Monmouth Poll: Bernie Sanders has already lost more than half of his 2016 supporters

[emulatorloo]

Of course we are a year away from the first primary, so anything can happen.

Very interesting to see who former 2016 Sanders backers have gone to. Also interesting to see where Biden backers go if Biden doesn’t run: a quarter to Sanders.

On edit: former 2016 Sanders backer. For multiple reasons have moved on as well. So these numbers don’t surprise me.

——————————————————————————-

https://theweek.com/speedreads/828447/bernie-sanders-already-lost-more-than-half-2016-supporters

Bernie Sanders has already lost more than half of his 2016 supporters
Kathryn Krawczyk

Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2016 flame might be fizzling out.

Just like nearly every other 2020 poll out so far, Sanders finds himself in second place in a Monmouth University poll released Monday. The biggest portion of Democrats, 28 percent, say they'd support Vice President Joe Biden for the 2020 nomination should he decide to run. As usual, Sanders comes in second with 25 percent, and his retreating 2016 base could explain why.

Sanders, who came close to clinching the Democratic nomination in 2016, could top the polls if all his past supporters returned. But in the Monmouth poll, only 46 percent of Sanders' 2016 backers said they planned to vote for him this time around. Biden gets 15 percent of Sanders' old squad, with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) next in line.

Still, some Monmouth findings are looking up for Sanders. He attracted 14 percent of past Hillary Clinton voters, the poll found. He's also the second most favorable and second most recognizable candidate in the pool, coming in just behind Biden on both counts. And if the ex-vice president declines to run, a quarter of Biden backers said they'll switch to Sanders


———————————————

Direct link to Monmouth full poll here:

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_031119.pdf/

[DavidDvorkin]

1. "Sanders, who came close to clinching the Democratic nomination in 2016"

Ha! Only if "came close" is redefined to mean "lost by a very wide margin".

[emulatorloo]

2. Yes that's not accurate at all, but has apparently become "conventional wisdom" in some parts of

the media.

It wasn’t close at all.

[Amimnoch]

37. Really.

As close as the Edsel and Yugo were to being top sellers.

[GWC58]

80. What really pissed me off with Sanders, when it

became obvious he wouldn’t, in fact couldn’t, get the nomination he kept going after Hillary. Sanders, to my way of thinking, was/is a sore loser. That I won’t forget! There’s no way I’d support him. Not in the primary, anyway. The general is another animal. That being said I don’t believe Sanders gets the nomination.

[ehrnst]

4. Yep. (nt)

[CrossingTheRubicon]

5. If reality doesn't suit, "re-framing" seems to be the answer in some quarters.

[George II]

13. Indeed, that is a bit of an exaggeration.

[Cha]

25. Jeeze.. IKR! Try to rewrite history much?!!

[yardwork]

33. I noticed that as well. He wasn't ever close.

[joshcryer]

51. Unlike 2008 when Hillary was literally a few thousand votes away.

And actually within the realm of legitimately flipping the super-delegates.

[trueblue2007]

69. He was not close. Hillary BEAT HIM !!! She was ALWAYS the front runner.

[getagrip_already]

76. He did come in second....

In a two person race.

And no, O'Malley DOESN'T count.....😙

[ehrnst]

3. Monmouth University Polling:

Rated A+ by FiveThirtyEight.com, the Polling Institute was established to be a leader for the study of public opinion on critical national and state issues.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/

[Cha]

26. Mahalo, ehrnst!

[kstewart33]

40. I didn't know that.

Thanks for posting, ehrnst.

[TCJ70]

6. Is there a poll out of only declared candidates?

What use is polling including people who aren't even officially in the race yet?

[ehrnst]

7. People seem to think or want Biden to be in the race, clearly.

To leave him out under those circumstances would be a bad sample.

[emulatorloo]

9. Just as it would have been bad if polling outfits had left out Sanders before he announced n/t

[ehrnst]

10. Yes, I remember that. Bernie's popularity as a POTUS candidate was polled

frequently before he announced.

