Why you shouldn't count out Bernie Sanders

[JoeOtterbein]

[link:https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/politics/bernie-sanders-polls/index.html|

Analysis by Harry Enten, CNN

Updated 5:41 PM ET, Mon September 9, 2019

(CNN) Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders seems to be the third wheel among the Democratic frontrunners. Former Vice President Joe Biden has held a consistent advantage in national primary polls. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren seems to have the crowds and momentum.

Meanwhile, Sanders is often treated as 2016 leftovers.

I'm not sure what chance Sanders has of winning the nomination, but the national and early state polling suggest Sanders shouldn't be tossed aside as an afterthought. He remains a key player in this Democratic race.

Sanders is at 15% nationally in an average of debate qualifying polls over the last month. That may not seem like a lot, but it's actually very close to Warren's 18% average. Sanders actually runs slightly ahead of Warren in a number of polls, including one released by ABC News/Washington Post this past weekend, in which Sanders was at 19% and Warren was at 18%.

Importantly, Sanders isn't dropping. His 15% in national polls is what he's averaged basically all year with the exception of a post-announcement bump in March. Sanders is not like California Sen. Kamala Harris, who started in the single digits, rose after she announced, dropped, rose again after the first debate and then dropped a second time. Having 15% support is key because it means he's at the threshold to receive delegates in primary contests.

more at link

[OilemFirchen]

1. BREAKING: Sanders has a ceiling and a floor.

[pnwmom]

2. Exactly. His base may be firmer than some other candidates,

but he has probably already hit his ceiling. Millions of Hillary voters aren't going to switch to him this time, instead of one of the other qualified candidates -- certainly not ahead of Elizabeth Warren.

[ehrnst]

10. I think some people confuse their own personal excitement and enthusiasm for a candidate with

numbers of people who feel the same, because they tend to gravitate towards those who feel the same, and this may be why they often mistake feelings or statements that don't reflect excitment and adoration as "hating."

This leads some to disbelieve the numbers of supporters when voting results reveal that there were lower numbers than they assumed.

They also often believe that other candidates whose supporters don't show the same level of adoration simply aren't as qualiifed, because of their "adoration" metrics.

[LiberalFighter]

17. Considering that he was considered a strong candidate in 2016 by some.

You would think his numbers would be much higher. At a minimum, he should had been nearly neck and neck with Biden. But that is not the case.

[Trenzalore]

37. It all depends if it is a 2 person race

If it ever gets to the point where it is Biden and Sanders as the only person standing then his ceiling is a lot higher. With Warren in the race and the other candidates it is lower.

I don't believe his ceiling is high enough to beat Biden in a one on one match.

[OilemFirchen]

38. ONLY if the two people are Biden and Sanders.

The bulk of the polling data I've seen suggests that Biden is the favorite second choice among Sanders supporters, and that Sanders is just barely the favorite among Warren supporters.

So if Biden is eliminated, it's a Warren / Sanders race. If Warren is eliminated, then it's Biden / maybe Sanders. If Sanders is eliminated, it's a Biden / nobody race.

Which of those three scenarios do you think is most likely?

[crazytown]

3. Is 15% a ceiling or a floor?

"Importantly, Sanders isn't dropping. His 15% in national polls is what he's averaged basically all year with the exception of a post-announcement bump in March"

(His average is closer to 17% than 15)

[Optical.Catalyst]

4. Just another entry in the file.

Harry Enten's analysis follows the countless pleas for voters to eliminate Bernie Sanders so their pet candidate has a chance at the nomination.

[jcgoldie]

6. "pet candidate"

Wow... very revealing word choice.

[BlueMississippi]

8. Projection maybe? nt

[sheshe2]

36. IKR

[George II]

11. So if we support someone other than Sanders it's only a "pet candidate"? That's insulting.

[Optical.Catalyst]

15. Is it as insulting as telling fellow Democrats that voting for Sanders will cause us to lose?

[George II]

16. More so. I don't support Sanders and have three or four possible choices, none are "pet candidates".

[Tiggeroshii]

27. Maybe they were not referring to you?

[brooklynite]

19. It's not insulting if my analysis (and that of political pros) says the same thing...

[Optical.Catalyst]

20. Your analysis over rules my choice?

You can keep your analysis, and I will make my choice as I see fit.

[ehrnst]

21. Straw man, anyone?

[brooklynite]

22. Who's denying you a choice?

What you're being denied is insulation from the opinions of others (unless you want to limit your engagement to the safe bubble of the DEMOCRATS 2020 forums.)

[George II]

24. I guess everyone has a right to their own, as you put it, "pet candidate".

[Tiggeroshii]

28. (Citation needed)

[pnwmom]

23. It is much more insulting to accuse people who support other candidates

of having "pet candidates" than to say their candidate could lose. Any candidate could lose, especially if Russia intervenes in the election again. Those who are convinced Bernie would have won last time are assuming Russia would have let him win, which makes no sense.

[Tiggeroshii]

29. Absence of evidence makes both statements equally ridiculous.

[pnwmom]

33. Saying anyone could lose isn't ridiculous. It's logically true. n/t

[Tiggeroshii]

35. Saying anybody will* lose without evidence, is.

Which is what the poster was referring to.

[ehrnst]

13. Not at all. You're thinking about how the Intercept, Jacobin, Krystal Ball, CommonDreams, & TYT

try to eliminate other Democratic candidates so their "pet candidate" has a chance at the nomination.

