Poll: 57% of Dem. voters want candidates "more like Bernie Sanders"

[Fiendish Thingy]

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/1779749

?1531342602

Clinton voters favor candidates like Bernie 62-19, higher than registered Democrats overall.

[leftofcool]

1. I want a Democrat

[brewens]

87. I'm a liberal Democrat. I think that's redundant, or should be. WTF is this "progressive" crap

anyway? They demonized the word liberal, and now we have to run away from it and invent a new word? Notice that we didn't do that to conservative, and white wingers still proudly call themselves that.

Before, we had liberal, moderate, and conservative Democrats. So if they aren't liberal, are progressives moderate, center right, what?

[MountCleaners]

96. The Congressional Progressive Caucus

...has been around since 1991. "Liberal" has certain associations, and it doesn't necessarily imply economic justice. Some people prefer the term "progressive". It is hardly a new word or concept.

https://cpc-grijalva.house.gov/

[trueblue2007]

143. I want a DEMOCRAT TOO. Did Bernie signed on w/ the Democratic Party yet? I thought he was going to

[Historic NY]

2. I don't want any old people at all......

and I'm old.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

9. Look at every Democrat elected as a first term President since FDR

JFK, Carter, Obama, and Bill Clinton -- all in their early 40s.

Hilary Clinton and Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the EC.

[OnDoutside]

13. Yes, and I'm expecting that one of the new young crop will blast through in Primaries.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I believe Jimmy Carter was 52.

[sandensea]

72. Trip down memory lane:

No peacocking, no glitz - and no teleprompters. How things have changed.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

85. I stand corrected on that one

[BeyondGeography]

26. I don't think "old" is the quality respondents were talking about

[DownriverDem]

56. Not good

Haven't we seen enough of what happens without experience? All ages are welcome.

[Xipe Totec]

68. That does not give you a get-out-of-jail-card for ageism.

Jerk.

[SamKnause]

3. I love Bernie !!!

[George II]

123. Apparently that sentiment isn't shared by all respondents to the poll:

38% want candidates less like Sanders, only 33% more. And the opinion among Independents is even worse. See page 340:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/j4bk4qaafk/econTabReport.pdf

[SamKnause]

124. Good for them.

Should I change my sentiment ???

I think not.

I love Bernie !!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

155. Me too!

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. "Like Bernie Sanders" can mean a wide variety of things.

[whathehell]

6. Of course..

I want someone like Bernie too, don't give a damn about his age.

[sheshe2]

145. His?

Wow.

Don't you mean 'their age'

[whathehell]

149. Lol

Nice try, but given that I'm female, "her" does just as well.

[DownriverDem]

57. Personally

I just want the Dems to win. No infighting is needed. Without electoral wins we get squat.

[George II]

113. Yep. I suggest we leave it there!

[LincolnRossiter]

5. That's unfortunate...maybe

Last edited Wed Jul 11, 2018, 07:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Bernie-like candidates can win in some districts, and I'm all for it if they do. But his broader movement isn't a serious threat at the statewide level...certainly not at the national level. If people dig into it, he actually got smoked in the primaries. Remember that Hillary actually ran nose and nose with Obama in 2008 (a much more talented candidate) and beat him in the popular vote among democrats. A less appealing Hillary creamed Bernie in 2016.

Creamed him. Screw Greenwald and Assange and Wikileaks and the rest. It wasn't a close race.

[whathehell]

8. Many candidates lose the first time and win later.

Nice try, though.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

12. Not in modern presidential politics - not often

Donald Trump is actually the first to run, lose, and win later without the benefit of being Vice President since Reagan.

[whathehell]

93. Trump

is an outlier in all respects...In any case, I'm not worried about upcoming Democratic candidate.

[LincolnRossiter]

38. Hasn't really been the case since the 90s if you look at the last few successful candidates...

And Bernie's not getting any younger. And not for nothing, but he and his supporters engendered some ill will in 2016 and beyond, but I'm too new here to try to pick that scab. Suffice it to say that I and most non-Bernie supporters don't view him as some silver bullet.

Not by a damned sight.

[whathehell]

92. I'm not worried about it.

..not at all..

[JCanete]

95. You would expect somebody with far less establishment backing to get smoked, but that interpretation

is hardly accurate. "creamed him" is ridiculous. Creamed him would have been people today still not knowing his name. Clinton had a huge built in advantage. Sanders came onto the scene and generated momentum as the race continued,...unprecedented momentum inspite of what was at the start, almost an entire media blackout, even as he garnered his first millions in small donor funding....which, had he been a republican tea partier, would have been front page news all the time.

