• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Bernie Sanders Within One Point Of Hillary Clinton In Nevada

Bernie Sanders Speaking

While Republicans are headed toward a primary in South Carolina on Saturday, Democrats will be holding their caucuses out in Nevada and a new CNN/ORC poll shows Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders even in a contest that has proven to be notoriously unpredictable:

Likely Democratic caucusgoers in Nevada are split almost evenly between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders ahead of Saturday’s caucuses, according to a new CNN/ORC Poll.

Though Clinton holds an edge over Sanders on handling a range of top issues, the results suggest the extremely close race hinges on divided opinions on the economy.

Overall, 48% of likely caucus attendees say they support Clinton, 47% Sanders. Both candidates carry their demographic strong points from prior states into Nevada, with Clinton holding an edge among women, while Sanders tops the former secretary of state among voters under age 55.

One exception emerges though: Although the pool of potential caucusgoers in Nevada is more racially diverse than those who participated in Iowa or New Hampshire, the racial divide among likely caucusgoers isn’t nearly as stark as among voters in South Carolina, with both white and non-white voters about evenly divided between the two candidates.

The economy is rated the top issue by 42% of likely Democratic caucusgoers, and which candidate would better handle it seems a central division in the race.

Overall, Clinton holds broad advantages as more trusted on foreign policy, race relations, immigration and health care, but likely caucusgoers are split 48% for Clinton and 47% for Sanders on the economy. Among those likely caucusgoers who call the economy their top issue in choosing a candidate, more support Sanders: 52% back him vs. 43% for Clinton.

When asked who would do more to help the middle class, Sanders narrowly tops Clinton among all likely caucusgoers, 50% to 47%. Likely caucusgoers are also split on which candidate best represents Democratic values, 50% say Clinton does, 49% Sanders.

As was the case in Iowa, Sanders’ support rests partly on those who are not regular participants in the caucus process, and turnout could play a role in whether the results reflect this close a race on Saturday.

Clinton fares better among those who say they are definitely going to participate in the caucus, as well as among those who say they have regularly participated in the past. Newer voters are more likely to back Sanders, as are those a bit less certain they’ll show up on Saturday.

One major caveat to keep in mind is that the Nevada caucuses have proven to be very difficult to poll accurately in the past, as veteran Nevada political analysts such as Jack Ralston have observed several times. In part, this has to do with the manner in which the caucuses are conducted, which if anything involve an even more convoluted process than the one that Iowa uses. In any case, it’s worth noting that polling prior to the 2008 Nevada caucuses showed Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama and she did ultimately end up winning that contest, so these numbers shouldn’t simply be ignored.

Another caveat to keep in mind is that there has been very little polling in Nevada so it’s hard to judge if this poll is consistent with a trend, or some kind of outlier. The limited amount of polling done in the state before the end of 2015 showed Clinton with her typical at the time massive lead over Sanders, but that number obviously became inapplicable long ago. More recently, the only other poll of the Democratic race in the Silver State showed Clinton and Sanders in a tie, but that’s from an unknown polling firm that has ties to Republicans so it’s unclear how reliable it is. Given that limited amount of data, we’re basically headed into this contest somewhat blind.

In any case, if these numbers are accurate then they suggest that Sanders is within striking distance of Clinton in yet another state. Given that, you can expect that this poll will get a lot of attention from the political media today and that the results out of Nevada will be closely watched on Saturday night. Even if one believes, as I do, that Clinton will still ultimately win the Democratic nomination, if Sanders manages to win in Nevada, or even comes close like he did in Iowa, then it will inevitably lead to the typical round of questions about the future of Clinton’s campaign and, likely, more rumors of a staff shakeup for a campaign that obviously isn’t going quite a smoothly as the candidate would like.

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Todd says:

    While Clinton still has a fairly significant lead in SC, the most recent polls there are tightening too. I’m sorry, but rather than a “firewall” these contests are looking more and more like a levee that the Clinton campaign hopes will hold just long enough to survive the cresting river.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  2. DK says:

    @Todd: The last five South Carolina polls — all from the last five days or less — have Clinton +18, +30, +21, +18, and +19.

