For the first time, a major poll shows Bernie Sanders leading Hillary Clinton

[AthenaAwakened]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...shows-bernie-sanders-leading-hillary-clinton/

On Thursday, NBC and the Journal released the other half of that poll. Hillary Clinton continues to lead Bernie Sanders by 11 points nationally. Nothing shocking there, though it's closer than it used to be.* In fact, Hillary Clinton has never trailed in any national poll, so it's hard to see this as terribly surprising.

Or, anyway, Clinton had never trailed in a major poll when NBC released its survey. An hour later, Fox News dropped a bombshell of its own: Sanders has a 3-point lead, according to its new national survey.

A year ago, Clinton had a 52-point lead over Sanders, with 55 percent of support to his 3 percent. In Fox's last poll, conducted shortly before Iowa, she still led by 12. No longer.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, the most demonstrably dishonest and politically biased national news source (Fox News) releases results that contradict every other poll.

That tells us more about who the GOP and conservatives want to win the Dem nomination, and how they are trying to help that happen.

What does Fox News desire to help Sanders win tell reasonable Dems about who they should nominate?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

So, the most demonstrably dishonest and politically biased national news source (Fox News) releases results that contradict every other poll.

That tells us more about who the GOP and conservatives want to win the Dem nomination, and how they are trying to help that happen.

What does Fox News desire to help Sanders win tell reasonable Dems about who they should nominate?

This^.

But don't the Republicans remember what happened the last time they wanted so badly for a certain candidate to beat out Hillary?

In May of 2008, Rush Limbaugh embodied the sentiment of the GOP when he said:

I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees ... I now urge the Democrat superdelegates to make your mind up and publicly go for Obama.

Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win -- blue-collar, working-class people ... He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/07/limbaugh.obama/

 

[TV and credit cards]

So, the most demonstrably dishonest and politically biased national news source (Fox News) releases results that contradict every other poll.

That tells us more about who the GOP and conservatives want to win the Dem nomination, and how they are trying to help that happen.

What does Fox News desire to help Sanders win tell reasonable Dems about who they should nominate?

Well, lets see if it sticks.
Perhaps as more people look past the label and actually read the ingredients, what makes up Bernie Sanders doesn't sound half bad. And when your choices are usually pretty damn bad, half bad starts to sound pretty good.

 

[Trausti]

What does it matter? No matter how well he does he likely cannot overcome the superdelegate deficit. The Democratic primary is a bit of a farce; the party apparatchiks have already decided who gets the nod.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What does it matter? No matter how well he does he likely cannot overcome the superdelegate deficit. The Democratic primary is a bit of a farce; the party apparatchiks have already decided who gets the nod.

Obama overcame the Super Delegate deficit as well. Super Delegates are like cats.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The media is making too much of the Democrats superdelegates to create drama.

 

[ronburgundy]

This^.

But don't the Republicans remember what happened the last time they wanted so badly for a certain candidate to beat out Hillary?

In May of 2008, Rush Limbaugh embodied the sentiment of the GOP when he said:

I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees ... I now urge the Democrat superdelegates to make your mind up and publicly go for Obama.

Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win -- blue-collar, working-class people ... He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/07/limbaugh.obama/

On average, the GOP is far more savvy than the Dems about gauging how to manipulate the public in their favor. Their actual policies should prevent them from winning most of the offices they hold. They should have not held the presidency or a majority in either house for the last 25 years, if people voted with an iota of reasoned self interest. The massive success of the GOP beyond what their policies would afford is their political strategy and knowledge of what buttons they should push. This is how they won in 2000, 2004, and gained control of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014, by convincing many Americans that the economic problems they and Bush helped create were Obama's fault.