Now, I agree, he didn't almost win. The last nail was in the coffin almost before he gained all that momentum, but in spite of that he still took what, 46 percent of the California vote? That is crazy good for an insurgent candidate that no big money was behind, in a very rich state with powerful interests and a lot of money to burn . And while he himself may not be able to generate that again should he run in 2020, he and others have laid the groundwork for other candidates to explore that path of rejecting huge campaign funding, riding those coat-tales(which apparently there are some as per the article) and tapping into the national interest for such a candidate going forward.

[radius777]

151. Exactly, Sanders/OR has narrow appeal.

The Dem establishment didn't beat Bernie. PoC/diversity/metro areas (the base of the modern Dem party) beat him.

Bernie experienced lopsided losses all over the country wherever there were metro areas and diversity... and we forget that Hillary did little to attack him (really attack him) because she knew she was going to win based upon the projections and the fact that she torched him in the south (thanks to black voters, who make up most Dem voters in the south).

The race was mathematically over in early March. Bern staying in longer just worked to damage her and help Trump win.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

7. I think the key will be "like Bernie"

Not necessarily Bernie himself.

At the Nebraska caucuses in '16, the Clinton side of the room (my side) trended older. The Sanders side was younger and - being honest - more enthusiastic. He resonates with younger voters. He and Elizabeth Warren.

[Squinch]

10. What policies does that mean they want that are not already in the party platform? And am I reading

the article correctly? The question was actually "do you prefer a candidate more like Sanders OR more like Trump"?

I'd go for "doorknob" if they asked if I'd prefer someone who is more like a doorknob than more like Trump, so...

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. It was a yes or no question

The polling firm asked: "Do you wish the candidates who run for Congress this year will be more or less like Bernie Sanders?"

[Squinch]

19. It isn't that clear:

The survey also asked respondents whether they wanted candidates more like Donald Trump:

Donald Trump Bernie Sanders
Candidates More Like 30% 33%
Candidates Less Like 48% 38%
Not Sure 23% 29%

[BeyondGeography]

28. Is authenticity in the platform too?

[Squinch]

30. What does that mean? And how does it relate to the post you are replying to?

[BeyondGeography]

32. "Like Bernie Sanders" isn't just about platform positions

[Squinch]

35. Oh ffs. And who is inauthentic in your little scenario?

[BeyondGeography]

36. Maybe someday you'll figure out what people like about the guy

Have a nice night.

[Squinch]

41. Maybe someday you'll catch up and realize we have bigger

fish to fry than old purity bro nonsense.

[Cha]

65. lol.. maybe someday that one will figure

why many people just don't "like the guy".

Anyway who got polled?.. none of my friends or people I read on Twitter.

[mac56]

61. Being coy and coquettish?

Dude, you suck at it.

[BeyondGeography]

76. Ooooh

An Internet tough guy.

[mac56]

83. Still

[George II]

115. THANK YOU! That reality seems to get lost in the catchy headline.

What's shocking is that 43% went for trump.

Why did the pollster give only a choice of those two? One is the de facto "leader" of his party (trump), the other doesn't even have a party.

I never thought Newsweek would stoop to click bait.

[spooky3]

11. Notice that the table refers to candidates for Congress

not for President.

[JI7]

33. The ones for President has Biden at the top

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. Good catch. Headline is misleading.

[George II]

117. Yes, and the poll only asks about two people....

...one wonders how the poll results would have looked had the respondents been given options for more people.

[colsohlibgal]

14. I Would Be One Of Them

I will support democrats but my preference is the more progressive the better. The real truth is that virtually any democrat is preferable to a republican, now more than ever.

[NY_20th]

15. I quickly viewed the original poll, and would like more time to read it,

but was this question asked of other candidates, or just Bernie Sanders?

It's not necessarily good news for Bernie, since among Independents, who Bernie was supposed to attract, he's underwater.

[George II]

120. From what I can see, there were separate questions for just trump and Sanders. No one else.....

.....and this referred to Congressional candidates, that's all.

AND, only 33% of all respondents wanted Congressional candidates more like Sanders, 38% less. That isn't mentioned anywhere here.

Interestingly among Independents (as Sanders identifies himself) only 27% want candidates more like Sanders, 35% less like Sanders.

I don't know why people have to selectively pick and choose what they WANT to see and post it. Let's be upfront and realistic about these things.

[NY_20th]

126. Thanks.

So it was just cherry picking.

[George II]

127. Precisely, and there was no question regarding a Democrat.....

....just a republican and an Independent.

[OilemFirchen]

17. Another Bernie online poll.

[sheshe2]

31. Lol

I didn't even bother looking. Was it the Harvard Harris internet poll again?

