BREAKING: Bernie beats all 3 remaining GOP candidates, hillary loses to 2 out of 3!!!

[Logical]

Last edited Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:27 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll/

This is to counter a extremely misleading OP that ignores Bernie doing much better than Hillary!

But when the former secretary of state faces off with either of the other two top Republicans, things are much tighter and roughly the same as they were in January. Clinton trails against Rubio, with 50% choosing the Florida senator compared to 47% for Clinton, identical to the results in January. Against Cruz, Clinton holds 48% to his 49%, a slight tightening from a 3-point race in January to a 1-point match-up now.

Sanders -- who enjoys the most positive favorable rating of any presidential candidate in the field, according to the poll -- tops all three Republicans by wide margins: 57% to 40% against Cruz, 55% to 43% against Trump, and 53% to 45% against Rubio.Sanders fares better than Clinton in each match-up among men, younger voters and independents.

[PonyUp]

1. Thanks for setting that other post straight. n/t

[BreakfastClub]

2. This ignores the obvious reality that Sanders is relatively unknown to most people at this point.

Once the GOP let America know that Bernie was a socialist for 40+ years, his popularity will disappear.

[datguy_6]

4. And the scandal ridden Clinton campaign will gain in popluarity amongst the electorate?

[Surya Gayatri]

14. ^^^This!^^^

[Loudestlib]

45. A Hillary supporter disagrees.

Gamecock Lefty (387 posts)
24. BREAKING!

You can keep using that tired argument that Bernie is not well known, but the fact is he’s been in Washington for quite a while and may not have the same name recognition of Hillary, but he still has name recognition.

[pangaia]

82. Hillary's name recognition until last summer was probably

on the scale of 10,000 -1 compared to Bernie.

[JDPriestly]

47. China has been Communist for 40+ years.

Yet our capitalist leaders build factories in Communist china, employ people in Communist China and then sell Chinese goods in our stores.

IKEA is a European store owned by people who live in a far more socialist country than the US. Americans (at least in big cities) buy from IKEA all the time.

Americans buy products made by socialists, travel in countries that are socialist and are not as afraid of socialism (as opposed to Communism quite a different matter).

I think the fear of socialism is no longer quite the issue it might have been even ten years ago.

After all, what system caused the international crash in 2008. It wasn't socialism. It was our good old American banking and Wall Street version of a "free" economy.

Sanders is relatively unknown, but people are listening to what he is saying and not paying attention to his label.

We've had enough of misleading labels. George W. Bush was a capitalist AND A LIAR, CHEAT AND WAR MONGERER. He did irreparable harm to our country.

Let's forget labels and give Bernie a chance.

It's time we try something different. Capitalist or socialist -- it's the person of the president, the integrity and the patience and wisdom that matter, not the label.

[Jitter65]

58. That's because Trump and Bernie supporters like cheap goods. nt

[JDPriestly]

90. Because the wages of Trump and Bernie supporters are low and they can't afford

to be part of the American economy that buys American products.

Our federal minimum wage has not been raised in many years.

Instead of raising wages, corporations import goods and banks loan money.

We don't have an economy in which we make products and sell them. We have an economy in which we borrow money to buy products made by labor that is even more poorly paid than we are.

That will not work for long. It is completely irrational and out of balance.

Enough is enough.

The rich can't have it all.

Because when they have it all, the economy will come to a standstill.

[Duval]

61. A well reasoned response, JD. nt

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

72. Harley-Davidson parts made in China...

... especially problematical are the wiring harnesses. Ask any Harley rider, especially ones that work on them.

[datguy_6]

3. "But those polls don't matter!"...lol

[JaneyVee]

15. Actually they dont.

He has had zero attack ads run against him. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/berned-up

[datguy_6]

30. Not true...

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/25/bernie-sanders-a-target-of-ads-by-republican-donor/?_r=0

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-anti-sanders-attack-ad-intended-help-not-hurt-sanders

That's at least two...

How many has Hillary had run against her?

[thesquanderer]

49. You forgot Hillary's own disingenuous "one issue candidate" ad (n/t)

[JDPriestly]

53. What is there to attack?

He didn't run a foundation while serving as secretary of state all the while accepting donations from the very international interests that petition the secretary of state for favors.

He doesn't owe his soul to the likes of Goldman Sachs and other big bankers and investors.

He has executive experience having been elected and re-elected as mayor of Burlington, Vermont over and over.

He has served years in the House and Senate and knows how to get things done in Congress without having a majority from his party there.

He is politically clean and fair-minded.

He is caring.

He has good judgment and has proved it.

He is strong.

