Harry Enten: Bernie Sanders 2020 is in big trouble

[brooklynite]

CNN

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign is in trouble.

While much of the attention in post-debate polling has focused on the drop of former Vice President Joe Biden, Sanders' polling looks far worse. Sanders' Iowa and national polls are quite weak for someone with near universal name recognition.

Sanders was at just 14% in CNN's latest national poll. That's down from 18% in our last poll. As important, Sanders is now running behind California Sen. Kamala Harris (17%) and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (15%).These are candidates who have lower name recognition than he does.

It's not just the CNN poll, either. Sanders doesn't look much better in Quinnipiac's latest poll, which puts him at 13%.

[NJCher]

1. Nate Silver had Bernie ahead of Biden, in fact #1

after the debates.

[BannonsLiver]

10. In that case, more evidence Silver has lost a step

I think the dudes let it all go to his head.

[ehrnst]

18. Seems that's an outlier

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2019, 08:18 AM - Edit history (1)

Three new polls released after the first Democratic debate show Sanders falling into fourth place behind former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.).

A Quinnipiac University national survey released Tuesday found Sanders falling 6 points into fourth place at 13 percent, trailing Biden at 22, Harris at 20 and Warren at 14.

A CNN/SSRS national survey found Sanders falling four points into fourth place, with 14 percent support. Biden registered 22 percent support in the poll, followed by Harris at 17 and Warren at 15.

And a Suffolk University survey of Iowa released Tuesday found Harris surging into second place at 16 percent, followed by Warren at 13 percent. Sanders sagged into single digits, pulling 9 percent support.

[ehrnst]

19. You mean the one where Nate Silver partnered with Morning Consult?

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2019, 08:29 AM - Edit history (2)

Sen. Bernie Sanders held steady in second at 19%, but the poll found he was the only major candidate to see a measurable drop in his favorability, which fell 7 points, to 67%, since the last Morning Consult survey.

Another recent Morning Consult tracking poll shows Sanders has a declining approval rate among his constituents in VT from last quarter.

Third Quarter 2018:

Approve 64%
Disapprove 28%

First Quarter 2019

Approve 62%
Disapprove 31%


The other polls that showed Sanders approval rating dropping after the debate use different methodology than online sampling - which the Morning Consult Poll uses, that trends toward younger populations:

A Quinnipiac University national survey released Tuesday found Sanders falling 6 points into fourth place at 13 percent, trailing Biden at 22, Harris at 20 and Warren at 14

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts gold standard surveys using random digit dialing with live interviewers calling landlines and cell phones. The Quinnipiac University Poll conducts nationwide surveys and polls in more than a dozen states on national and statewide elections, as well as public policy issues.

A poll of voters in Iowa, where Sanders has the most volunteers working on the ground, shows that his approval ratings also dropped.

The survey of 500 likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers was conducted June 28 through July 1 using live telephone interviews of households where respondents indicated they intended to participate in the February 2020 Iowa caucuses.

A CNN/SSRS national poll also showed Sanders dropping 4 points after the debate

.

The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS Friday through Sunday among a random national sample of 1,613 adults reached on landlines or cellphones by a live interviewer. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.0 percentage points; for the subsample of 656 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who are registered to vote, it is 4.7 points.

[Blue_true]

24. Online polls can be rigged.

People can be encouraged to vote multiple times if there is no mechanism to stop that.

[Celerity]

34. that is NOT what any 538 rated 'online poll' is, lololol, it is not a free-for-all 'anyone can vote'

It is a very controlled group, NOT a random poll where anyone could just click on something as many times as they want, they use a very controlled group. I see so many people react in such a way that as soon as 'online' is mentioned they have visions of all the dodgy 'have-a-go', 'vote as often as you can clear your cache' (if even that is needed, lol) push-pull 'polls' like Drudge and Kos and other websites (of all sorts of ideological bents) do.



Here is the methodology for a real 'online' poll. They are highly controlled with a closed, weighted, highly screened group, just like a telephone poll.