[OilemFirchen]

44. YouGov.

WeGov. We all Gov for YouGov.

[sheshe2]

45. Thanks

[R B Garr]

64. LOL, thank you. nt

[leftofcool]

104. LOL

[Cha]

71. Is that it?! I wondered where the fuck this

type of ******* ****** came from.

[Jim Lane]

88. If you're insinuating that it was a poll of self-selected respondents, you're wrong.

The phrase "online poll" is often used to refer to those silly things (they don't even deserve to be called "polls" ) that some websites do to boost traffic. Anyone can respond. The results prove little or nothing.

This was not such a poll.

From the linked article:

Economist/YouGov surveyed 1500 US adults with a demographic, ideological makeup that is rougly representative of the US electorate.

I know it's comforting to the Bernie-bashers to think that any result that's at all favorable to Bernie must be invalid. If you prefer to live in your little dream world, and to think (as some apparently do) that opinions among your friends and people you follow on Twitter are a better measure of the electorate than a scientifically designed poll, well, you go right on thinking that. In doing so, however, you should at least avoid giving a false impression about a poll that you dislike.

[lapucelle]

119. From the actual survey document:

Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in Internet panel using sample matching. A random sample (stratified by gender, age,race, education, and region) was selected from the 2014 American Community Study. Voter registration was imputed from the November 2014 Current Population Survey Registration and Voting Supplement.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/j4bk4qaafk/econTabReport.pdf

The key characteristic of “opt-in panels” is that the participant pool is not constructed with random selection. Rather, the group of participants is comprised of self-selected individuals who choose to sign up with a panel, participating at will. A probability-based sample, in contrast, is comprised of subjects who are randomly selected by a researcher/survey company, in which everyone in the target population theoretically has a non-zero chance of being selected (Groves et al., 2009).

snip====================================

Probability sampling helps to bolster confidence that that sample is representative of its target population. In contrast, the representativeness of a non-random sample is always questionable.

https://comm.osu.edu/sites/comm.osu.edu/files/Opt-in_panel_best_practices.pdf

No one needs to "insinuate" that this was a group of self-selected respondents. The survey itself says that it was.

[Jim Lane]

129. So it was NOT the kind of poll that "online poll" often suggests

You write:

No one needs to "insinuate" that this was a group of self-selected respondents. The survey itself says that it was.

Your own quotation disproves your assertion.

As I pointed out, the phrase "online poll" often refers to a website that invites people to opine about this or that. Anyone can go to the URL and pick one of the options. People who care enough can usually vote multiple times. The reported results simply tabulate how many clicks each option received. IOW, the pool of respondents is entirely self-selected.

By contrast, in this particular poll that has so enraged the Bernie-bashers, that is not how it works. As your quotation proves, people don't select themselves to be among the 1,500 respondents. Instead, they volunteer to be part of the universe from which the sample is chosen. The actual members of the sample are then selected by YouGov, not by the respondents themselves. They are simply not self-selected. YouGov selects 1,500 people to constitute a representative sample.

It's true that the respondents agree to be polled. That happens to be true of every pollster. No pollster can force anyone to participate.

YouGov's rating by Fivethirtyeight is B, the same as Gallup. That rating, BTW, is ahead of the B- given to Penn Schoen Berland, a firm that's done a lot of polling for both Bill and Hillary Clinton. If PSB came out with a poll showing that Bernie Sanders was widely reviled, there'd be five threads about it on GD, and a few more later in the week.

[lapucelle]

130. A randomized subset of a self-selected group

is still a self-selected group.

A randomized subset of Nobel Prize winners would still comprise a set of Nobel Prize winners, not a representative sample of the general population.

There's a reason why H.L. Mencken said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[Jim Lane]

135. You are, again, substituting your prejudices for the facts.

You dismiss the YouGov numbers as being derived from a “randomized subset of a self-selected group”.

But the subset is not fully randomized because it’s subject to sample matching. Here’s your own quotation but with different boldfacing:

Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in Internet panel using sample matching. A random sample (stratified by gender, age,race, education, and region) was selected from the 2014 American Community Study.

The American Community Study is a product of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, which provides extensive demographic information about the population as a whole. YouGov uses that data to match its selected sample to the population.

Here’s an example. I think it highly likely that YouGov’s pool of volunteers skews a lot younger than the general population. Suppose, for example, that young people in a particular age range are 20% of the population but 35% of YouGov’s pool. (These numbers are for illustration. I don’t know what the actual numbers are. The general point is that YouGov’s initial pool is not representative.) YouGov then selects the 1,500 respondents for each survey by using randomness but with the constraint that 20% of the 1,500 are in that younger age range. If YouGov did as you suggest, and just randomized from its pool, then the set of respondents would include about 35% young people, and would be markedly unrepresentative. Duh, maybe that’s why YouGov doesn’t do that.