It is also how, despite the horrific failure of the Bush presidency, they almost won in 2008. Obama held a steady but single digit lead throughout the Summer of 2008, but then lost it by September, with most early September polls showing a tie or McCain win. Then by mid October Obama jumped to a double digit lead and won only for the reason that any Dem nominee would have won at that moment, because from late September to October is when the economic shit hit the fan and the public became aware of just how dire the situation was. Had those events been delayed by 2 months, Obama could easily have lost and that would have been because the GOP is very good at knowing how to win elections that they have no business even being serious competition for. Remember that just a year ago many if not most liberals on this board were laughing at the notion that the GOP had any possible chance against any Dem in 2016. Now, the evidence shows that they could very plausibly win no matter who the Dems nominate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This^.

But don't the Republicans remember what happened the last time they wanted so badly for a certain candidate to beat out Hillary?

In May of 2008, Rush Limbaugh embodied the sentiment of the GOP when he said:



http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/07/limbaugh.obama/

On average, the GOP is far more savvy than the Dems about gauging how to manipulate the public in their favor. Their actual policies should prevent them from winning most of the offices they hold. They should have not held the presidency or a majority in either house for the last 25 years, if people voted with an iota of reasoned self interest. The massive success of the GOP beyond what their policies would afford is their political strategy and knowledge of what buttons they should push. This is how they won in 2000, 2004, and gained control of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014, by convincing many Americans that the economic problems they and Bush helped create were Obama's fault.

It is also how, despite the horrific failure of the Bush presidency, they almost won in 2008. Obama held a steady but single digit lead throughout the Summer of 2008, but then lost it by September, with most early September polls showing a tie or McCain win.

The bump was Palin. The downside of the bump was after Palin talked to Katie Couric.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

This^.

But don't the Republicans remember what happened the last time they wanted so badly for a certain candidate to beat out Hillary?

In May of 2008, Rush Limbaugh embodied the sentiment of the GOP when he said:



http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/07/limbaugh.obama/

On average, the GOP is far more savvy than the Dems about gauging how to manipulate the public in their favor.

Ebola was very effective. Nobody talked about it after the election.

 

[ronburgundy]

On average, the GOP is far more savvy than the Dems about gauging how to manipulate the public in their favor. Their actual policies should prevent them from winning most of the offices they hold. They should have not held the presidency or a majority in either house for the last 25 years, if people voted with an iota of reasoned self interest. The massive success of the GOP beyond what their policies would afford is their political strategy and knowledge of what buttons they should push. This is how they won in 2000, 2004, and gained control of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014, by convincing many Americans that the economic problems they and Bush helped create were Obama's fault.

It is also how, despite the horrific failure of the Bush presidency, they almost won in 2008. Obama held a steady but single digit lead throughout the Summer of 2008, but then lost it by September, with most early September polls showing a tie or McCain win.

The bump was Palin. The downside of the bump was after Palin talked to Katie Couric.

The bump was Palin, another successfully orchestrated move by the GOP showing their savvy in understanding the voters. Her idiocy did not cause the October slide. That was the economy and all those corporate takeovers and bailout, and the TARP passage that happened from mid September through October. Exit polls showed that among people who said that they considered Palin in deciding their vote, the majority voted for McCain, meaning she did more to help than hurt.

 

[dismal]

What does it matter? No matter how well he does he likely cannot overcome the superdelegate deficit. The Democratic primary is a bit of a farce; the party apparatchiks have already decided who gets the nod.

Obama overcame the Super Delegate deficit as well. Super Delegates are like cats.

If one presumes the super delegates who have pledged to Hillary will drop her is she loses in regular delegates you may be right. If they don't Bernie is not going to win if he wins by the sort of percentage this poll indicates. Won't even be that close as Hillary's super delegate lead is massive.

 

[Derec]

So, the most demonstrably dishonest and politically biased national news source (Fox News) releases results that contradict every other poll.

What? More biased than MSNBC?

That tells us more about who the GOP and conservatives want to win the Dem nomination, and how they are trying to help that happen.

That's a genetic fallacy. You mistrust the poll just because it was published by a conservative TV network.

What does Fox News desire to help Sanders win tell reasonable Dems about who they should nominate?

