]

27. I agreee..I'm pretty sure this mans service to this country has earned him that right...

[Duval]

47. Damn right!

[greiner3]

48. But I'd say Trump would be impeached 2 years into his rule

That leaves his VP and even that AOWM might not be far behind. Then we get Ryan for a bit. Then Elizabeth in 2020. I don't think Bernie would be electable going on 78 but the spark has been struck

[yurbud]

73. it's hats to imagine a scenario where Trump wins

[olddad56]

74. could be the plan. for him to select a member of the Bush Crime family for VP and then get impeached

I'm thinking it could be Codasleeza Rice.

[MisterFred]

75. He'd win Utah.

But I still think he'd come in third.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

2. Interesting.

I guess the Hillary Hardliners on this board are the vocal minority.

[Cali_Democrat]

5. If Hillary lost the nomination to Bernie....

....would you want her to still play a major role in shaping the party's positions?

[KPN]

7. Not me -- but I really don't like or trust her.

[seabeckind]

17. Hillary's positions are basically the status quo

Bernie's appeal was based upon the idea that the status quo is becoming less feasible to more and more people and that a change in course is needed.

That's the answer to your question.

The next question is how much the party "nobility" will be swayed by this attitude.

It's one of those "ignore this warning at your own peril" moments.

[pnwmom]

28. Great question!

[AgingAmerican]

32. Her positions on most issues are unknown or change depending on which audience is in front of her

She would only drag the ticket down

[greiner3]

49. The party insiders would make sure her, I mean their, wishes would become known

[yurbud]

24. there are a lot of ways to make their numbers look bigger than they actually are

if you did a centrist/DLC/Third Way/New Dem vs. progressive poll, they would be unlikely to break 10%.

I did a poll like this years ago, but I can't access it because "Some forum features are currently unavailable (Level 4)."

[avaistheone1]

3. The support for Sanders has been huge and he deserves a huge role in shaping the future of the party

otherwise we will remain divided.

So many people never thought he would run so long and do so well with his platform. But Sanders endured and triumphed.
Go Bernie!!

[KPN]

8. Yes! Go Bernie!

[retrowire]

4. I got an idea for a major role he can play.

President!

[KPN]

9. +1!

[potone]

14. Agreed!

But I think we all know that that is very unlikely to happen.

[Chicago1980]

36. Seeing as that won't be the case...

Next idea please.

[retrowire]

41. Nah, I still like that idea. nt

[Chicago1980]

42. You can like it all you want.

We're talking realistic thinking though.

[retrowire]

46. Good for you. Dreaming isn't illegal in the USA. nt

[Chicago1980]

50. Never said it was, but sometime you have to wake up!

[Lazy Daisy]

6. Makes one wonder

doesn't it?

What do people really want? If her platform didn't have her name and gender attached, would she have gotten the nomination?

[KPN]

12. Makes one wonder

about the primary election shenanigans. Just the exit poll issue alone -- let alone suppression tactics.

[AlbertCat]

39. If her platform didn't have her name and gender attached....

Exactly.

[SouthernDemLinda]

81. Are you sure about that?

Do you think she really did get the nomination with millions of disenfranchised voters who were not registered because they were independents?

And the machines that just may have flipped the vote. Also, lots of reports of people who had to wait very long time to vote, and machines that didn't work.

Anyway she's not the nominee until July 25.

[Ineeda]

10. How much bigger can it be?

Bernie already was given five members on the platform committee, compared to six for (the winner) Hillary. That's not enough for him? Excerpt from 5/23 Washington Post article below.

Sen. Bernie Sanders was given unprecedented say over the Democratic Party platform Monday in a move party leaders hope will soothe a bitter split with backers of the longshot challenger to Hillary Clinton — and Sanders immediately used his new power to name a well-known advocate for Palestinian rights to help draft Democratic policy.

The senator from Vermont was allowed to choose nearly as many members of the Democratic Party platform-writing body as Clinton, who is expected to clinch the nomination next month. That influence resulted from an agreement worked out this month between the two candidates and party officials, the party announced Monday.

Clinton has picked six members of the 15-member committee that writes the platform, and Sanders has named five, the Democrats said Monday ahead of an expected announcement by the Democratic National Committee.