You want to keep calling it “a poll of self-selected respondents” as if there were absolutely no difference between this poll and the kind that anyone can answer. The only merit of ignoring that critical distinction is that it helps you ignore a result you dislike.

Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. YouGov is not infallible but has consistently produced results that are more accurate than those of many other professional pollsters, to say nothing of the garbage results that could be expected from a typical anyone-can-answer online poll of self-selected respondents.

[lapucelle]

136. The only people eligible to participate were chosen from a larger pool

of self-selected respondents. That the subset was chosen from a larger pool of entirely self-selected respondents using sample matching does not obviate the fact that self-selection was the basis of and a necessary condition for participation in this particular survey.

Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in Internet panel using sample matching. A random sample (stratified by gender, age, race, education, and region) was selected from the 2014 American Community Study. Voter registration was imputed from the November 2014 Current Population Survey Registration and Voting Supplement.

Participation was closed to anyone not a member of YouGov’s self-selected opt-in Internet panel. This is a fact, not an opinion.

[Gothmog]

158. LOL that poster also never read the briefs or the pleadings in the DNC lawsuit

I like reading briefs and pleadings. I also like reading up the methodology of polls kited. Here you are correct because you took the trouble to read and understand the material.

This poll is totally worthless in the real world. The DNC fraud lawsuit was always a joke if you read the pleadings and briefs

[lapucelle]

131. Now let's get back to what you actually said.

"If you're insinuating that it was a poll of self-selected respondents, you're wrong."

That is factually incorrect.

Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in Internet panel.

The key characteristic of “opt-in panels” is that the participant pool is not constructed with random selection. Rather, the group of participants is comprised of self-selected individuals who choose to sign up with a panel, participating at will.

The idiosyncratic definitions of "online polls" by lay people with no expertise in data collection, analysis, or interpretation are meaningless here. By professional standards and according to its own statement of methodology, this is a poll of a randomized subset of self-selected respondents, and as anyone with any experience in statistics (or logic for that matter) will attest, any member of a subset of a group is also a member of the larger group.

This is a poll of self-selected respondents.

[progressoid]

134. Regardless, their methodology correctly predicted 88% of 375 races analyzed.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

[George II]

138. Can you explain why the question was asked about only TWO people, and not a bigger group....

.....of officeholders, or why the question wasn't asked about any Democrats? The question was asked about a republican, and Independent, and no Democrats.

Also, the OP singles out just one of several "demographics", i.e., "Democrats", others were ignored, i.e.,

Gender (more/less):

Males 33-45%
Females 33%-32%

Age (more/less):

18-29 38%-29%
30-44 36%-27%
45-64 31%-41% (generally the largest voting age group)
65+ 28%-57%


Race (more/less):

White 30%-45%
Black 45%-14%
Hispanic 33%-33%

Party ID (more/less):

ALL 33%-38%
Democratic 57%-16%
Independent 27%-35%
republican 13%-74%

Also, a number of UNregistered "voters" were included in those polled.

This poll is highly questionable and the one single conclusion mentioned in the OP is only a small fraction of all those polled, and the one group chosen to single out just happened to be among the % "in favor".

Also, curiously even though questions were asked of Clinton voters but the question wasn't asked about Clinton.

This was far far from an objective poll.

[Jim Lane]

139. Every poll involves such decisions.

You write, "This was far far from an objective poll." It didn't ask every single question that you would've asked, but that's a far, far cry from saying it wasn't objective.

Just speculating, off the top of my head: IIRC, Hillary Clinton has said, or at least hinted, that she doesn't anticipate running for elective office again. Among people who (1) currently hold elective office and (2) are widely thought to be possible contenders in 2020, my guess is that the two with the highest national name recognition are Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The poll didn't ask about Tulsi Gabbard or Tim Kaine, either.

I realize that, from your point of view, the following is the key consideration: "The question was asked about a republican, and Independent, and no Democrats." DU has a large and vocal (boy, are they vocal) contingent who harp on this "issue" of party identification at every opportunity. You might at least try to stretch your perceptions enough to realize that that focus is not universal. It was not shared by millions of D-after-their-names Democrats who voted for Bernie in the primaries. It is not shared by the Vermont Democratic Party. It has not been shared in the past by the Vermonters who voted in the Democratic primary for Senate. It will probably not be shared by those who vote this year, even though they've been repeatedly told on DU that they should not vote for Bernie but should instead vote for someone who will run in November on the Democratic line. Finally, it is not shared by the members of the Democratic caucus in the United States Senate, which has treated Bernie as a full member. (If the Democrats retake the Senate majority this year, Bernie will chair a committee, probably Budget.)