[TCJ70]

11. I don't doubt people want him in the race. That's clear.

I'm not sure it would be a bad example to exclude him, O'Rourke, and others who haven't actually joined yet, though.

[emulatorloo]

14. It would have been a terrible example if polls excluded Sanders before he announced

It would have been ignorant of pollsters to do so.

At any rate what seems significant in the poll is that a slight majority of Sanders 2016 backers have moved on from Sanders in 2020.

[Lazy Daisy]

28. Also interesting

14% of Clinton supporters are now supporting Sanders.

[workinclasszero]

60. I'm in that group

[Lazy Daisy]

65. Welcome aboard

Nice to have you

[kstewart33]

41. Many do.

Most of those likely are nervous about the party going far left, thinking it won't be enough to beat Trump.

[emulatorloo]

8. It's early yet so these polls are including potential candidates who have indicated they might get

in.

As you remember these type polls were including Bernie well before his official announcement. I think it would have been seen as dumb and shortsighted if early polls like this had not included Senator Sanders.

As I noted we’re still a year away from the first primary. I expect as we get closer we’ll know who exactly who our candidates are and the polling outfits will poll accordingly.

[TCJ70]

12. I just see it as two different questions:

- Who of the current candidates are you most likely to support?
- Who of the possible candidates would you be most likely to support?

Meh. I'm not a pollster. If Sanders hadn't declared I'd still be of the mind he shouldn't be lumped in with actual declared candidates.

[George II]

15. This is not a surprise.

[NurseJackie]

16. Oh brother!

Sanders, who came close to clinching the Democratic nomination in 2016

Oh brother! No he didn't. What an absurd thing for Kathryn Krawczyk to say.

==========
Hi, emulatorloo!

[Gothmog]

18. That claim is not true-sanders did not come close to clinching the nomination

sanders was effectively mathematically eliminated on Super Tuesday

[NurseJackie]

19. I know! It's maddening to see "journalists" trying to rewrite history.

sanders was effectively mathematically eliminated on Super Tuesday

I know! It's maddening to see "journalists" trying to rewrite history. What good purpose does it serve for "journalists" to do that?

Kathryn Krawczyk
Assistant Editor

Kathryn is a former web intern at The Week. She just graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in magazine journalism and information technology, along with hours to earn another degree after working at SU's independent paper The Daily Orange. Kathryn has a sense of humor drier than California's drought and shares it on Twitter.

Good grief.

[Gothmog]

17. Who is surprised by this?

[Mr Tibbs]

20. There are many choices this time around, unlike last time

Bernie will do just fine

[Jose Garcia]

21. A lot of his "supporters" were simply people who didn't like Hillary

.

[George II]

24. That was my take during the last cycle. She's not in it this time so....

....they've gone on to greener pastures.

[Cha]

27. Yeah, and I wonder WHY?!!!!!!!?

[Mr Tibbs]

31. That one kinda went both ways

Last presidential election

[Gothmog]

45. Bernie's Support Scatters In Big Field

This is interesting https://politicalwire.com/2019/03/12/bernies-support-scatters-in-big-field/

“Forty-six percent — that’s the percentage of Democrats who backed Bernie Sanders in 2016 who say that they’ll support him in 2020, according to a new Monmouth University poll.”

“And that’s compared with just 14 percent of Democrats who backed Hillary Clinton in the last election who say they’re getting behind Sanders for the upcoming nomination fight.”

“With about half of his previous coalition scattering between other candidates like Joe Biden (15 percent), Kamala Harris (8 percent) and Elizabeth Warren (6 percent), it’s not clear that Sanders will enjoy the same level of support from Democrats four years after his insurgent bid. But, the pollsters note, that assessment assumes that Biden is in the mix — and maintains his expected high levels of backing from Dems after he gets in.”