The math is based on the number of popular votes each has received to date, one official said. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the DNC, will name four.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, who will chair the committee, was named by Wasserman Schultz.

[KPN]

13. 6 + 4 = 10 --- you left out DWS's picks.

But to your question, how much bigger? Well, Hillary certainly has to make some kind of offer along the lines of what Obama gave her in order to have her sign on, no?

[Ineeda]

19. Point taken.

We'll see what comes out of Bernie's meeting with her in the next few days. I'm confident of conciliatory efforts from her. She's smart enough to remember Obama's metaphoric "peace pipe". (Sorry, probably a bad metaphor, considering the whole Pocahontas thing, but I couldn't think of a better one on the fly.)

[JDPriestly]

29. How about Secretary of State or vice president?

Obama awarded his top rivals in the 2008 primary with those roles.

I suspect that Bernie might prefer to create his own movement within the Democratic Party, but still, the principle that Obama applied in negotiating top positions for Biden and Hillary is the standard operating procedure in the Democratic Party.

It should be up to Bernie to accept or refuse a major role in a Hillary presidency should she be elected. Many, many Democrats who supported Bernie have, at this point, no intention to vote for Hillary.

I disagree with her deeply on the most important issues, I might add.

[swhisper1]

35. I dont think Bernie wants to be linked to any 3rd way presidency

it goes against the grain. He can better serve the people in the Senate- anyway, we cannot afford to lose any senator at this point and time.

[JDPriestly]

40. I should have used a sarcasm symbol, but I was trying to be kind.

I think the rift in the Democratic Party is on the issues and that Bernie's ideas are going to win out in the long run.

If elected, Hillary will have a tough presidency.

The world around her is changing, and she is not changing with it. I don't think she can.

[swhisper1]

45. sorry, yes, I agree. she will enter Hell if she wins. hell from all sides

[newthinking]

53. I like the idea of Sanders as SOS. He might be the right person to

tackle worldwide issues and find better solutions.
He knows how to be a diplomat and he would not continue the implementation of "Pax Americana". For that reason I doubt it will ever happen though.

[swhisper1]

87. Bernie's focus is internal, he wont want SoS. I think Kerry is still the best choice

[jtuck004]

11. Status. Quo.n/t

[pnwmom]

15. Another one of these online polls that can't give a margin of error,

because it wasn't drawn from a random sample.

[seabeckind]

18. What are the current real statistics?

This is one of those times in history where there are warning flags popping up.

[beastie boy]

16. There goes the "Bernie-hating Hillarians" narrative.

BTW, the same poll shows that two thirds of the respondents want Bernie to endorse Hillary.

[6chars]

21. 44% want him to do an independent run?

vs. 47% who don't? That is a much smaller margin than in the popular vote. Who are these Hillary voters who want Sanders to make an independent run?

[pnwmom]

22. They are the "Hillary voters" in this non-randomly selected online poll. n/t

[6chars]

26. It suggests an over sampling of BoBs

[askeptic]

33. Your attempt to ridicule the results by creating a straw man is logical fallacy

You may not like the results but they were done by Reuters using the same methodology that showed Hillary winning. Granted, 455 is a small sample size which is why I posted that in the original. I hope 73K posts have not been based on this kind of fallacious reasoning...

[pnwmom]

52. The Reuters poll has "wildly fluctuating" during this primary season. Its methodology,

which was only developed a few years ago, is not the same as used by other respected polling organizations. They don't use random samples and can't report margin of error.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/opinion/stop-the-polling-insanity.html

OVER the past few weeks, cable news networks and other media sites have trumpeted wild fluctuations and surprising results in polling on the presumed general-election matchup between Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton.

The Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll showed a roller-coaster ride: It went from a 13-point Clinton lead on May 4 to a tie just five days later.

SNIP

The problem is that the polls that make the news are also the ones most likely to be wrong. And to folks like us, who know the polling game and can sort out real trends from normal perturbations, too many of this year’s polls, and their coverage, have been cringeworthy.