    Saying the race in SC is tightening is like saying a 350lb guy who drops 5 pounds is “getting skinnier.” Nice spin, but there’s nothing about those numbers that is tight.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  3. jukeboxgrad says:

    DK:

    Saying the race in SC is tightening

    Clinton’s current lead: 21.2%. Clinton’s lead 4 weeks ago: 40%. When your lead gets cut in half in less than a month, I’m pretty sure that counts as “tightening.”

    is like saying a 350lb guy who drops 5 pounds is “getting skinnier.”

    I’m sorry that 5/350 and 20/40 look like similar ratios to you.

    there’s nothing about those numbers that is tight

    “Tightening” and “tight” are not synonyms. He used one word, and you used a different word. He explicitly acknowledged that “Clinton still has a fairly significant lead in SC,” which means his claim was clearly “tightening,” not “tight.”

    Nice spin

    Hilarious.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  4. Guarneri says:

    @Todd:

    A levee, eh? Well here’s some free advice for the Clinton campaign.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrjRKB586s

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  5. Pch101 says:

    The Sanders fans continue to take away the wrong lessons from primary numbers.

    Clinton’s margin of victory in the primary is only relevant to the extent that it provides an indication of her prospects in the general election. John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000 both outperformed Obama in 2008 and Bill Clinton in 1992 in their respective primaries, and we can see how those presidential races ended up.

    The horse race is fun to watch, but it is ultimately meaningless over the long run unless Sanders pulls a Nader and goes independent after the primary, which seems unlikely.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

  6. jukeboxgrad says:

    The Sanders fans continue to take away the wrong lessons from primary numbers.

    And you continue to beat that same straw man. No one is doing what you claim they are doing.

    Clinton’s margin of victory in the primary is only relevant to the extent that it provides an indication of her prospects in the general election.

    No one has claimed that “Clinton’s margin of victory in the primary … provides an indication of her prospects in the general election.” No one has suggested that a slim “margin of victory in the primary” for her, if that’s the final outcome, indicates that she will do poorly in the general election.

    All that is being pointed out is that she is doing more poorly than expected, in the primaries right now. For example, the final RCP spread for NH was Sanders +13.3%. Actual result: Sanders +22.4. In January, Clinton was +12.5% in Iowa. Actual result: Clinton +0.2%. Above there is similar data regarding SC and NV. This is an interesting and potentially important phenomenon. It’s called momentum, and it matters.

    But I understand the desire to pretend that this isn’t happening, and the desire to pretend that it doesn’t matter, and the desire to change the subject.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  7. Pch101 says:

    No one has claimed that “Clinton’s margin of victory in the primary … provides an indication of her prospects in the general election.”

    The reason that you keep talking about it is because you think that it’s an indication that Sander is electable.

    As I keep noting, doing well in a primary is not necessarily an indicator of how electable a candidate may be. Very low results are the kiss of death, but very high results do not have the opposite meaning.

    (Side note to our hosts: Could you please get the “jukebox” handle out of your spam box? For some reason, your filters dislike it.)

    Barry Goldwater had a stellar primary performance in 1964. Gee, that worked out well for him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  8. mantis says:

    @Pch101:

    The reason that you keep talking about it is because you think that it’s an indication that Sander is electable.

    Or people keep talking about it because it’s an indication that Sanders may be nominated.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  9. Pch101 says:

    @mantis:

    That sounds like wishful thinking. In 2008, Obama had the superdelegates to ensure his win; this time, that benefit will probably go to Clinton, even if she came in second place in the popular vote (which seems unlikely.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Tillman says:

    @Pch101: She came in second place in the popular vote in 2008 as well. The superdelegates switched their votes to Obama because she demonstrated she wasn’t as good a campaigner as previously expected.

    The reason that you keep talking about it is because you think that it’s an indication that Sander is electable.