He is a good person.

There is nothing to be negative about.

Whereas Hillary??????????

Bill Clinton -- one of the few presidents in history to have undergone an impeachment hearing.

Monica Lewinsky's story is waiting in the wings. It has nothing to do with Hillary, but it is waiting.

And it wasn't all that long ago.

What are you going to say about a man who plays fair and does not put negative ads out there?

Every time Hillary tries to go negative on Bernie about something that is not issue-related, she gets in trouble with the voters.

[Persondem]

6. That's still without Bernie's socialist past and present getting put in GOP ads 24/7

Clinton has taken the GOP crap for years and still beats their #1 guy.

If the honeymoon ever ends for Sanders and the GOP, his poll numbers would drop like a brick.

You are falling into the trap that the GOP has set.

[Logical]

7. Keep spinning if it makes you feel better! Nt

[Persondem]

48. Sure, because voters just love to support candidates that honeymooned in the USSR

[Logical]

50. Drunk? Nt

[thesquanderer]

56. They both have things that will be flung against them.

Hillary has a lot more, both old and new.

People often say she's had all this stuff flung at her, and survived. But just barely. Her unfavorables outside the Dem base are huge. And it's not over... for the Republicans, the email thing is, as they say, the gift that keeps giving.

Meanwhile, Bernie not only has fewer negatives, he actually has some positives that appeal to many on the right, like being against NAFTA, IWR, PATRIOT act. Most of all, he has that integrity/trustworthy thing, and we've seen over and over again that people will elect someone even if they disagree with positions, if they feel he is honest and a straight-shooter. Reagan and even W benefitted from that.

But it's kind of moot, since it is highly unlikely that Bernie will get the nomination. I'm afraid we're going to be stuck putting up our second-best candidate.

[Duval]

64. He was Mayor of a town in Vermont and the town's Sister City was in Russia.

So please stop with the innuendo. Thanks and have a wonderful day.

[Persondem]

69. Per Sanders

"19. Sanders honeymooned in the USSR. Sanders married his current wife, Jane, in May of 1988 and the next day left for their “romantic honeymoon” to Yaroslavl, in the then-Soviet Union. The trip was an official delegation from Burlington to cement the two cities’ sister-city relationship. “Trust me. It was a very strange honeymoon,” Sanders writes."

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-25-best-things-we-learned-bernie-sanders-book

[Duval]

73. Thanks, Persondem!

[jillan]

38. Meantime Trump said this morning that if he runs against Hillary it will be emails 24/7.

It doesn't matter what the truth is to the voters - as you can tell the truth doesn't matter anymore or else Trump & Cruz would not be the top 2 in the GOP.

Gee - can't wait for that!!

[Persondem]

52. Emails are already old news. Sanders honeymooning in the USSR would be a new reality for voters

as would hearing about a "tax and spend socialist" instead of a "tax and spend liberal".

[jillan]

75. Ok - we shall see. My biggest fear is the day after the election I will be sitting here saying

I told you so.

[Tarc]

8. The problem here is that Rubio and Cruz are buoyed right now by "he's not Trump" matchups

Of course they're going to come out looking better than a xenophobic dirtbag who won't even renounce a KKK endorsement. But once either of them are alone as the GOP nominee, then the media scrutiny begins, and it'll show that their policy positions are no different than Trump's.

[Gothmog]

9. Match up polling is worthless unless both candidates have been vetted

Polls do lie when such poling is based on bad data and premise. Nate Silver and other are clear that these polls are worthless in part because Sanders had not been vetted. Clinton has been vetted for two decades but the GOP and the press have not paid any attention to Sanders and so these polls are meaningless. Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.

The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Match up polls are worthless because the candidates have not been fully vetted. Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads

[Logical]

18. So funny you did not question the pro hillary poll podt? Lol, you crack me up!

[Gothmog]

19. Clinton has been fully vetted for decades

Sanders has not been vetted and is very vulnerable to negative ads

[Logical]

21. So in other words you only whine about bernie posts? Nt

[Gothmog]

29. Has sanders been vetted?

Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads The attack ads from this appearance on Meet the Press write themselves https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/

Meet the Press ✔ @meetthepress
CHUCK TODD: Are you a capitalist?@BernieSanders: No. I'm a Democratic Socialist.
8:33 AM - 11 Oct 2015

And, in those five words, Sanders showed why — no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left — he isn't getting elected president.

Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept — especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.

Wrote Pew in a memo analyzing the results:

Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing — the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower.

...The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.

Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.

You can try to argue that the two terms are not the same but that will not stop the Kochs from running $200 milion to $300 million using that term in negative ads that would be very effective.