This is the methodology use on the 538/Morning Consult pre and post debates polls

Key to this (and what is causing so much confusion, as this is the poll that showed Biden dropping 10 points from right before the first debate to right after the 2nd debate) is that this poll is NOT the regular, daily Morning Consult poll, it was a very large collaborative effort between 538 and the Morning Consult. It is apples and oranges.


https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-poll/

Notes on the methodology:

All the data presented here comes from polling done by Morning Consult for FiveThirtyEight. Morning Consult conducted an online “panel” survey with three rounds of polling (respondents from the first round are reinterviewed in rounds two and three). One round of polling was conducted before the debates began, with follow-up rounds being conducted after each debate.

The first wave of the poll was in the field from June 19 to June 26 among 7,150 registered voters who say they are likely to vote in their state’s Democratic primary or caucus. It has a margin of error of +/- 1 percentage point using the 2016 Democratic primary electorate as the true population.

The second wave of the poll was conducted from June 26 to June 27 among 2,041 respondents who previously responded to the first wave; it has a margin of error of +/- 2 percentage points. Of those respondents, 1,134 watched the first debate.

The third wave of the poll was conducted from June 27 to June 28 among 1,399 respondents who previously responded to the first wave, including 428 who responded to both the first and second waves; it has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points. Of those respondents, 97 watched the first debate, 89 watched the second debate and 757 watched both debates.

The pool of self-identified Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in the survey is weighted to match the national population of registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. From this weighted pool of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, we pull the subset of respondents who said they are likely to vote in the Democratic primaries or caucuses. These likely voters are the respondent base for all charts here except where otherwise noted. The respondent pool is subject to some amount of attrition.

The scatter plot comparing candidates’ favorability to their debate performance was calculated by assigning a 0 to 100 score to each respondent’s answer, where “very favorable” is equal to 100, “somewhat favorable” is equal to 75, “heard of, no opinion” is equal to 50, “somewhat unfavorable” is equal to 25 and “very unfavorable” is equal to zero. Scores were then averaged to create an overall favorability index for each candidate. Respondents who hadn’t heard of the candidate were not included.

Multiple well rated, reputable polls are either all, or partially online.

[Blue_true]

36. Thanks for the detailed explanation. nt

[Celerity]

37. yw, and I apologise for the lol on my part, not nice of me, I meant no ill will

[lanlady]

52. Thanks for setting the record straight, Celerity

There's a lot of misconception about 538's methodology and a good deal of ill-informed Nate Silver-bashing here at DU. I hope folks will take the time to read what you've put together!

[Celerity]

35. No, Nate Silver did not have Bernie ahead of Biden in actual 'who would he VOTE FOR' polls

for ages.

Only in some favourable/unfavourable rating, (and I am not even sure Bernie was actually ahead in that) and that is overall fairly meaningless in terms of who people actually vote for.

Bernie's overall trendlines are sinking like the

[NJCher]

54. Glad you brought up that point

because I wanted to inform you that the first two CNN polls that came out after Biden announced didn't even count two of the lower age groups. This, of course, is going to be biased against Bernie because younger people support him, whereas older people supported Biden.

I don't recall if it was the Morning Consult poll. i just saw the headline and checked his web site to verify it was true. i don't recall it saying anything about Morning Consult.

As a result of this experience, I am suspicious of any poll CNN puts out about Biden. If I had more time, I would certainly delve into it and examine the methodology.

[lanlady]

51. Silver does not do his own polling

He may have mentioned an outlier poll that had Bernie at #1 but Nate's in the business of comparing and analyzing polls done by reputable firms. I listen to his podcast and never once have I heard him put Bernie on top. In fact, he's been accurately tracking Bernie's steady drop in the polls.

[Loki Liesmith]

53. No he didn't

Silver does not do polls.

He averages them.

[sandensea]

3. Good questions, all. Big Media tends to be light on context, and heavy on agendas.

And welcome to DU, Basil!

Great moniker by the way.

[lapucelle]

7. He forgot to take his donut.

[George II]

9. Bazinga!

[ehrnst]

16. ......

[ehrnst]

17. So what "agenda" does Enten have in looking at the polls? Data? Math?

[Cha]

4. Money quote..

Sanders' Iowa and national polls are quite weak for someone with near universal name recognition

[NurseJackie]

67. The novelty has worn off. The campaign is tarnished...

The novelty has worn off. The campaign is tarnished for various reasons and this union/wages thing certainly doesn't help.