[Mr Tibbs]

46. Of course it does

But only one person will be the nominee

[Gothmog]

78. According to Nate, sanders has some high negatives

From Nate Silver. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/biden-and-bernies-support-isnt-just-name-recognition/

Sanders, conversely, has a high floor of support and a lot of enthusiasm behind him, but that’s tempered by having some Democrats — 22 percent in the Iowa poll — who have an unfavorable view of him. If that number holds at 22 percent — and the other 78 percent of Democrats would consider voting for Sanders — he shouldn’t have a lot of problems. Still, 22 percent is high as compared with the scores for candidates such as Biden, Booker and Harris, and Sanders will face a new type of scrutiny for him as one of the frontrunners who is taking fire from all sides, instead of being in a two-candidate race as the underdog against Clinton.

[Cha]

49. Good! We need a True Blue Democratic

candidate for our Nominee.

[Cha]

52. Not in the General Election it did NOT.

[forklift]

32. It was by design and Tad Devine tactics

Hillary was the most admired woman in polls for 10+ years until 2015. Then suddenly the Sanders media machine started their attack

Corporate Democrat
Wall Street Democrat
Establishment Democrat
Unlikable
Cold
Unrelatable
Corrupt
etc. etc.

Sanders will do this again against every front runner and his fired up vocal minority will damage the eventual nominee so much that Trump will win again.

A lot of the Sanders supporters are Republican operatives who are wearing Democratic clothing to destroy the Democratic party.
Cenk Uygur is one example.

[Amimnoch]

39. This! +1000

I’d better just stop there.

[Gothmog]

44. Nate Silver agrees

Link to tweet

[Cha]

53. Gracias, Goth!

Link to tweet

And, just how did they get to that DAMN #NeverHillary state?

Gee, I fucking wonder.

[Garrett78]

55. I suspect a decent chunk of those who voted Trump/3rd party were also people...

...who simply hate Clinton. That's one of several reasons why I'm fairly confident that in 2020 we'll win PA, MI and WI (three states where we made gains in 2018, and where we had dominated between 1992 and 2012).

Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of Trump voters were going to vote for Trump no matter who we nominated, and Clinton was easily our best option in 2016. But Clinton's net approval rating was, sadly, well below zero. For 25 years, people were conditioned to despise Hillary Clinton.

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. Speaking anecdotally, I've found the same dynamic among my friends & co-workers. They've "Moved On".

And thank goodness.

[NastyRiffraff]

23. Shhhh!

You can get alerted for that post. Doesn't matter that you're simply quoting an article and referencing a poll. It'll be seen as anti-Bernie and that's a BIG no-no.

[Me.]

29. "close to clinching the Democratic nomination in 2016"

If millions and millions of voters = Close

[Cha]

36. ..

[Me.]

48. Oooh, Let Me Warm My Hands With Your Fire Of Truth

[Cha]

61. Please do, Me!

[ZeroSomeBrains]

30. Biased Title to the Poll

Senator Sanders is in 2nd place by just 3% and is in a close 2nd place in every poll. He hasn't lost support as much as there are over a dozen candidates that are keeping everyone under 30%. It would be like saying that everyone hated all the Chicago mayoral candidates because no one got over 18% of the vote in the first round.

[OilemFirchen]

35. Really?

But in the Monmouth poll, only 46 percent of Sanders' 2016 backers said they planned to vote for him this time around.

The headline is accurate.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

38. We'll see if those numbers hold

We're a year off from the election and a lot of those people's first choices might be gone by the time they vote. There are also young people who are getting their first chance to vote and they are more likely to be a Sanders supporter. And there are some Hillary supporters from 2016 who thought both candidates were great and are voting for him now. If you care to listen to a viewpoint that may differ from yours read this article from the Boston Herald.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/03/12/dems-ignore-sanders-at-your-own-risk/

[sheshe2]

47. Sorry.

I am from the Boston area. The Herald is RW, I would not hold anything they say as fact. They are nothing more than a tabloid.

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

Overall, we rate the Boston Herald Right-Center biased based on editorial positions that favor the rightand High for factual reporting due to a clean fact check record.

