New York poll: Clinton tops Sanders by double-digits [Monmouth Univ]
Source: cnn
New York poll: Clinton tops Sanders by double-digits
By Tom LoBianco, CNN
Updated 5:05 PM ET, Mon April 11, 2016
Story highlights
Clinton's support is broad-based, with leads in New York City and upstate
The results are similar to other recent New York polls
Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton is maintaining her double-digit lead over Democratic presidential rival Bernie Sanders in New York, ahead of the April 19 primary, according to a new poll.
Clinton leads Sanders 51%-39% among New York Democrats, according to a Monmouth University poll released Monday. The poll found Clinton and Sanders effectively tied among white voters -- 48% for Sanders, 46% for Clinton -- but the former secretary of state leads the Vermont senator 62% to 22% among African-American, Hispanic and other non-white voters.
Clinton's support appears to be broad-based throughout the Empire State, with about 50% support in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens, as well as the suburbs of Nassau and Westchester counties and upstate New York. Sanders' best showing is upstate, with 44%, and worst among voters in Brooklyn and Queens (36%) and Manhattan and the Bronx (35%), according to the survey................
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll-new-york/index.html
Note--I inserted Monmouth Univ into subject line to distinguish it from another post from today also.
erlewyne
(1,115 posts)It's over.
In November I am voting for BERNIE!!!!
Oh, I am not Hillary .... Duh !!!
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)So that we can have you banned once the nomination is decided for advocating third party.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,651 posts)To 12 pts today? I know these are different pollsters with different methodologies, but this trend, if it continues, could mean a virtual tie by Election Day.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Go Bernie!
annavictorious
(934 posts)Isn't that what end-timers were saying about the evil Beelzebub Obama when the fly landed on his face?
[link:http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/is-obama-biblical-lord-of-the-flies/|
annavictorious
(934 posts)WSJ / NBC / Marist had Clinton at 14% on Monday and 17% on Thursday. Same pollster, same methodologies, expanding lead.
And we haven't yet seen the effects of Sanders disastrous rally in Washington Square, his ill-advised trip to an academic conference in Rome, his wife's whining about the Democratic party's primary process, and his supporter's behavior at the debate.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)What planet are you from, again?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Sanders beats Clinton by 12 points and losing delegate count 7 to 11. This is why people will stay home or urge 3rd party run. It's seems logical that it's better to scrap the entire system and start over than to accept voter disenfranchisement and a rigged system. People died for our rights over the past 2 centuries. This is how revolutions are sparked. If you don't think all it takes is a spark then you have never studied history. "Let Them Eat Cake" isn't going to work.
Democat
(11,617 posts)Go back to your pro-Trump forum.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)I'm merely informing you of what I hear the populace saying every day. People with your attitude will be resposible for the fracturing of the party. You call yourself a democrat...please act like one. Most democrats are just citizens not policy wonks. How dare you accuse me of being a trump supporter. Your full of yourself. Your support of a rigged election is enabling Trump not me for pointing out your errors. Don't shoot the messenger. That's immature and not thoughtful. Make no mistake...people don't like a rigged system where one loses an election because party insiders overrule the vote. You should leave DU now and move to some monarchy overseas.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)1). Clinton lead not just in totoal delegates, but in pledged delegates. And not juet in pledged delegates but in the popular vote.
2). Clinton's lead among actual Democrats is even larger, something that is importnat to me as a Democrat voting in. Democratic primary.
3). The simple reqson that Clinton is leading is becuase MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR HER. This "rigged" meme is bullshit.
annavictorious
(934 posts)yet admits to using the party to his own advantage and for funding when he runs for elections.