I believe this is a sign from upon high. I hope that BS and his staff can read the signs and heed the message. In my opinion it would be best if he were to withdraw from the campaign and return to being the senator from Vermont, I.

Face it... any candidate who can't get the support of the AA and other POC communities really has ZERO chance of becoming our party's nominee, and BS doesn't have that support.

[pnwmom]

5. The Bernie supporters I knew in 2016 have all switched to EW. n/t

[Blue_true]

25. She is the logical choice for that segment of progressives.

She can pull someone like me into her camp, Senator Sanders can't.

[rusty quoin]

31. Yeah. Maybe they are thinking like me.

Bernie is great, but too many hate him. When that happened he became a bad candidate.

We need someone on our side who is not hated. And for us normal people, who will vote for the Democrat in the general no matter what, I think we get the extremes. We gotta avoid upsetting them. We need all the votes we can get.

If Biden wins, he certainly has my vote.

[HerbChestnut]

6. At this point, I agree.

I don't know what the Sanders Campaign's strategy is. They seem to be laying low, but all that's doing is letting other candidates get time in the limelight. Bernie's debate performance epitomizes this, and as a result, he's fallen +/- 5% in the polls everywhere. He and his campaign staff have got to figure something out quick or he's going to be left behind.

[JI7]

12. he isn't laying low at all. he is almost always on the sunday morning shows

and doing something.

[Blue_true]

27. His message is the same and he still can't answer the "how" questions, or

he won't answer them. Senator Warren answers questions with solutions that even her critics come around to as being plausible.

A case in point. Senator Sanders answered a question about Medicare for All and it came out that he would increase people's taxes by $10,000. The problem is that a healthy single person can likely get a 12 month policy for that amount or less. But the deductibles for that person may take him or her well over $10,000 if he or she suffer a serious injury or contract a serious illness, the issue is the healthy person does not see that and Senator Sanders' campaign so far has done a poor job of providing comparisons that would give the healthy person comparative information.

[Vegas Roller]

8. Moral of the story

One cannot keep feeding anger with slogans and platitudes forever. At some point people can read through Sen. BS.

[Gothmog]

11. Due to the DNC 15% rule, sanders may not get delegates in a good number of states

[Turin_C3PO]

13. I hope he drops out

and endorses Warren. If not Biden, then I’d like our nominee to be EW.

[ehrnst]

15. I doubt he will concede until the convention, no matter the number of delegates he has or doesn't.

His supporters state that one of the reasons that they like him is that he doesn't change.

[ehrnst]

14. I'm sure that rule will soon be attacked by many of his supporters as being directed towards him

specifically by the DNC, despite it being applied across the board.

[lillypaddle]

20. Oh gee

that's really too bad.

[corbettkroehler]

21. Imploding So Fast That He Pulled Triple The RSVP Headcount And Had To Expand The Room in Iowa City

Iowa City, IA, July 2, 2019

Even with expanded venue, many were left standing.

[brooklynite]

22. And as we all know, the candidate either the biggest rallies wins....

[Celerity]

23. 10 quid says Rump tries to claim the DC July 4th 'tanks n' tots' fireworks shitshow as a campaign

rally FOR HIM.

[dchill]

32. Then HE should pay for it.

[Celerity]

33. I agree, BILL TRUMP INC for the ENTIRE thing, right down to whatever 50,000 usd outfit daughter-wife

Ivanka will slink around in.


SO SICK of these fucking grifters!

[corbettkroehler]

38. I Didn't Offer That As Proof Of Victory But Evidence That His Support Is Doing Just Fine

Oh, by the way, if his support were in the gutter, why would his Q2 fundraising numbers include just under 1 million individual contributions totaling $18 million, 99% of which were under $100?

Not proof of victory but highly dispositive of statements that his support has waned.

[brooklynite]

39. Not proof of that either

Nobody disputes that Sanders can turn out a crowd of his base voters; but they weren’t enough in 2016 and he has fewer of them now.

[corbettkroehler]

40. Wow - Your Arithmetic Is The Polar Opposite Of Mine

Roughly 1 million unique individual contributions in a single calendar quarter proves nothing? Argue all you want but, if we invoked a disinterested third party to adjudicate the question of whether that a yuge number of financial contributions held any probative value as to the relative strength of Sanders' support, I'd win, for sure.