Now, you're entitled to cling to your belief that all of these people are making a horrible mistake. For current purposes, I ask only that you recognize that formal party identification doesn't universally have the importance that you and others ascribe to it.

With that in mind, here's my guess as to the answer to your question: If I had decided to ask this question (which I might not, because "more like" is an amorphous quality), and if I had to pick only two people to name (because it's not feasible to name all the two dozen or so people who've been mentioned as possible Democratic nominees), and if I were picking the two politicians to be named -- then I'd probably pick Sanders and Trump, as being the two current officeholders and possible 2020 candidates who offer the best combination of national prominence and ideological opposition.

What I certainly would not do would be to dismiss the poll as biased if it didn't happen to ask exactly the questions I wanted posed.

[George II]

142. I agree that it wouldn't make sense to include Hillary Clinton in the poll.

Your (2) is speculative, others that could have been included were Democrat Joe Biden (currently the "front runner" in some polls), Democrat Elizabeth Warren, Democrat Kirsten Gilibrand, and several other prominent Democrats.

However, this flawed poll does not ask about ANY Democrats, and their methodology (unless I missed it) does not say that the two mentioned were chosen because they have the "highest name recognition". You can say that I "cling to my belief" of whatever, but the fact of the matter is that a poll with a tabulation of of more than 350 pages names only two people for some unexplained reason.

Now as for the results, I tabulated a summary of some of the demographics, repeated here with simple observations:

Gender (more/less):

Males 33-45% (more want a candidate less similar)
Females 33%-32% (pretty much a wash)

Age (more/less):

18-29 38%-29%
30-44 36%-27%
45-64 31%-41% (generally the largest voter turnout age group, more want a candidate less similar)
65+ 28%-57%

Race (more/less):

White 30%-45% (the HIGHEST demographic group, and much more want a candidate less similar)
Black 45%-14%
Hispanic 33%-33%

Party ID (more/less):

ALL 33%-38% (ALL respondents want a candidate less similar)
Democratic 57%-16%
Independent 27%-35% (surprisingly more from the affiliation of the person in question want a candidate less similar)
republican 13%-74% (this is not a surprise)

I think I've demonstrated, more than just once, that the dailykos article in the OP very subjectively chose just one demographic to highlight, ignoring less "positive" groups.

[Bleacher Creature]

20. No thanks. But I'll take many more like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

She proved that you can be just as progressive as Sanders, but also a proud and loyal Democrat at the same time. She's choosing to make the party better from within, as opposed to Bernie's tired routine.

[Fiendish Thingy]

47. I think she's a perfect example of a candidate who is "like Sanders"

And her primary win may in part have been the impetus for this poll.

[George II]

125. Only 6% of all registered Democrats in NY's 14th District voted for her.

[still_one]

150. Is that the same AOC working to defeat William Clay in MO?

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/William_Lacy_Clay.htm

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10867566

NO THANKS. I WILL TAKE MORE FOLKS LIKE WILLIAM CLAY, then someone actively campaigning in OTHER STATES AGAINST LIBERAL INCUMBENT DEMOCRATS

Her antics of the the last several days are noted and will be remembered

[Bleacher Creature]

156. Yeah. I was 100% wrong.

I mentioned in the thread about Carper that I really regret saying that.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10862880

She's basically Bernie at this point, even if she does have a D next to her name.

[uponit7771]

21. This is an online poll, why post these ?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

29. TY.

[Hoyt]

34. Good point if that's the case.

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. You guys are good. I didn't notice that at first.

[Cha]

80. Yes! I was asking where this poll came from.. no friends of mine took it..

Sid

Tarlheel

[Tarheel_Dem]

140. Agreed. Online polls have absolutely no merit whatsoever.

[ProfessorGAC]

108. With Scientifically Based Merit

Read above your post. This was done with a demographically designed sampling. It's not a random, ask any question, on line poll.

[uponit7771]

118. From the poller itself 'Survey mode: Web-based interviews"

[saidsimplesimon]

22. I will support any Democrat

who wins their primary.

[ananda]

23. Count me in that group!

nt

[DavidDvorkin]

24. What a meaningless question

I want very progressive candidates who are utterly unlike Sanders.

[redstatebluegirl]

25. I want a Democrat...

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

27. I want a Democrat as well. What's this the daily Bernie-post?

He burned his bridges. One primary vote from me was more than enough. Go away Bernie. Be a Senator.