[Kall]

70. Hillary has already been vetted

and 67% of people find her dishonest. Seriously, this "she's still standing" thing is just ridiculous.

[Gothmog]

85. And yet she is beating Sanders by nice margins

Do you want to predict how may Super Tuesdays states go for Sanders other than Vermont?

[Kall]

86. You were discussing the general election

but nice attempt at shifting the discussion.

[Gothmog]

10. Hypothetical match up polls are worthless and should not be relied for anything

Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.

No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.

[Logical]

12. Lol, you fucking realize a HILLARY fan posted this first, correct? Did you whine to them? Nt

[Gothmog]

23. Clinton does not need worthless polls to show that she is electable

It is the Sanders supporters who keep on citing these worthless polls

[Logical]

25. Lol, are you clueless, a Hillary fan posted it initially!!!

[Gothmog]

87. Hillary does not need match polls to show that she is electable

It is the Sanders supporters who keep on citing these worthless polls

[Logical]

89. Lol, are you clueless? A hillary fan posted it before i did!

[Herman4747]

67. You mention "match up polls." But what about favorability ratings?

Explain why we should go with the candidate (Hillary) WITH THE 54% DISAPPROVAL RATING.

You write: "the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars."

Now, why would the Kochs do that rather than let The Donald spend his own money?

You write: "The reliance on these (match-up) polls by Sanders supporters amuse (sic) me." Heck, it was not all that long ago that it was certain Hillary supporters shouting about these polls. Bernie's recently gone up in them, Hillary's gone down.

[thereismore]

11. Those are serious numbers.

Hilcreants don't give a damn of course.

[JaneyVee]

16. WTH is a Hilcreant?

Jeez, this place sometimes.

[A Simple Game]

65. Really you don't know what a Hilcreant is? I can help,

a Hilcreant is a life form that hasn't evolved enough to be a Bernie Bro.

I hope that clears things up for you.

[Logical]

91. 😄

[Alenne]

13. And none of that matters if he can't beat Hillary in the primary. nt

[WillyT]

22. Oh... It WILL Matter If Hillary Loses The General... It Will Matter A Lot...

[Logical]

40. +1000

[floppyboo]

17. Hillary, Hillary and more Hillary

From the headline, to the body of the article, Hillary is on top. If it is true that Hillary is not doing as well as she could because of the 'dislikeability' of her presumed anointment, why does the media continue to support this idea? I think it's because they are scared shitless of loosing their advertisers. I'm not buying the GOP set-up business. Here was the perfect opportunity for them to scream out the big story - 'SANDERS! SANDERS! SANDERS!'

[WillyT]

20. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Logical]

37. Sure, they are flat out ignoring bernie at this point. Nt

[Gamecock Lefty]

24. BREAKING!

You can keep using that tired argument that Bernie is not well known, but the fact is he’s been in Washington for quite a while and may not have the same name recognition of Hillary, but he still has name recognition.

No matter, national matchups like mentioned here mean nothing if you can’t win your own primary.

[grossproffit]

28. +1

[Loudestlib]

43. Which is it?

BreakfastClub (183 posts)
2. This ignores the obvious reality that Sanders is relatively unknown to most people at this point.

[LonePirate]

26. Do the match ups against Cruz and Rubio matter given how neither will be the nominee?

[Logical]

31. Bookmarked! Nt

[artyteacher]

27. That's pre-vetting. eom

[Dem2]

33. Haha

Anybody who believes that these numbers are somehow static/cast in stone this far out is playing politics.


In this case, many Republicans would vote for Bernie because they like the appeal of the outsider similar to the Trump appeal. This initial attitude would be altered significantly once the actual 1 on 1 campaign started. We've seen how quickly numbers can change one people actually focus on the candidates (and the ads start playing 24/7.)

[Logical]

34. True

[99th_Monkey]

59. If Team Hillary hasn't "vetted" Sanders by now, they haven't done their job. But wait, they have.

Clinton's slime machine has been working overtime on Bernie for nearly a year, trying to paint him
as sexist, racist, too angry, a gun nut, too old, a scary Socialist, an over-promising dreamer, too
progressive, not progressive enough, a poser with fake pictures from the 1960s, etc.

But you knew all that. Just what do you expect the GOP to pull out of their hat in the GE to
'take down' Sanders? Hillary's already done the GOP's job for them, i.e. Bernie IS vetted.

[PonyUp]

35. Kicking for the real story. n/t

[Logical]

36. Thanks! Nt

[brooklynite]

39. Good thing 2 of them won't be the nominee

[Logical]

41. Lol, hillary fans logic cracks me up!

[NorthCarolina]

42. Hillary may well become the Dem nominee by hook or by crook,

but I seriously doubt she will win the GE. Far too much baggage and Clinton burnout among voters, plus she has absolutely ZERO crossover vote and Independent voter potential.

The establishment wants to ensure her primary victory so that they will have a horse in both races, then after that they could care less which candidate wins because they own both.

[Logical]

44. I agree! Nt

[Historic NY]

57. Yeah tell us North Carolina...........

your credibility on the issue stinks. Sanders spent more money and got what result, even with a paid staff of 250.

[Plucketeer]

63. Yup!

Dismiss Trump as you will, but that guy is NOT gonna play nice with Hillary if it comes to that. He'll dice her up and dress her down to where she'll be tongue-tied an cast aside.
Bernie's been up against the likes of Trump all his working life. Hillary's been up against them too, of course - snuggling up to them for moola!

Hillary chastising a one percenter --->

[Duval]

77. I agree, NorthCarolina.

[amborin]

46. Only Bernie Can Win GE

[Logical]

99. +10000

[apnu]

51. After today, the only GOP person to compare to will be Trump.

He might lose Texas, but he'll take 9 other states. Trump will be the GOP nom unless they decide a floor fight is a good idea. Which I don't know if they'll do. Its possible they'll let Trump have it all and blow up on his own, or they'll burn the party to the ground to prevent Trump.

So comparing Hillary or Bernie to Cruz and Rubio, after today will be far less important.

In a contest of Trump vs Hillary or Bernie, Hillary and Bernie both beat him.

[gwheezie]

55. Trump is going to be the GOP nominee

Unless he drops dead before the election.

[sabrina 1]

60. Bernie is going to win this, absent any trickery. After Super Tuesday he will be on a roll in

big delegate states. Why we're seeiing the effort to stop him now.

[George II]

68. How is that possible?

[DCBob]

74. After Super Tuesday it doest get much better.

Michigan (3/8) and, on 3/15, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio.

I think those are all either very good or fairly good states for Hillary. None appear to be Bernie territory.

[sabrina 1]

62. She's doing terribly in National Polls against Repubs Loses against all except manages a teeny

edge over Trump which will easily go away in the actual GE.

[Logical]

97. true

[George II]

66. Hillary Clinton will still win the Democratic nomination and be elected President.

[Chicago1980]

71. Then where's the revolution?

Where are the masses of people voting for Senator Sanders?

I know that people will say that it's the DNC's fault, but I remember who the heir-apparent was back in 2008 and I know who ended up winning.

Voter turnout so far on the democratic side has been down this cycle.

Bernie may have a more favorable rating, but that's not transferring over to votes.

[Logical]

76. Amazing!

[Duval]

78. K&R!

[William769]

79. BREAKING: Bermie loses 3 out of 4 to Hillary!!!

UPDATE: Bernie set to lose 10 out of 12 today to Hillary!!!

[Logical]

98. Class Hilllary support as usual. nt

[amborin]

80. kicking----this is so great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Logical]

84. I agree!!! Nt

[Betty Karlson]

81. And that is why the corporate media are doing everything to get Clinton nominated?

Let Clinton defeat Sanders in the primaries, then defeat herself in the GE? It wouldn't surprise me. It is worthy of DINO-Debbie.

[Kip Humphrey]

83. What I've learned here on DU: Electability & the desperately needed revolution no longer matter.

Nor does breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks matter;
Nor does universal health-care matter;
Nor does ending the private prison industrial complex matter;
Nor does avoiding future wars in the Middle East or Africa matter;
Nor does expanding free education from 12 to 16 grades matter;
Nor does overturning citizens united matter.

All so we can have a woman president.


Wow, talk about FAIL!

[Logical]

92. So true! Nt

[Babel_17]

88. So the Logical choice ...

[pdsimdars]

93. Polls been saying it for MONTHS

The head-to-head poll for MONTHS have been saying this, but the Democratic party and the Hillary-bots just keep turning away.
This is an ANTI-establishment election and if we run a insider, corporate, establishment Democrat against the outsider Trump, Trump will get the tidal wave of anti establishment votes. If Bernie runs, he will get the majority of those votes.

[Go Vols]

94. K&R

[Uncle Joe]

95. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Logical.

[AzDar]

96. K & R

[Cheese Sandwich]

100. Bernie would be much stronger in a general election. All the evidence is there.

Nominating Hillary would be the Dems marching off a cliff like lemmings.

[AzDar]

101. K & R