Take the Reuters/Ipsos survey. It showed huge shifts during a time when there were no major events. There is a robust scholarship, using sophisticated panel surveys, that demonstrates remarkable stability in voter preferences, especially in times of intense partisan preferences and tribal political identities. The chances that the shifts seen in these polls are real and not artifacts of sample design and polling flaws? Close to zero.

[askeptic]

54. Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race (NYT)

The bias calculation measures in which direction, Republican or Democratic, a firm’s polls tended to miss. If a firm’s polls overestimated Mr. Obama’s performance in some states, and Mr. Romney’s in others, it could have little overall statistical bias, since the misses came in different directions. In contrast, the estimate of the average error in the firm’s polls measures how far off the firm’s polls were in either direction, on average.

[IMG][/IMG]

[pnwmom]

55. Based on their poor performance this season, that was likely a fluke.

[JDPriestly]

30. A lot of Hillary voters even on this forum agreed with Bernie on the issues but voted

for Hillary merely because they had heard repeatedly on the media that only Hillary could be Trump. That was a lie, and outrageous falsehood. But it was repeated so often that many believed it and voted for her.

It's a doggone shame.

[beastie boy]

57. Au contraire, mon ami!

The media repeatedly reported on the polls that showed Bernie fairing better against Trump than Hillary, even though both would beat him. Yet the majority of Democrats voted for Hillary despite the media, not because of it.

They realized that the polls only reflect a moment in time, and they based their decision on who is better suited to take charge of government AFTER the elections are over.

If you want to blame the media on reporting that Hillary is better suited to be President, go ahead. But there are real facts behind this determination.

[MisterFred]

76. Only if you watched the young turks

Most of the voting was over by the time the media started with the stories you're mentioning.

[SouthernDemLinda]

82. It was feared this would happen

www.commondreams.org/.../voters-outraged-media-ac...

Published on Monday, June 06, 2016 byCommon Dreams
Excerpts:

The Bernie Sanders campaign and progressives across the nation expressed mixtures of frustration and contempt Monday night after major news outlets—following declarations by the Associated Press and NBC News—ignored the explicit instructions about how primary delegates should be tallied and declared that Hillary Clinton has won the nomination of the Democratic Party.

It was feared this would happen—and news outlets were repeatedly warned they would be reporting the results inaccurately if they counted so-called "superdelegates" in their totals before next month's national convention—but they did it any way.

The move by AP, which critics slammed as a blatant and despicable attempt to undermine the electoral process by suppressing voter turnout, came on the eve of six primaries on Tuesday, including the crucial state of California.

The Sanders campaign responded by saying the reporting was not only poorly timed, but wholly inaccurate.

[HoosierCowboy]

25. Not as much space between Clinton and Sanders

..as there was between FDR and Henry Wallace or JFK and LBJ.

[JDPriestly]

43. Actually, at least as much space.

The space on issues like war and peace (to kissinger or not to kissinger), trade, environment (fracking in particular), education funding, for-profit or non-profit healthcare insurance, and many other issues is vast.

A lot of Hillary supporters don't realize this.

Perhaps the biggest issues is how active the government should be in dealing with income disparity and the failure of the middle class. Hillary and Bernie disagree on the fundamentals on that issue.

This is not going to be a rift that can just be glued together with chewing gum.

And I do not think that Hillary or her supporters understand what is going on.

It isn't just about Bernie although Bernie's supporters (I am one) love him because of his human compassion and stubborn determination to do what is right and not just what is expedient or politically popular, but about the issues.

So this is a very different split in the Democratic Party than we saw in 2008. And I don't think Hillary is psychologically prepared to heal it. It's not in her nature. I hope I am wrong, but I am pretty sure I am right.

[freebrew]

60. When speaking of 'issues'...

I think that Bernie is thinking of the future of the nation.
We have lost a lot of ground flailing around with this economy shit, thanks to raygun and the rest of the Rs.

While they wanted to 'balance' the budget, Europe and Asia were attempting to make things better
for their people.
Government used to control energy prices, water supplies, phone charges, etc.
As raygun privatized everything, profit had to be made.
So long affordable living. Necessities just became part of the scheme to rob us.
Over and over again.

I don't really think Hillary supporters realize that.
Maybe they aren't having to deal with those issues like the rest of us.

[marions ghost]

78. Agree totally

This time it's different.

Hillary will not be in a position to spearhead any real change. But of course those at the top don't want change. It's just the rest of us that want a real democracy.

[ChiciB1]

31. THIS IS Testament To What So Many Of US Bernie Supporters

have been trying to say ALL ALONG! To those who "think" ALL the inconsistencies with voting in SO VERY MANY Primaries are a fabrication and simply unhappy "sore losers" might well take note.

THIS COUNTRY should take a long hard look at how we vote and WHY voting has become so complex and hard to understand that it's actually UN-DEMOCRATIC! I for one have doubted for a very long time that the final outcomes are accurate. Not only did exit polls show something different, I have worked as a poll watcher and have seen things that I questioned but could NEVER get a real answer for.

I do not care what anyone here wants to call me or how they want to attack me, far too much went on and WON'T be proven until AFTER this election. I saw a LOT here in Florida back in 2000 and spoke out about it then and it wasn't until much later that real PROOF was shown that Bush did not win!

That was 16 years ago and rigging went on then, just think for a moment how refined this ART of VOTING MANIPULATION has advanced in much the same way as technology in all walks of life has done.

You could probably take polls for 1000 people at a time many times over and the outcome will be the same. If our voting system isn't made more uniform and OPEN it will only get MUCH worse. In the beginning I realize that many people didn't know who Bernie was, but as time went along his following grew by leaps and bounds. I know that here in FL our Primary was very early and Bernie's name was just catching on and many voted absentee BEFORE the Primary date. I said little then, but as HIS movement grew there was far too much to ignore.

The goal of THIS Democratic Party was to make sure he was made to look like some sort of fool. I KNOW who I think the fools are!

[LaydeeBug]

38. But a big fat NO to open primaries. I don't want infiltrators deciding for Democrats.

No to same day registration for the exact same reason.

Democrats decide for Democrats. Leaving us vulnerable to infiltrating for the other side is absolutely wrong.

[greiner3]

51. I disagree totally with no to same day eegistration

I say automatic registration and No party affiliation is to be listed.

[beastie boy]

58. Great idea for general elections

But I have a problem with Republicans determining who the Democratic nominee should be.

[Gore1FL]

59. Exactly

A person's vote is their to do with as they wish--or at least it should be.

[LaydeeBug]

65. Sorry. Will fight you tooth and nail on it. You want same day registration for the general, FINE

but that leaves us beholden to GOP shenanigans. No fucking way

[swhisper1]

34. I agree, they have a hard time with proportional representation

[LaydeeBug]

37. Of *course* we do. He is fucking *awesome*.

They should create a cabinet level position for him.

[Ford_Prefect]

44. The DNC party leadership has devoted enormous resources to eliminate the progressive wing. QED

It seems to me that they would give no more than lip service to progressive ideas...Just enough to provide sound bites for the MSM to pretend there's some degree of progressive sentiment leaking into HRC's policy plans.

[Gene Debs]

56. It's not what Democratic voters want, it's what Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants that matters. And

she and everyone else in the party establishment want Bernie to disappear, and the voters can suck it.

[stopbush]

61. I doubt it.

Considering how badly Sanders lost, you have to wonder about the methodolgy behind this poll.

Hillary supporters voted for Hillary because they agreed with her policies. They rejected Sanders policies. The idea that Hillary supporters - who make up the majority of Ds- are clamoring for her to toss the policies we all voted for to adopt Sanders policies, which we rejected, is ridiculous on its face.

[seabeckind]

66. So how badly did he lose?

Feel free to show us some statistics.

Make sure you include the exit polling that said why the hillary supporters like her on the issues.

Go for it.

The fact is that Bernie got 45%, 22 states.

You're spitting out the spin and not the substance.

[stopbush]

69. More like 43% to Hillary's 57%.

That's a 14-point spread.

Spin is harping on the 43% and imagining that it's close to 50%. Of course, that ignores how far over 50% Hillary is (clue: it's the same as Sanders is below -7 points).

And winning 22 states means you lost 28 states. And it gets worse if you look at how many delegates/votes came from those states you lost compared to those you won. And the fact is that Hillary won territories that have more delegates than do some of the states Sanders won.

That's the substance.

[seabeckind]

71. Link or slink.

In any reality having over 40% of anything gives a lot of leverage.

You have no substance.

The only winning factor for Hillary is the not-trump vote. And if just half of Bernie's 45% decide to sit it out, you're looking at a republican landslide.

She will carry none of the very red states that fall in your 28. None. In my state she couldn't be elected to the local school board.

That's the over 60% disapproval talking.

Add a bit of delusional projection to your lack of substance.

[leftofcool]

77. Oh boy! Is it the 16th yet?

And by the way, Hillary is ahead of Trump in Kansas and Georgia. I believe those are red states. Bernie lost. Please get over it.

[truebluegreen]

80. Don't know about Georgia, but everybody knows

that unfettered repuke policies have destroyed Kansas in the last decade. They would probably be willing to vote for the proverbial yellow dawg at this point, as long as it wasn't a Republican.

[stopbush]

84. Sorry to disappoint you, but at least 80% of Sanders voters will

vote for Hillary. What's 20% of 43%? 8.6% of all Dem voters. Insignificant, that's what.

The sense of self-importance held by the Sanders zealots is eye rolling.

[seabeckind]

86. Another made up number.

At least 80%. Where did you get that one? Are you sure you washed your hands afterwards?

Independents who chose Bernie, particularly those who don't see a big difference between the parties, will NOT vote for Hillary. What are her disapproval numbers? Feel free to make something else up.

Zealot... good choice of words. Now do psychological projection.

The scariest part of your zealotry is that if the not-Trump vote disappears, what happens? Just what do you think would happen if Trump isn't the gop nominee and that they put up one of the "moderate" republicans who isn't afraid to identify as a republican?

Who isn't batshit crazy (at least in public) has a tremendous media machine that rips all those disapproval scabs wide open...

Hillary has only one chance to win. Only one.

Trump.

[Ash_F]

83. These are all fair points, but we are still talking about a significant portion of the party.

[DhhD]

62. Many people still do not understand that Clinton and Sanders have very different policies and plans.

Sanders was being interviewed by CBS after the meeting at the White House. Sanders said that he will work with Clinton on stopping Trump but that he is going on to the Convention. The newsman could not understand that there was a difference in the Democratic policies between Clinton and Sanders. The newsman seemed to think that Sanders's policies were a double of Clinton's policies. Bernie straightened him out on the matter, but they did not discuss Hillary's flip-flops to the Left during the last 15 months.

[KoKo]

63. Recommend...

[Johnyawl]

64. He should follow in Howard Dean's footsteps...

...and become the chair of the DNC. I think he could have a positive and long lasting impact on the Democratic Party and the country.

[seabeckind]

67. Maybe it's because he cares more about course of the country n/t

[Sunlei]

68. Bernie Sanders for VP, they'd make a great team! Yin and Yank work well together

[billhicks76]

70. Duh!!!

Every Democrat I know voted for Bernie. They are not happy with the way Clinton supporters have treated them. Reagan and Bush did a better job of bring their party together. Bernie must be offered the VP slot or it's gonna look bad. No challenger has ever come as close as Bernie did to upsetting the pre-selected candidate.

[seabeckind]

72. Same here.

Plus quite a few independents, primarily the young people facing lousy job prospects in a right to work state and being saddled with student debt.

(added) I also saw a shift in my more conservative friends. I realize that many are in their 50s but they are facing the loss of job opportunity at the same time the bills for their children's college are coming due.

The system is rigged to the profiteers and I don't see Hillary changing any of that.

[Zen Democrat]

79. I worry because whenever Democrats don't nominate the most liberal candidate, they lose.

Humphrey 1968 (Eugene McCarthy)
Carter 1980 (Ted Kennedy)
Mondale 1984 (Gary Hart)
Dukakis 1988 (Jesse Jackson)
Gore 2000 (Bill Bradley)
Kerry 2004 (


1972 doesn't count because we watched Nixon's election year crimes played out for the next two years.

Kennedy, Johnson, Carter (1976), Clinton (1992 & 1996) and Obama (2008 & 2012) -- the only presidents Democrats have elected in the past 55 years have been their most liberal.