[still_one]

37. Gee, I am sure glad we aren't refighting the primaries, because that is EXACTLY what this

poll is doing, along with the fact that YouGov is an online poll, over polled liberal voters, Democratic voters, and under polled every other Demographic

The only one's pushing this crap are the ones that want to refight the primary, and see if they cause division among Democrats when we are facing extremely critical midterm elections.

THE ONLY THING WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH IN NOVEMBER IS ELECTING THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE RUNNING AGAINST THE REPUBLICAN, OR THE CANDIDATE THAT WILL CAUCUS WITH DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, everything else is irrelevant

[Fiendish Thingy]

48. I disagree

I think this poll, albeit clumsily, attempts to measure voter sentiment towards electing a far left progressive candidate versus a more centrist one.

That's not "refighting the primaries"

[Cha]

70. "Progressive" means getting things done and Hillary did..

those so-called fucking "progressives" who voted for the LIAR and faux "progressive" jill stein took us back to the Fucking Dark Ages.

You ever read the Democratic Platform?

Oh and..

[dansolo]

99. The poll does not do that at all

There is no dictinction in the poll between far left and centrist candidates. The question immeditaly preceeding it asks about Donald Trump, and no other politicians are mentioned in that section. So the real question about voter sentiment is comparing Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

[CentralMass]

74. On the other hand there are negative posts about Sanders here on a regular basis.

Last edited Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)

[Demsrule86]

39. I want a Democrat period...so tired of this shit.

I don't care about whether candidates are like Sanders or not.

[budkin]

40. Bernie would have destroyed Trump

It might have been a bigger landslide than Reagan over Mondale.

[Squinch]

46. I lulzed.

[Meadowoak]

52. Yep!

[BlueTsunami2018]

63. I don't know about all that but he would have held the blue wall.

All those blue collar workers who went for the asshole would have gone for Bernie. My union brothers wanted to endorse Bernie in the primary but our BM is close with the Clinton team. Many of those union brothers, stupidly, went for the asshole in November.

But it’s irrelevant now. We’re in Hell and that motherfucker holds the pitchfork.

[lunamagica]

77. LOLOLOLO!!! Hillary beat him badly. She won millions more votes than he did

This is hilarious!

[uponit7771]

91. +1

[VOX]

100. Tired of this sad meme. HOW would Bernie have "destroyed" Trump?

-Could he have outspent the Republican machine, with far-right-billionaire nutcases like the Mercers, the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, et al? And sadly, until Citizen's United gets undone, money is THE entire game now. Like it or not, for now, a shit-ton of $$$$$ is needed to win an election.
-Could he have survived the soul-destroying, disinformation garbage that Fox, etc. pumps out at heroic volumes all day, every day, like torture?
-Could he have withstood the attack by a hostile Russia to undermine our democratic institutions, including the election itself?
-Could he have won the Southern states and the Midwest, where "socialism" is synonymous with "Satan"? (And explaining "democratic socialism" to the yahoos is a lost cause, when Rush and Beck and Hannity are bashing it 24/7.)
-How would Bernie have offset the "reality TV celebrity" shit, and the endless hours of coverage the networks just handed (for ratings) to Trump's fascist rallies?
-On edit, am adding Bernie's sputtering out in the primaries, even if that elicits the reflexive "Debbie Wasserman-Schultz" response. (Note that even mainstream Democrats weren't happy with her, either.)

Plainly put, there was no way in hell that Bernie could have come out on top in the absolute shit-fest that was the 2016 campaign and election.

[leftofcool]

105. LOL

[dansolo]

157. Yeah, right

The deplorable, racist, nazi scumbags would have voted for a Socialist Jew instead. Somehow I have a very hard time believing that.

[grantcart]

42. Another yougov internet poll, Actually the results showed that Democrats wanted someone like Obama

more but it isn't a scientific poll so the results are meaningless

[Demsrule86]

43. Also this is a bullshit online poll...This Clinton voter does not favor candidates like

Sen. Sanders who is an independent. I favor Democrats.

[SidDithers]

49. ...

Sid

[Cha]

73. Mahalo, Sid!!

[VOX]

101. Good to see you, Sid.

As always.

[RandySF]

51. Then why are Our Revolution candidates failing in the most important races?

[Quixote1818]

55. Most are first time candidates with very little money. It can take several election cycles

for candidates to be well known enough to get traction. Hillary lost to Obama the first time she ran for President. In fact candidates almost never win the first time they run. It's a long process.

[Cha]

84. And, Experienced Dems WINNING?! A little Secret..

There are all kinds of Dems across the Country Fighting to TAKE the HOUSE with what works in their District.. think Conor Lamb and incumbent Eliot Engel in NY District 16..