[LiberalFighter]

18. Definitely not a fan of those groups.

[betsuni]

7. What do you mean?

"It is a relief that the DNC is not pulling the strings this time."

[NYMinute]

9. We have to wait till super Tuesday to definitively count BS out.

That is when the devout devotees decisively derive damned decimation.

[ehrnst]

14. Well, historically speaking..... (nt)

[NurseJackie]

25. I hope I can "count on" ALL mathematically eliminated politicians to do the right thing.

[Tiggeroshii]

30. We have to wait till super tuesday to definitively count (insert candidate here) out.

That argument fits for basically any top tier candidate like Bernie.

[Gothmog]

26. Sanders Fades In New Hampshire

This is interesting https://politicalwire.com/2019/09/10/sanders-fades-in-new-hampshire/

A new Emerson poll in New Hampshire finds Joe Biden leading the Democratic presidential race with 24%, followed by Elizabeth Warren at 21%, Bernie Sanders at 13%, Pete Buttigieg at 11%, Kamala Harris at 8%, Tulsi Gabbard at 6%, Cory Booker at 4%, Andrew Yang at 3% and John Delaney at 3%.

In February, Sanders led the race with 27%.

[Thekaspervote]

32. Thx for posting!!

[Gothmog]

31. Why Bernie is stalled

This is an interesting article https://theweek.com/articles-amp/862766/why-bernie-stalled?__twitter_impression=true

While he was averaging around 24 percent at the time, Sanders has dropped to just over 16. He did fine in the first two debates, but didn't get a bounce of out them. And it's getting increasingly tough to dispute that he's at least been caught, if not passed, by Warren.

It's impossible to pinpoint the origin of these troubles, but some of his personnel decisions might help explain them. In March, his campaign announced that it had hired as his speechwriter the firebrand progressive journalist David Sirota, who days before the 2012 election wrote that it didn't matter whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama appointed the next Supreme Court justice. Sirota's public record of Obama-hating actually stretches back more than a decade and bringing him on board indicated that Sanders privately shares his distaste for the former president, who remains wildly popular with Democratic voters.

While most people are blissfully unaware of these kinds of campaign machinations and couldn't care less who writes anyone's oratories, Sanders was still placing one of the most important posts of campaign into the hands of someone who loathes the Democratic Party. And whatever you may or may not think of Sirota, this was an enormous strategic misstep. Whereas Warren has run an above-the-fray campaign in which she rarely criticizes the other candidates directly and doesn't waste time warring with the press or feuding with the Center For American Progress, Sirota has repeatedly plunged his candidate into internecine battles with other camps and continued Sanders' self-destructive fixation on media unfairness.....

That's why hiring journalist and former contributor to this site Briahna Joy Gray, who publicly announced on Twitter that she voted third-party in 2016, was another curious choice. It is why the decision to allow actress and Ralph Nader/Jill Stein enthusiast Susan Sarandon to introduce him at campaign events in Iowa is so mind-boggling. Sarandon is near the top of a short list of people who cause the heads of Clinton diehards to explode. And hey, maybe you hate Clinton and Clintonism and Clinton voters, but this remains a not-winning strategy in a Democratic primary in which you need to persuade a certain number of them to join your team.

[Skidmore]

34. Actually, I just don't

count him in. He lost me a while back and I don't think he's grown or expanded his thinking. I hear much of the same demagoguery and he still hasn't figured out how to be a team player. I don't think he's a Democrat or ever intend to be and I'm not interested in helping him shred the biggest, most diverse coalition on the left.

[Hortensis]

39. "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat."

~ Bernie Sanders, who counted himself out long ago as clearly in words as he has been in actions.

Me: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a socialist dissident bizarrely agitating for revolution in the midst of plenty. We live in what is by far the world's most wealthiest and advanced democracy. What we need is a strong regulatory leash on business and proper distribution of the great wealth we create. Not destruction of the economic system that produces it.

I am a strong liberal Democrat.

[Skidmore]

40. Yes, indeed.

I'm not nor have I ever been desirous of climbing out on a limb with a saw to cut it off behind me. Nor am I willing to take millions with me. There is a difference between aspiration and real time in a real world. I believe Warren has good motives. However some of this started before her plans. I don't trust it all to happen as planned. Too many variables.

[Hortensis]

41. :) Eye roll. 330 million people who need food, water, shelter every day

also have lives and dreams that require a stable, prosperous setting. What goes on in the head of people who would experiment with 330 million lives when we already have long-proven means of achieving widespread prosperity?

Thank goodness they're always a small minority. Having to spend a documented lifetime of frustrated commitment to universalist LW revolution, watching the experiment devastatingly fail in nation after nation yet never able to give up the dream, is unfortunate. But that needs to be Bernie Sanders' problem, not ours.

Voters need to recognize that some, with incredible arrogance and contempt for the wishes of a large majority, are willing to commit all of us to their faith is what it means to be zealous ideologues.

Or, as some of the polls suggest, a lot of folk who just haven't started paying real attention yet. There is just no other way to explain that most of those who check the box for Sanders have Biden as their second choice.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

42. it is absolute arrogance to rule him out

his supporter base are vociferous, he has large name recognition now compared to 2016, he can fairly claim to have pushed the democratic party platform to the left and therefore take ownership of it / paint others as followers.

he has significant flaws too but so does everyone. i'm not a sanders fan by any stretch of the imagination but he's still a force and people taking glee in his poll numbers should be careful. it's a marathon not a sprint (something he must have learned in 2016).