If Sanders and his supporters don't like a party they don't belong to but want to opportunistically exploit, they should have done the difficult work of launching a third party candidacy. Hey, but hard work is hard and it's not in Sanders' wheelhouse to actually get stuff done.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #10)
billhicks76 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)I was defending you. I was responding to Democat.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)If you remembered the exact same thing happened to Hillary in 2008 in Nevada. More votes, less delegates. But DU didn't give a shit then because their favored candidate got the delegates. It obviously wasn't worth a revolution then so why is it worth it now?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)That's hardly an appropriate comparison. It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. If super delegates don't vote the way their state voted then the party will fracture. I'm hearing it every day. Even on mainstream news. In my opinion if you thwart the will of the people then it's you who are essentially the Trump supporters. See...that can go both ways.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Since the supers went against the popular vote. But that's what the Bernie people want now (after whining about superdelegates being unfair). Only the Bernie people want the rules to change for them (and the trump people). You knew the rules getting in but now want to bitch and whine until you get what you want. Not gonna happen. The supers are going to go with the popular vote winner - just as they always have.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Caucuses are similar to popular vote. They should basically be a non factor and only regular delegates should matter. Bernie shouldn't get disproportionate number of super delegates. But it's Clinton who wanted to play this game and really she deserves to be burned by her own conniving. It would be ironically hilarious if a disproportionate number of supers went with Bernie. I doubt it could happen but it would be karmically deserved.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)undemocratic bullshit. Since Bernie is trying to flip superdelegates, your holier than thou bullshit is very laughable. "Conniving" must mean something different in Bernie world - superdelegates make up their own minds and you don't like the rules and want to change them in the middle of the game - tough shit.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)But at least they are made up of real people and not elitists vetoing insiders. Your ilk is chasing people into a 3rd party. Congrats
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Knock yourself out. It would beat USING an established party that you've railed against your entire career and whining about the rules you were well aware of when you started. I think the thing that bothers me most about Bernie is his using the party and doing nothing - absolutely nothing - to help downticket races. That makes him useless to Democrats and him nothing but a USER of an already established party.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)It's not about me. You make it so personal. I'm just observing trends. It's what I do for a living. Clintonites are out of touch. Yes Hillary got lots of votes in the South where Democrats gave up competing long ago. A cowardly move meant to placate the status quo. She could easily win NY too given its her home base but she won't win by margins Bernie has at his home base because she is intensely disliked by 1/2 her own party and 3/4 of the opposition. That's makes her a bad candidate. The only hope is republicans having an even worse candidate by two orders of magnitude. This is the situation her elitist friends have set up to screw everyone out of having any hope like they always do and people are fed up. Obama was pushed on us so that people wouldn't revolt after the Great Recession. He was their stop gap but they knew they could splinter the public and politicians so nothing major could change. People realize now how rigged everything is and only those in ivory towers can't see what's coming like they always have throughout history.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)There was nothing personal in pointing out the facts. You make it like Hillary is being shoved down my throat when nothing could be further from the truth. Why can't you accept that some of us don't think an older socialist who wants to raise everyone's taxes is a good candidate to line up behind? There is nothing "rigged", Hillary is playing by the same rules as every other Democrat. You're so invested in your candidate that you can't conceive that not everyone feels the same way you do. I think Bernie would be a DISASTER in the general. The right hasn't even touched him in terms of a general (don't start quoting polls to me - Dukakis was 20 points ahead of Reagan when that campaign started). They will rip him to shreds. So stop with your condescending bullshit that only Bernie supporters understand what's going on, that only Bernie can save us, that he's the white night trying to save the Democratic party - all of that is nothing but cult like thinking and complete bullshit.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Some of us are tired of business as usual. And tired of allies of the Bush family like the Clintons.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Did you support Dukakis? I supported Brown. He's more like Bernie.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)candidate in the general. ALWAYS. The federal court is my issue and I don't want cons anywhere near those decisions. I actually think Bernie is more like Mondale - the other candidate who promised to raise taxes - he lost 49 states on that issue. No thanks.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And Dukakis was a mistake. Duh we supported him. But the difference is the Clintons are best friends with the Bush family. They consider each other family members. That is what the core problem is.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Do they visit eachother's homes? Go on vacations together? You know, like REAL best friends do. I see they don't hate eachother and bond over being one of a handful of people who know what being President of the only superpower is like. But like most DU Bernie supporters, you attach venal, nefarious motives to everything Hillary does and says. In my opinion, that makes your analysis worthless.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)There is still hope for you so I am feeling positive. You see, if you knew this and ignored it then I couldn't ignore your insults. But your view is just not mature and you can still learn. Bush Sr and Bill played golf all the time after 2000 when they didn't need to pretend anymore or hide beneath the slick veneer. I grew up in Maine. Kennebunkport is a gigantic, opulent retreat that is private and heavily guarded. If Dukakis had let his aides show the helicopter view of it in 1988 for a commercial then Bush wouldve lost...that and answering the question of his wife being raped correctly. Bill was tight with Bush Sr back in '81. He was at his home there more than once between 1980 and 1983. There are photos of the BBQ's. Serial racist George Wallace was sitting with them as I'm sure you haven't seen but should have if you had been paying attention instead of excusing Clinton's disservices to humanity. Bill was a huge supporter of privatizing prisons with Sam Nunn back in the late 80s and early 90s as it was a way to incarcerate the masses for drugs and essentially make being Black a crime in some areas. I was a democrat before I ever heard of Bernie...or you...so it doesn't matter that you think the facts I present are worthless. Maybe you need a catharsis later when youre ready and can handle it.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)From another leftist in NYC supporting Sec. Clinton.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Response to riversedge (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Reter
(2,188 posts)The Clintons have never given a damn about black people. They have always used AA's for their vote.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Lol it's already forgotten.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)riversedge
(70,282 posts)TomCADem
(17,390 posts)I kid, I kid...
JoFerret
(10,704 posts)What a bumbling blunder.
The Sanders campaign just stepped right into with that one. Who misled him? Was it Sachs? Did his closest advisors know? It didn't pass the smell test from the get-go.