For Democrats Challenging Party Incumbents, Insurgency Has Its Limits

snip//

Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, recently made an appearance with Mr. Engel in his district and praised him profusely. “We couldn’t be better served than by Eliot Engel,” she said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/nyregion/congress-primaries-democrats-midterm-ny.html

"it’s the establishment wing of the Democratic Party that is having a good 2018. And, more important, it’s having a good year in the places that matter most this November."



"What about those other 19 primaries, where the establishment Democrat won? There are a lot more congressional battlegrounds in that group, 11 in total, including 5 true tossups."

snip// from your link..

But the stories this week about the surprising power of the left side of the party may have overstated the case a bit.

Going by the numbers, it’s the establishment wing of the Democratic Party that is having a good 2018. And, more important, it’s having a good year in the places that matter most this November.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/bernie-sanders-backed-nominees-score-wins-longshot-races-n888071

[fallout87]

54. Do these "Dem" Voters know

He's not a democrat??

[highplainsdem]

58. Hopelessly vague question, meaningles poll.

[zentrum]

59. I'm one of those Dems.

[charlyvi]

60. Count me among the 43% who don't.

Not a Sanders fan.

[Trumpocalypse]

110. But what to independent swing voters want?

Those are the people we need to win elections.

[Tarheel_Dem]

152. If we have to placate fickled independent swing voters at the expense of the true base of the party

then what's the point?

[Trumpocalypse]

153. Less than half of people identify as Democrats

There is no way to win elections without independent swing voters.

[Tarheel_Dem]

159. I don't really care how they identify. It's "independent swing voters" who keep "swinging" us from..

Last edited Sat Jul 14, 2018, 03:54 PM - Edit history (1)

one extreme to the other. I'd much rather focus our energies & limited resources on the millions of people who don't vote at all.

[Trumpocalypse]

160. Not a bad idea

But why not try for as many voters as possible.

[pnwmom]

62. Another self-selected online poll, weighted by party votes in 2012 and 2016.

Forget it.

Traditional pollsters don't weight by party membership because that is FLUID. And they don't use panels because you can't compute reliability.

Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in Internet panel us- ing sample matching. A random sample (stratified by gender, age, race, education, and region) was selected from the 2014 American Community Study. Voter registration was imputed from the November 2014 Current Population Survey Registration and Voting Supplement.

The sample was weighted based on gender, age, race, education, 2012 and 2016 Presidential votes (or non-votes). The weights range from 0.236 to 4.89, with a mean of one and a standard deviation of 0.599.

[Generic Brad]

66. More Not Democrats?

Riiiight.

[MrsCoffee]

67. Lol.

[NurseJackie]

69. ...

[Cha]

79. IKR!

Sid

[NurseJackie]

82. Clicky clicky!

[Cha]

86. Yeah, haven't we had our FILL

of useless online polls?!

[NurseJackie]

148. Online polls are so simple, even a monkey can do it... clicky-clicky!

86. Yeah, haven't we had our FILL
of useless online polls?!

Online polls are so simple, even a monkey can do it... clicky-clicky!



I can't help but to recall all the MANY times I've seen someone here encouraging others to "go DU this poll" ... so it's CLEAR that people know online polls can be manipulated and are TOTALLY WORTHLESS.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that manipulated an inaccurate online polls are totally worthless UNLESS the results help to confirm one's preexisting political bias... if you know what I mean.


WHAT THE...?? GO DU THIS POLL!!!

[sheshe2]

147. Yep

[PDittie]

75. What!?

No stones to throw at Kos for publishing this "meaningless" poll?

[YOHABLO]

78. Perhaps an unabashed Democratic Socialist?

[ucrdem]

81. I gather that most-magnifique-of-all monthly poll went south?

Well, there's always 4 out of 5 dentists who chew gum, and if all else fails, they can buy a few million more twitter votes and splash that around for a few weeks. Those marketing geniuses in VT really know how to sell ice cream!

[mythology]

89. Then in all sincerity, they need to reflect that in who they vote for in primaries

Thus far, while the Democratic party as a whole has shifted left (including elected officials), there hasn't been the same sort of further on the left politicians that we've seen on the Republican side of things. I'm not saying that Sanders and his supporters are equivalent to the Tea Party, but that the Tea Party supporters have been effective at getting their candidates nominated (sometimes to their own detriment like Sharon Angle and Todd Akin).

[Drunken Irishman]

90. Irrelevant poll without context compared to other candidates...

How many would like someone more like Obama? Or more like Biden? Or more like Clinton?

[Hamlette]

94. horrible question. Should compare "more like Bernie or Obama"

I think Obama would win.

[dansolo]

98. This is compared to Trump, not other Democrats

Last edited Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:31 AM - Edit history (1)

These articles, and posts highlighting them, want to use this as an indication of support for Bernie. But looking at the poll, the question immediately before that one asks about Trump. There are no other political figures asked about. What the poll is really saying is that Democrats want someone like Bernie over Donald Trump. That should be obvious, but it is completely meaningless. The fact that Bernie can only get 57% amongst Democrats actually reflects poorly on him. By comparison, Trump got 69% of Republicans.

[democratisphere]

102. In any other state organization on Earth, HRC was a winner.

Bernie was not a winner. That is all.

[VOX]

103. I want a proud DEMOCRAT who will punch, kick, bite, and spit in the eye of the New Fascists.

Beyond that, I have no one in mind whatsoever.

2018 is make-or-break time. If Democrats fail to pick up enough seats, our 2020 election will be as inconsequential and as meaningless as the one recently held in Russia.

[Meadowoak]

106. I want Bernie, or someone much more progressive than Hillary, just my opinion.

[NCTraveler]

107. Last gasp of the white male.

It’s happening on both sides. Republicans to a much greater extent.

Solid wording for the poll. Lol

Kind of left the fort open for any and all arguments by not actually polling anything.

[PETRUS]

132. "Last gasp of the white male," eh? What rubbish.

Data by race:

white
more like Bernie - 30% / less like Bernie - 45%

black
more like Bernie - 45% / less like Bernie - 15%

hispanic
more like Bernie - 33% / less like Bernie - 33%

other
more like Bernie - 42% / less like Bernie - 26%

[NCTraveler]

133. I don't think it's rubbish at all.

The wording of the poll lends itself to these results.

On ideology. 13% of blacks feel the Democratic Party is too liberal, 38% feel it is about right, and 15% say it is not liberal enough.
Among whites 46% feel the Democratic Party is too liberal, 22% say it is just about right, with 11% saying not liberal enough. p232

[PETRUS]

137. "The wording of the poll..." More rubbish. nt

[sellitman]

109. I voted for Bernie

In the primary.

With that said, no thanks.

We need a new face. There are many great choices. Personally I like the idea of a Harris/ Kennedy Team. That would excite the base and everyone else who I have ever met.

My .02

[LexVegas]

111. ...

[George II]

112. Highly skewed and unscientific poll. Virtually useless in the real world of politics and government.

Plus, if it appeared in Newsweek, why not provide a link to the Newsweek report rather than a biased dailykos story about it? Or even YouGov, who conducted the poll?

By the way, the poll asked THIS question, "Do you wish the candidates who run for Congress this year will be more or less like Bernie Sanders?"

Of all the politicians and office holders in the country, it only asked about two - Sanders and trump. And in most categories, the respondents want a candidate LESS like Sanders.

One has to go past the headline and look at the actual poll. You can find it here:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/j4bk4qaafk/econTabReport.pdf

The question in on page 340.

[NewJeffCT]

114. Like Bernie Sanders - so, Elizabeth Warren or Jeff Merkley

or Kamala Harris?

All have more liberal senate voting records than Sanders.

[disillusioned73]

116. k&R

[lapucelle]

121. I'm always a little leery when a screen shot

of one page of a 359 page poll is presented with no link to the actual poll itself.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/j4bk4qaafk/econTabReport.pdf

[George II]

122. Some surprising results when you get into the guts of the poll:

Overall 38% want candidates LESS like Sanders, 33% more.
Among Independents 35% want candidates LESS like Sanders, 27% more - a HUGE gap.

These can be found on page 340 of the poll.

This isn't quite as sunny as it appears in the OP.

[beachbum bob]

128. I don't...Bernie was/is NOT a consensus builder and why his legislation accomplishments are FEW

we need people more like Sen Dick Durbin...not Sanders

[Nero Mero]

141. More want Biden than Sanders

In all polls.

[Honeycombe8]

144. Who wins will vary by area. Bernie types can't win across much of America.

Big cities, the east & west coasts...Bernie types are more popular. But in the heartland and smaller cities, the choice for many will be Republican or moderate/conservative Dem.

Fr many independents, they will gravitate toward non-Republicans and probably more moderate Dems.

I want whoever can win. Period. We MUST have a blue wave.

[Sparkly]

146. Look at the QUESTION.

"Do you wish the candidates who run for Congress this year will be more or less like Bernie Sanders?"

More or less than WHAT??

[Tarheel_Dem]

161. It's a misleading ridiculous push poll, created to give the false impression that Dem voters want...

a replay of 2016.

[Meadowoak]

154. Definitely MORE like Bernie!