Boston Herald - Right Center BiasRIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

Overall, we rate the Boston Herald Right-Center biased based on editorial positions that favor the right and High for factual reporting due to a clean fact check record.
Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History

The Boston Herald is a tabloid American daily newspaper whose primary market is Boston, Massachusetts and its surrounding area. It was founded in 1846 and is one of the oldest daily newspapers in the United States. It has been awarded eight Pulitzer Prizes in its history.

Funded by / Ownership

In December 2017, the Boston Herald filed for bankruptcy. On February 14, 2018, Digital First Media successfully bid $11.9 million to purchase the company in a bankruptcy auction; the acquisition was completed on March 19, 2018. The newspaper is funded through a subscription and advertising model.

snip

Analysis / Bias

The Boston Herald is a tabloid newspaper that reports local news through the use of journalists. National news is syndicated via the Associated Press. The Boston Herald uses minimal loaded words in their news reporting and properly sources there information. Editorially, they presents both sides, however, there is more right leaning opinions expressed. During the 2016 Presidential Election the Boston Herald did not endorse a candidate, however they have a long history of endorsing Republican candidates.



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/boston-herald/

They just like to stir the pot to promote infighting of Democrats. Don't believe a word they say. They are a center right tabloid.

[emulatorloo]

56. Odd to see the Herald cited here as a source. I thought everybody knew the Herald swung right

Thanks for posting.

[sheshe2]

57. You are very welcome, emulatorloo.

The Herald is a rag.

I wouldn't clean the soles of my feet on it.

[melman]

68. And yet you think nothing of posting NY Post links

http://democraticunderground.com/100210994438


How is that different?

[sheshe2]

70. Hey mel!

[melman]

71. So how's it different?

No answer as to what makes the NY Post acceptable if the Herald isn't?

[sheshe2]

73. Are you following me?

You dug up a 7 month old OP. That is in fact frightening that you are so interested in me. Very frightening.

[melman]

74. I'll take that as acknowledgement of an inability to answer

Thanks.

[sheshe2]

75. Well.

I'll take that as acknowledgement of an inability to answer my post.

Thanks.

[melman]

77. No

All I did was ask what makes it okay to post NY Post links if the Boston Herald is unacceptable. It's a very simple question.


You refused to answer and instead try to make it into some nonsense about stalking. As if threads here are your private life.


I ignored this because it's an obvious and completely ridiculous attempt to divert from the plain fact that you have no answer.


That is very different. As you certainly know..

[sheshe2]

79. Fact is Mel.

RW or not. This is a fact.

But only about 13 percent of registered Democrats turned out to vote in
the 14th Congressional District that takes in parts of Queens and the Bronx, according to a preliminary city Board of Elections tally.

The City Board of Elections lied or are they RW as well?

[Garrett78]

50. And every one of those polls is meaningless. Just as they were in March of 2015, 2007, etc.

The problem for Sanders is that the primary doesn't end with New Hampshire, which he may not even win this time around. The primary schedule becomes very problematic for Sanders after NH. And there will be far fewer caucuses in 2020.

[Garrett78]

34. People should stop basing their analysis on meaningless polls.

It makes for meaningless analysis.

[Gothmog]

43. Can Sanders Win Without Clinton In the Race?

Nate has some good analysis https://politicalwire.com/2019/02/21/can-sanders-win-without-clinton-in-the-race/

Nate Silver: “So as Sanders launches his 2020 campaign as a candidate with both formidable strengths and serious challenges, his biggest problem might seem to be that there’s more competition for his base this time around, with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and others also competing for the leftmost part of the Democratic electorate. An equally big problem for Sanders, however, is that voters this time around have more alternatives to Hillary Clinton — left, right and center — to choose from.”

“Roughly one-quarter of Sanders’s support in Democratic primaries and caucuses in 2016 came from #NeverHillary voters: people who didn’t vote for Clinton in the 2016 general election and who had no intention of doing so.”

Link to tweet

[chillfactor]

54. doesn't surprise me...

never have been a Bernie supporter.....too many other VERY GOOD potential candidates already have thrown their hats in the ring with more to come.

[Jamaal510]

58. Regarding the

"close to clinching the Democratic nomination in 2016" part, it's crazy to see how many political pundits have echoed that line. He was mathematically eliminated by Super Tuesday 2016, and lost by ~4M votes total, yet people call that "close"? Also, the only path to victory I can see for him is if he ends up retaining at least most of the people who voted for him 3 years ago despite the data from this article, and if the non-Bernie vote gets split up since there are a ton of candidates to choose from this time.

[Cha]

59. They need to explain their "close"..

they obviously have a different meaning than the dictionary.

Google page..

close1

/klōs/

aadjective: close; comparative adjective: closer; superlative adjective: closest

a short distance away or apart in space or time.
"the hotel is close to the sea"

synonyms: near, adjacent, in close proximity, close/near at hand; More
not far from, in the vicinity of, in the neighborhood of, within reach of, within close range of;

neighboring, hard by, adjoining, abutting, alongside, on the doorstep, within sight, within earshot, a stone's throw away;

close by, nearby, at hand, at close quarters, contiguous, proximate;

[peggysue2]

66. I think the word 'close' is in the same category as . . .

the word 'soon', Cha.

Whadda ya, think?

[Cha]

67. I think you're Bloody Well

Right, Peggysue!

[Garrett78]

64. He wasn't mathematically eliminated but it was clear he was going to lose.

The demographic data from 2016 is far more meaningful than any name recognition polling. If Sanders doesn't do much, much better than last time among POC and non-millennial women, he has 0 chance of getting nominated.

[Gothmog]

62. sanders was not taken seriously by the press last cycle and was not vetted

Vetting is important https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/28/why-bernie-sanders-has-an-uphill-climb-ahead/?utm_term=.1b4f90c2a717

Finally, what happens when the oppo dump on Sanders comes? We have no idea, because it never happened in 2016. Clinton was so terrified of alienating his supporters and seeing them vote for Jill Stein in the general election (or not vote at all) that she tiptoed around him for pretty much the entirety of the primary campaign. That doesn’t mean that he’ll be destroyed when stories about the more colorful aspects of his history start cropping up, but there’s just no way to know.

Which is what we could say about the Sanders candidacy as a whole: There’s no way to know how it’s going to go. But he’s got his work cut out for him.

See also https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-campaign-donald-trump/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2019-02-20T14%3A52%3A07&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social%C2%A0

2. How will he withstand more scrutiny and more attacks?
One of the secrets to Sanders' success in 2016 was that no one -- most especially Clinton -- thought he had any chance of going anywhere in the race. Clinton largely ignored him for the better part of 2015, allowing some problematic parts of Sanders' record for Democrats -- most notably his voting record on guns -- to go unnoticed. (When the race began to tighten, Clinton gently prodded Sanders on guns and health care.) Sanders, too, largely flew under the radar of investigative reporters for major news outlets who were busy looking into Clinton, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and others seen as more viable candidates. (That reality clearly benefited Donald Trump in the early days of the campaign, as well.)

Sanders will get no pass -- from either the media or his fellow candidates -- this time around. He is among the frontrunners -- and will be treated as such. His wife's time as president of Burlington College could well come up. And his opponents will do a deep dive into his nearly 30 years of votes as a member of the House and Senate. This is all very normal stuff in a campaign. But not for Sanders.

[Turin_C3PO]

63. I was a 2016 Sanders guy.

For a few reasons, he’s no longer in my top 3. But I will state without equivocation that I’ll vote for him if he wins the nomination. Hell, I’d vote for a serial killer if it means getting Trump out of office (only half joking).

[aikoaiko]

72. Is that comparing March 2019 to March 2015 data?

Comparing peak Bernie 2016 to early stages in 2019 is not a good comparison.