[brooklynite]

43. Happy to know he has such financial support...

...but that 1 million donors number is only 13% of his total vote count for 2016 (43%), and for 2020 most reputable poll show him with, at most, half that number (some have him in single digits), and without the excuse that "he isn't known to the voters yet".

[corbettkroehler]

44. Let's Remember The Original Point

It was to affirm that Sanders' strong 2019Q2 numbers confirmed that his support had not waned.

That was the entire point. Those numbers prove that point conclusively. His support has not waned. In fact, compared with his fundraising numbers from 2015Q2, he has expanded his donor base.

As to your attempt to dismiss those statistics by spreading them into per capita figures, I offer two points:

1) It has been a documented fact for decades that only a tiny portion of voters contribute financially to any candidate of any party. That's part of the problem in our current system, in which prospective representatives of the American public spend time wooing wealthy campaign contributors who demand a legislative or regulatory quid pro quo.

In other words, equating 1 million individual contributions to the total base of voters, even in the primary, is a false equivalency. Besides, if you applied the same arithmetic to Sanders' challengers, even those who raised more money than he did, one could make the same accusation, that those candidates have seen their support wane. For example, when we exclude Sanders' rolled over $6 million from the previous cycle, Warren raised roughly $1 million more than Sanders. However, she had fewer than half the number of individual contributions Sanders did. Extend that to per capita arithmetic and, clearly, Warren would have zero chance at securing the nomination.

2) Here's an aspect of the grand total of individual contributions which no amount of spin could dismiss: as of this point in the cycle, including 2019Q1 and 2019Q2, Sanders has received more individual contributions than any one else, not just this cycle, but EVER. He set a record for individual contributions. Deflect and change the subject all you want. This man continues to perform very, very well.

[ehrnst]

41. Can you quantify "just fine?"

I have heard that before, and it didn't turn out the way that people predicted it would.

The candidate was beaten soundly at the ballot box.

[corbettkroehler]

45. Just Fine Means Equal To Or Better Than The Previous Period Or The Same Period In The Previous Cycle

In both cases, Sanders not only raised more money but had more individual contributions than his previous numbers. In fact, as of this point of time, Sanders has received more individual contributions than any candidate of any party, not just this cycle, but ever, including his record-setting 2015 numbers.

[ehrnst]

46. Well Elizabeth Warren is doing it without fundraising events. I think that bodes even better than

'just fine," by your standard of that term. Don't you?

Especially if others are trying to downplay their need for such events by referring to them as "grassroots fundraisers," much like they refer to their big donors as "campaign sponsors."

DoubleplusgoodJustFine!

[corbettkroehler]

57. You May Be Right But There's No Basis For Camparison

My only point is to compare Sanders' numbers against his own 2015/2016 figures. He continues to beat them. In fact, we just learned that, in the last presidential cycle, he needed until the Iowa caucuses before achieving the threshold of 1 million unique donors but during this cycle, he will achieve that mark within this calendar year, possibly next month, well ahead of the pace during his first run.

If that reality doesn't prove that his support hasn't waned, I don't know what would. Have the demographics of his base shifted in 4 years? Quite possibly. However, I'm through debating the question of Sanders' "waning" support because any sober analysis arrives at a singular conclusion: he is outraising himself from his first run for the White House.

As for Senator Warren, there's no way to compare Sanders' numbers against Warren's as a measure of doing "just fine" because she hasn't run for national office before. She certainly has shown growth in her base, significantly so, but I expected no less.

[ehrnst]

63. You Were the One Who Made Fundraising a Metric

Lest You Forget:

Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Perhaps you haven't seen the poll that indicates that most Democratic Sanders supporters aren't supporting him this time around?

That doesn't bode well for his winning the nomination this time around either.

[corbettkroehler]

64. Comparing His Fundraising Against His Own, No One Else's - My Only Assertion

Nevermind informal. Warren has no 2015/2016 presidential fundraising by which to compare her 2019/2020 results. How you could extrapolate a basis for comparison between Sanders and Warren is a formal fallacy.

There are no goalposts between Sanders' 2019 numbers and Warren's.