Such electability calculus led Dems to nominate John F-in Kerry in 2004. As I recall he was running against a weird guy from Vermont too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Obama overcame the Super Delegate deficit as well. Super Delegates are like cats.

If one presumes the super delegates who have pledged to Hillary will drop her is she loses in regular delegates you may be right. If they don't Bernie is not going to win if he wins by the sort of percentage this poll indicates. Won't even be that close as Hillary's super delegate lead is massive.

Yup. It really comes down to who looks stronger amongst the delegate count. Of course, the delegates won in Iowa in the causcus, aren't the actual delegates. The whole system is crazy and absurd. God bless antiquainted American primary politics!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The bump was Palin. The downside of the bump was after Palin talked to Katie Couric.

The bump was Palin, another successfully orchestrated move by the GOP showing their savvy in understanding the voters. Her idiocy did not cause the October slide.

The bump didn't last long, maybe a week. Palin came across as terribly inadequate in her rare interviews. That she didn't fling her own poo during the VP debate was seen as a win.

That was the economy and all those corporate takeovers and bailout, and the TARP passage that happened from mid September through October. Exit polls showed that among people who said that they considered Palin in deciding their vote, the majority voted for McCain, meaning she did more to help than hurt.

Palin helped, but only to energize the people already voting Republican. Independents did not swing for Palin. Palin was a hail mary pass from the locker room. The Republicans were never going to win in '08, not after 8 years of W and Iraq.

 

[Derec]

What does it matter? No matter how well he does he likely cannot overcome the superdelegate deficit. The Democratic primary is a bit of a farce; the party apparatchiks have already decided who gets the nod.

Superdelegates are unpledged. They can vote for whomever they want at the convention. Counting on them would be like counting your chickens before they hatch. If the superdelegates were to overturn a lead in pledged delegates there would be a revolt within the Democratic Party and hello president Trump. Thus superdelegates, who were conceived to prevent something like the Sanders candidacy, are like a nuclear weapon - to be used with extreme caution, if at all, lest one be overtaken by the shockwave oneself.

 

[Derec]

If one presumes the super delegates who have pledged to Hillary will drop her is she loses in regular delegates you may be right. If they don't Bernie is not going to win if he wins by the sort of percentage this poll indicates. Won't even be that close as Hillary's super delegate lead is massive.

Again, those superdelegates are not pledged to Hillary. And even if they really, really wanted to swing the nomination to her, they will have to consider the inevitable blowback.

 

[Trausti]

If one presumes the super delegates who have pledged to Hillary will drop her is she loses in regular delegates you may be right. If they don't Bernie is not going to win if he wins by the sort of percentage this poll indicates. Won't even be that close as Hillary's super delegate lead is massive.

Again, those superdelegates are not pledged to Hillary. And even if they really, really wanted to swing the nomination to her, they will have to consider the inevitable blowback.

Well, maybe. But as of February 19, the superdelegate edge gives the Hildabeast a 483 v 55 lead over Grandpa. And there's only been one caucus and one primary.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/

 

[dismal]

If one presumes the super delegates who have pledged to Hillary will drop her is she loses in regular delegates you may be right. If they don't Bernie is not going to win if he wins by the sort of percentage this poll indicates. Won't even be that close as Hillary's super delegate lead is massive.

Again, those superdelegates are not pledged to Hillary. And even if they really, really wanted to swing the nomination to her, they will have to consider the inevitable blowback.

The blowback would be more muted because of the process itself. It's not like a general election where you can tabulate up the votes and say "this guy got 52% of the vote".

There are smorgasbord of open primaries, closed primaries, caucii, coin tosses and ritual dances that determine delegates. There's no particular reason why the super delegates wouldn't necessarily break down differently than the voter support. They just need to convince themselves they are doing it for the good of the party. Shouldn't be hard for the loyal Clintonistas. Like Bill Clinton.

 

[Angry Floof]