    And the reason Sanders supporters keep bringing it up is because it’s been a presumption of Clinton supporters that she’s the only electable candidate that exists in the universe. I don’t expect Sanders to win, but arguments over “electability” have been nothing but clashing gut instincts about image. There’s no reasoning to it, or what little there is is based on the same sorts of predictive polling we’ve seen Sanders exceeding.

    To illustrate this, the popular comparison for Sanders is McGovern, a candidate sabotaged by his own party running against an incumbent in a strong economy. Clearly there are parallels to be found!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  11. Pch101 says:

    McGovern was a Democrat appealed to young leftists, while he scared the hell out of their parents and grandparents.

    If Sanders were to win the nomination, he would be a Democrat appealed to young leftists, while he scared the hell out of their parents and grandparents when they find out that he is a socialist-communist-pinko-red-etc! who wants to raise peoples’ taxes.

    A whole lot of rose-colored glasses have to be worn in order to avoid seeing this. Scoring a tie in a Democratic primary in a white retail politics state is not even close to winning a general election.

    Clinton may not be a great candidate, but she’s the most viable one that they’ve got. It’s the Dem’s shallow and aging bench vs. the GOP’s broad bench of lunacy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  12. Todd says:

    My only point here is that this is yet another “surprise” when it comes to the Sanders/Clinton race. I’m not predicting what’s going to happen (although if you look to one of the comment threads from last week, I did predict precisely what happened in this poll) in Nevada or South Carolina. Clinton may very well get her mojo back and win both. However, the more “surprises” we get in this race, the more interesting it becomes to watch both the media and Clinton supporters spin it as just small “bump in the road” that won’t really matter at the end.

    On a side note, it’s very interesting that in both major parties, the candidates generating the most enthusiasm are the ones that the respective establishments have convinced themselves can’t win in the general election.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  13. HarvardLaw92 says:

    So ready for Super Tuesday to put an end to this endless poo flinging match. I’m not thrilled about Clinton, but I am well beyond fed up to my eyeballs with hearing fawning Sanders supporters too.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

  14. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Todd:

    On a side note, it’s very interesting that in both major parties, the candidates generating the most enthusiasm are the ones that the respective establishments have convinced themselves can’t win in the general election

    It’s easy to generate enthusiasm when you’re promising everyone a free pony. They’re going to be pissed, though, when they find out you lied.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6

  15. Pch101 says:

    @Todd:

    There’s going to be one Democratic nominee, and there is going to be one Republican nominee.

    The Democratic nominee who is most likely to win has done very little real campaigning due to the mystery of who will be the Republican nominee — messaging is difficult without an opponent — but that match up is the relevant one.

    It really doesn’t matter of the Democratic primary is close. It only matters whether that Democrat can beat the Republican. Winning the primary is not a prize.

    Meanwhile, nobody has done much to tear Sanders to shreds. Get him nominated, and that would change in a hurry and it wouldn’t be pretty.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

  16. Todd says:

    @HarvardLaw92: I’ve said this several times now, but nobody wants to believe me. I am not a “fawning” Sanders supporter. I’m someone who does not think Clinton can/will win. Therefore I would prefer that the Democrats nominate the more electable of the two candidates. Issue wise, taken as a whole, I probably agree with Clinton more than Sanders. But I really, really don’t want to see a President Trump.. And I honestly think Trump can/will beat her. That’s my main reason for supporting Sanders.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  17. Todd says:

    Sanders matches up much better against Trump … and it’s even better if Bloomberg jumps in. You couldn’t write a better script for Sanders than getting to run against not one, but two NY billionaires :-).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  18. Pch101 says:

    Trump won’t be the Republican nominee.

    And he actually proves the point. The guy who wins the Republican primaries thus far is among the GOP’s worst choices for a general election.

    Trump’s ability to appeal strongly to a fringe group is the very thing that makes him undesirable as a nominee, because he will also alienate and be repellent to many of those who aren’t his fans. You do not want to emulate Trump if your goal is to win the presidency.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  19. Todd says:

    Trump will almost certainly be the Republican nominee … and if he runs against Clinton, probably President too. I’m not going to argue with you about the hypothetical future whys. Just watch. It’s not what I want, but what I expect.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  20. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Todd:

    I was speaking more generally. I don’t regard you as a Sanders fanboy. I see you simply as someone who has convinced himself that Clinton won’t win. That may be a valid viewpoint; it may not be, but it’s not annoying either way.

    I was referring to the legions of inane Bernie disciples who, aside from evidently being stupid enough to believe that they’ll be getting their free pony any day now, have overrun political forums with their incessant whining and hero worship. I dislike them so much that I’ve begin to dislike their messiah by association.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

  21. Terrence Daniels says:

    @Todd: Help Get every Bernie Supporter to the polls or caucus locations with a simple to use app. If each of us brings just one person with us on our way to the polls we could have a huge impact on this election. Lets get Organized with the simple press of a button. But we need your help to make this great idea a reality.Please donate, This is a grassroots project so a small donation can have a major impact. We have finished the Android version but we need your help to get the Apple Versions to fruition.Together we can do great things. Thanks again for all the support so far, it has been an amazing Journey. Vote Bernie Sanders 2016 https://www.gofundme.com/BernieTaxi

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

  22. EddieInCA says:

    In 10 of 12 Super Tuesday States, Clinton has a comfortable lead. It will be almost over after Super Tuesday. It will definitely be over by March 15th.

    Bernie can’t win without any minority support, and without articulating a common sense (or any) foreign policy. Ignoring the world isn’t a foreign policy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5

  23. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @EddieInCA: one of those two states, the one that Sanders will undoubtedly win, is Vermont. VT only has 16 delegates. 10 out of 12 is worse for him than it sounds.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  24. jukeboxgrad says:

    Pch101:

    The reason that you keep talking about it is because you think that it’s an indication that Sander is electable.

    I’m glad you think you know what I think, but it would be better if you focus your attention on what I’ve actually said, since nothing I said gives you a basis to claim that I’m actually thinking what you claim I’m thinking.

    doing well in a primary is not necessarily an indicator of how electable a candidate may be

    It’s always fun to watch a straw man being demolished, even when it’s the same one you’ve already demolished. Good thing that nobody said that “doing well in a primary is … an indicator of how electable a candidate may be.”

    while he scared the hell out of their parents and grandparents

    Funny you should raise the subject of fear, since a new poll indicates that Clinton is scarier than Sanders.

    Clinton may not be a great candidate, but she’s the most viable one that they’ve got.

    It’s easy to find people making this claim. It’s hard to find people who are willing to support the claim with data. On the other hand, there’s this today:

    Poll: Sanders has slight edge over Clinton in matchups with GOP opponents

    So your claim seems to be the opposite of the truth.

    Meanwhile, nobody has done much to tear Sanders to shreds. Get him nominated, and that would change in a hurry and it wouldn’t be pretty.

    I’m sure the regular GOP machinery will be able to destroy him easily, just like they destroyed Trump.

    Trump won’t be the Republican nominee.

    According to RCP, Trump is currently ahead in SC by 17.5%. Since WWII, this is the number of times the GOP has nominated someone who lost both NH and SC: zero.

    By the way, the RCP error in IA was 8 points. So you have to hope for a much larger error if you think Trump is going to lose SC.

    Could you please get the “jukebox” handle out of your spam box?

    I realize you’re pretty new here. It’s been that way for years and it’s probably not going to change anytime soon.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  25. jukeboxgrad says:

    Ignoring the world isn’t a foreign policy.

    Link:

    Bernie Sanders Is More Serious on Foreign Policy Than You Think

    “Lawrence Korb … served as an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  26. Pch101 says:

    Somebody needs to look up “strawman.”

    Don’t keep trying to boast about primary and polling results to date, then claim that it’s a strawman when someone points out that doing well in a primary doesn’t mean that the candidate will do well in a general election.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  27. jukeboxgrad says:

    I understand your desire to take two things that are separate and pretend they are the same:

    A) Sanders’ surprising momentum in the current primaries is evidence that he might surprise everyone and get nominated.

    B) General election matchups, including a new one today, is evidence that Sanders is roughly as ‘electable’ as Clinton.

    then claim that it’s a strawman when someone points out that doing well in a primary doesn’t mean that the candidate will do well in a general election

    “Doing well in a primary” has to do with A. “Do well in a general election” has to do with B. You are acting as if I am conflating those two different things. I am not, but you are. You have been doing that consistently, and I don’t expect you to stop now. Carry on.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  28. Pch101 says:

    Several of us keep explaining to you why the matchup figures don’t mean much.

    And Sanders is not going to win the nomination, either. You’re hoping against hope.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  29. jukeboxgrad says:

    Several of us keep explaining to you why the matchup figures don’t mean much.

    And once again you are trying to change the subject. What we were just discussing was not the value of “the matchup figures.” What we were just discussing was your lame attempt to claim that I am using primary results to predict general election results. I have not done that, so you should explain why you have repeatedly accused me of doing that.

    And as far as “matchup figures don’t mean much,” I am still waiting for you to present data that does “mean much.” You are following your usual style, which is to be long on unsupported assertions and short on data.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  30. Pch101 says:

    Abusing statistics is the not the same as analyzing them.

    We don’t have statistics that show what happens when Sanders the Commie becomes the target of middle America’s wrath, because that hasn’t happened yet and it won’t happen unless he wins the nomination (which he won’t.) But the demonization would happen if he does, and we have plenty of data that shows that older Americans do not heart socialism.

    We don’t have statistics that show what happens when Clinton targets one GOP candidate — the nominee — because that hasn’t happened yet and it won’t happen until the nominee is selected. You’ll have to be patient and not pretend that you know what that looks like, because you don’t. (If her campaign is decent, then it should move a few points in her direction.)

    So sorry, but your data doesn’t really help your case, because it doesn’t address the questions that are relevant.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  31. jukeboxgrad says:

    Abusing statistics is the not the same as analyzing them.

    Making a claim is not the same as proving it. Your claim that I am “abusing statistics” is just one more in a long series of unsupported assertions, and you have posted yet another comment containing nothing but unsupported assertions, and you are still refusing to explain why you said I said something I never said.

    we have plenty of data that shows that older Americans do not heart socialism

    I cited data showing that your claims in this regard are overstated, and you are following your usual pattern of completely ignoring that data. And if you really have “plenty of data” you should be able to cite more than precisely one poll, which is all you ever did, as far as I can tell.

    If her campaign is decent, then it should move a few points in her direction.

    If she was a “decent” campaigner she wouldn’t be struggling so much against the old Commie, and she wouldn’t have a favorable rating of 42.8 favorable and 53% unfavorable. Sanders: 50.9% favorable, 38.3% unfavorable.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  32. Pch101 says:

    See, when you make statements like this:

    If she was a “decent” campaigner she wouldn’t be struggling so much against the old Commie, and she wouldn’t have a favorable rating of 42.8 favorable and 53% unfavorable. Sanders: 50.9% favorable, 38.3% unfavorable.

    …then you can’t start screaming “strawman!” when I point out that this is irrelevant because she will not be running against Sanders, i.e. that performance in a primary does not equate to performance in a general election. If you don’t want to be accused of making such statements, then stop making them.

    Again, the most successful primary candidates in recent times have included John Kerry, Al Gore, and Barry Goldwater, while Obama essentially tied with Hillary Clinton in 2008 and Bill Clinton barely eked out a majority in 1992. It should be obvious that the size of the primary lead doesn’t really matter, because the Democrats don’t run against Democrats in the general election. Landslide victories in primaries are not required.

    What matters is how she campaigns against the Republican. She may do a great or a lousy job — that remains to be seen — but at least there won’t be any soundbites of her calling herself a socialist or of the honeymoon that she didn’t take to the Soviet Union.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  33. jukeboxgrad says:

    this is irrelevant because she will not be running against Sanders

    If she can’t show broad and decisive strength against Sanders, a (according to you) radioactive Commie, why should anyone think she can show broad and decisive strength against anyone else?

    Mike Lux is a progressive activist who used to work in the Clinton White House. He is officially neutral in this D primary. He does a good job of explaining why Hillary’s current positioning is wrong for the moment. It’s causing her to struggle now, and it will also cause her to struggle in the general election:

    This frame that her campaign unfortunately helped to create of Hillary’s long hard slog incrementalism vs Bernie’s big, bold solutions does not work in this political moment, just as it didn’t work in 2008. And that is why her campaign — far better funded, far more endorsements, far more political pros, running against a democratic socialist who wasn’t even a registered Democrat until last year — ground to a tie in Iowa and is behind in New Hampshire.

    [Recall] Hillary’s mocking quote about Obama from 2008: “The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect,” she said. “I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be” … the same message is coming through this year. …

    Being the nose to the grindstone, long hard slog, small steady progress candidate could — and did, for her husband — work in a time like the mid-1990s, when the economy was bubbling along pretty good, wages were going up, and the tech boom was making people feel more optimistic about the future. That is not the time we are living in, though. …

    People want big, deep, fundamental change. They don’t want the establishment calling the shots, or business as usual. …

    … Because she is who she is, Hillary will always have trouble convincing people she isn’t part and parcel of an establishment they don’t trust. It gets worse, though, a lot worse, when she emphasizes that she only wants small changes and criticizes Bernie for wanting big ones.

    … It isn’t just Democrats who are spitting in the eye of the establishment in case anyone hasn’t noticed, and the classic swing voters are looking for a big shake-up in what they perceive as a corrupt system.

    Whether Trump is nominated or not, it is a big mistake to ignore what must be learned from the Trump phenomenon, which is that “people want big, deep, fundamental change.” This is true of both R voters and D voters. Clinton is presenting herself as someone who won’t deliver that. This is causing her to struggle now, and it will also cause her to struggle in the fall, especially if her opponent is Trump. This is what you gloss over when you claim that her current problems with Sanders are “irrelevant.”

    What matters is how she campaigns against the Republican.

    She is already defined, and her campaign is defined, and Lux explained why it’s wrong.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  34. Pch101 says:

    If she can’t show broad and decisive strength against Sanders…

    Last I checked, Sanders isn’t a Republican, so she doesn’t need to. The only thing that she needs to do is to win more delegates than he does, which she will.

    And now that you’ve made this Clinton-v-Sanders-ohmigawd-this-grudge-match-really-matters! sort of statement yet again, you can punt on your strawman accusations for good. Not only do you make this claim, but you make it often.

    it is a big mistake to ignore what must be learned from the Trump phenomenon

    Donald Trump is George Wallace with a combover. This only seems new to those who haven’t studied history. The difference is that Wallace tried the third-party candidate route (which never works in American politics), while Trump gunned for a major party (that happens to have a leadership that doesn’t like him very much.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  35. Grewgills says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    I cited data showing that your claims in this regard are overstated

    You keep overstating what that poll says. Among millennials, the socialism charge will have limited success according to that yougov poll. That is a good thing going forward, but younger people are notoriously poor about showing up to vote come election day.
    The breakdowns by age and political affiliation are interesting and don’t much help your case.
    You can find the relevant info here and here.
    The bottom line is that for people over 30 and for independents, socialism polls very poorly. The people that are going to show up in larger numbers and the people that we need to swing to win the election don’t like socialism and will be heavily targeted with Sanders calling himself a socialist along with tales of honeymoons in the USSR, backing or Noriega, and direct ties to actual socialists. Unlike the attempts to tar Obama with Alinsky and Ayers, Sanders actually has direct ties to these people that he isn’t likely to throw under the bus.
    I know you think that the public is educable on the nuances of socialism in an election year, but I remain deeply skeptical. Odds are we’ll never find out as it’s still rather unlikely that Sanders will win the primary. I’d put his odds of winning 5 more states at under 25%, but we’ll see. In the unlikely event that he wins I hope against hope that you are right and Sanders can educate the masses on what his social democrat stances are and how they differ from the totalitarian socialism of the USSR. I hope you are right that they won’t be an albatross around his neck that usher in a president Trump or Cruz, but I am not nearly so optimistic about that as you are.
    I am also considerably less convinced that the republicans can hurt Clinton any more than they already have and am pretty sure that when she starts firing back at a specific republican her numbers relative to that specific candidate will improve.
    I see the head to head match ups with Sanders getting worse for him if he wins the primary and the republicans start taking him seriously enough to really level attacks in his direction.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  36. jukeboxgrad says:

    Pch101:

    Last I checked, Sanders isn’t a Republican, so she doesn’t need to [show broad and decisive strength against Sanders].

    She isn’t failing to show broad and decisive strength against Sanders because “she doesn’t need to.” She is failing to show broad and decisive strength against Sanders because she is running a campaign from another era. This isn’t going to magically change when her opponent becomes someone else. The trouble she is having dealing with Sanders is a preview of the trouble she is going to have dealing with Trump. Lux explained this problem, and in your usual style you are utterly ignoring everything he said.

    you can punt on your strawman accusations

    You’re being ambiguous, maybe on purpose.

    Donald Trump is George Wallace with a combover. This only seems new to those who haven’t studied history.

    “Those who haven’t studied history” is a good description for someone who apparently doesn’t know that no modern GOP nominee has lost both NH and SC (in the primary).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. jukeboxgrad says:

    Grewgills:

    You keep overstating what that poll says.

    The poll I cited indicates that only 32% have a ‘very unfavorable’ view of socialism. You have not responded to this, and you have not explained how anything I said is “overstating.”

    for people over 30 and for independents, socialism polls very poorly

    What a nice example of what you accused me of: “overstating.” For no age group, not even 65+, is the ‘very unfavorable’ greater than 50%. For independents, ‘very unfavorable’ is 33%. The only group where a majority says ‘very unfavorable’ is Republicans.

    You can find the relevant info here and here.

    I already linked to that material, and discussed it in detail, so I don’t know why you would be acting like I haven’t seen it. This tends to create the impression that you didn’t actually read my original comment.

    younger people are notoriously poor about showing up to vote come election day

    I guess that explains why Sanders won the most votes ever in any NH primary, R or D.

    I am also considerably less convinced that the republicans can hurt Clinton any more than they already have

    They don’t have to “hurt Clinton any more than they already have,” because they’ve already hurt her enough to beat her. Her unfavorable is already 53%, and the most recent matchups show her losing to Trump, losing to Cruz, and losing to Rubio. I know you’re concerned that socialism is unpopular, but you know what’s even more unpopular than socialism? Hillary Clinton. Her ‘unfavorable’ is higher than the ‘unfavorable’ in the socialism poll I cited.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. Pch101 says:

    Juke –

    You continue to confuse intraparty enthusiasm with the broader vote that is needed to win a general election. The most successful presidential candidates often don’t sweep the primary.

    Clinton does not need to be a rock star. She just needs to win 270 electoral votes. That means not frightening or irritating the purple states enough so that they don’t go red in November. At least she isn’t going to be the pinko-commie-the-Dems-have-truly-lost-it-this-time candidate, which gives her better odds than a guy who went to the Evil Empire to celebrate his nuptials.

    As for the GOP, it is necessary for the nominee to have a majority of delegates. At this rate, there will be no GOP popular majority, and there will be superdelegates who don’t vote for Trump.

    That means a brokered convention. When nobody gets a majority on the first vote, deals will be cut and there will be a concerted effort by the establishment to keep Trump out. Plurality of the popular vote does not equal nomination.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Grewgills:

    In the unlikely event that he wins I hope against hope that you are right and Sanders can educate the masses on what his social democrat stances are and how they differ from the totalitarian socialism of the USSR.

    Even if he somehow managed this, which is unlikely, I’m not sure that “I’m Denmark, not the Soviet Union” is a distinction that will matter much to Middle America.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  40. jukeboxgrad says:

    You continue to confuse intraparty enthusiasm with the broader vote that is needed to win a general election.

    You continue to pretend that I’m doing things that I’m not actually doing. Of course that’s easier than addressing what I’ve actually said.

    By the way, “intraparty enthusiasm” is a key part of what “is needed to win a general election,” because turnout is going to be a major factor. And it’s odd to expect that “the broader vote that is needed to win a general election” is going to be won by a candidate with an unfavorability rating that is already 53%. If you think there’s any reason to expect that number to go down, I hope you’ll tell me what it is. Aside from a steady stream of email news, we should expect that Gowdy will release his Benghazi! report a few nanoseconds before election day.

    which gives her better odds

    Today there is yet another poll indicating that the one with “better odds” is Sanders. But I realize you think your gut feelings are more meaningful than polls. That’s all you have presented to explain why you think all these polls should be ignored.

    a guy who went to the Evil Empire to celebrate his nuptials

    It’s telling that you have to go back almost 30 years to find something allegedly bad to say about him, and only the nuts are going to care about what was “a dialogue-building exchange program.”

    there will be a concerted effort by the establishment to keep Trump out

    And if they do, watch where the base goes. There’s plenty of evidence that many of them will turn to Sanders if they can’t have Trump. That evidence includes the poll I just cited. Sanders beats Rubio and Cruz. Clinton does not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  41. Pch101 says:

    When one notes that Sanders has not yet been crucified by his opponents, posting poll results from a period prior to that crucifixion does not constitute a rebuttal.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pch101:

    This one will go on for a thousand years without moving an inch, trust me on that one. My advice is to just close it with “we’ll see what happens” and then bide your time until you get to gloat when proven correct.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  43. Pch101 says:

    I don’t wish to gloat, although I will appreciate the teachable moment.

    I do realize that Hillary Clinton is not the most adept politician to seek the office, but that does not mean that Bernie Sanders would have better odds or that she cannot beat the Republican (although I would not assume that she is a sure winner, either.)

    And if Sanders wins the nomination, then he will get my vote because my default position is that of an anti-Republican, so anyone who has even a fraction of a chance of beating the GOP candidate will get my vote. Still, the fact that betting on Sanders requires the sort of suspension of disbelief that is reserved for movies should be a hint, but whatever.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. jukeboxgrad says:

    Pch101:

    poll results from a period prior to that crucifixion

    The current poll results are less worthless than gut feelings based on no poll results at all, which is all you’ve provided in this thread.

    And you’ve conveniently given us a preview of the kind of material they’ll need to rely on for the “crucifixion:” a boring story that’s almost 30 years old. That’s not going to be enough to move Sanders’ unfavorable rating from 38% (where it is now) to 53% (where it needs to be to be as bad as Clinton’s).

    I would not assume that she is a sure winner

    You have suggested that Trump would lose the general election (“Trump is setting himself up to lose the general election”). So do you mean “I would not assume that she is a sure winner” even against Trump? That seems to be a modification of your prior statement. For some reason you have decided to not be too clear about this. I could see why, since the latest polling shows her beating Trump by only one point. It also shows her losing to Rubio and Cruz. In that poll (and many others), Sanders beats all three.

    HarvardLaw92:

    and then bide your time until you get to gloat when proven correct

    “When proven correct” doesn’t really work when statements are ambivalent and carefully hedged. “I would not assume that she is a sure winner” is a good example. So maybe you can help me notice where Pch101 has made clear, direct statements that can be treated as true predictions because they are not hedged, ambivalent, vague or subjective. Most or all of his claims are hedged, which means they are not amenable to being “proven correct” or incorrect.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1