You were the one who tried to indicate that Warren's 2019 numbers prove that she has more support than Sanders. My response was that, since Sanders has shattered his 2015/2016 numbers, which were a record back then, his support remains steady or continues to grow. No accountant or actuary would allow you to associate that against Warren's non-extant 2015/2016 presidential numbers. Neither will I.

I had a single point: Sanders has outstripped his previous run for president in a field at least QUINTUPLE the size of the previous cycle. That unequivocally proves that his support has not waned.

[ehrnst]

65. Actually, You Compared His Numbers to Other Candidates

You set the goal posts, not me...

Let me refresh your memory. This is you, yes?

Sanders has received more individual contributions than any candidate of any party, not just this cycle, but ever, including his record-setting 2015 numbers.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287186393#post45

Can you share where you got that stat? Thanks!

I had a single point: Sanders has outstripped his previous run for president in a field at least QUINTUPLE the size of the previous cycle. That unequivocally proves that his support has not waned.

You use that word unequivocally... I don't think it means what you think it does... A recent poll showed only 25% of his 2016 supporters are supporting him again.

[corbettkroehler]

66. One More Detail

I am done answering your questions only to have you attempt to rebut me by changing the subject.

On the question of receiving more individual contributions than any other candidate from any party, I heard it from Senator Sanders on television. He made an overt statement.

As for the rest, HE'S DOING JUST FINE.

My final word on the subject.

[LanternWaste]

50. In other words, 'just fine' is a simply rationalization for his downward trend

[corbettkroehler]

56. Downward? His Is At The Cusp Out Shattering His 2015/2016 Fundraising Numbers

During his previous run for President, it took him until Iowa caucuses in order to secure 1 million unique donors. During this cycle, he will achieve it this calendar year, possibly next month.

In other words, his 2016 numbers, which already outstretched Obama's, are about to be exceeded. If that's downward, I want to live exactly as Sanders runs his campaign.

[Agschmid]

48. Contributors or contributions?

It’s interesting how they use that word.

[corbettkroehler]

59. 1 Million Contributions In 2019Q2, 99% Of Which Were Under $100

The threshold of 1 million unique contributors this cycle is the next goal. He is on track to cross it this calendar year, perhaps as soon as next month.

[Agschmid]

61. Thanks.

[Blue_true]

29. The question is what a similar event for Harris or Warren would look like.

They are quietly going to several regions to set up offices.

[LanternWaste]

49. An anecdotal photograph neither strengthens nor weakens the actual premise of the OP

Lacking context, count, etc.., what your anecdotal evidence lacks in objective relevance makes up for with emotion... but nothing more.

[corbettkroehler]

58. The Photo On Its Own Proves Nothing, I Concur, But I Cited A Key Statistic, Too

The photo was intended only to provide a convenient visual. The underlying statistic is far more important: his campaign asked those in the audience to submit an RSVP. The size of the venue was chosen based on the grand total of RSVP yeses. When the doors opened, the actual crowd TRIPLED the RSVP numbers. That proves a peak in interest, to which the photo provided flavor.

[Drunken Irishman]

70. You know who also pulled in huge crowds? Ron Paul.

Ron Paul would finish third in Iowa and only 10% of the vote nationally - well behind Romney, Santorum and Gingrich.

[handmade34]

26. one can only hope...

[democratisphere]

28. Yep.

BS couldn't pull it off in 2016; no reason to believe he can do it in 2020.

[CentralMass]

30. Im not going to sweat the polls and just wait and see how the ptimary plays out.

[SouthernProgressive]

42. Sanders is trying to maintain his position in order to negotiate out of fear.

As he did in '16.

[ehrnst]

47. +1000. Thats very, very different than "pulling the conversation to the left." (nt)

[Cha]

55. Thank You!

[corbettkroehler]

60. NY Times Headline, "'Stop Sanders' Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum"

That headline again reads, ‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum

Here's the whole thing:

http://nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party.html

[Hortensis]

62. NYT's "Saving Sanders" notes just over 10% of LIKELY Dem voters

chose him in a recent poll.

That's well below the critical 15% he must have to repeat his 2016 presence at the Democratic convention.

[Cha]

68. KICK!

[Gothmog]

69. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet