Deja Vu: Aug. 2007: Clinton 45%, O 25%

[ram2008]

Are we seeing a repeat? Flashback from 2007:

Sen. Barack Obama's perceived lack of experience may be a huge obstacle to his chances of winning the Democratic presidential nomination, according to a CBS News poll released Wednesday...While Obama is seen as the candidate offering fresh new ideas, Sen. Hillary Clinton is seen as the one with the right experience to be president. Clinton continues to hold a commanding lead over Obama, 45 percent to 25 percent


...Clinton is also seen as being more electable than Obama, and some voters think Obama's race and even his name may be a problem for him next November...

...Obama is seen as being better at connecting with voters than Clinton, and is considered more likeable. But voters see Obama as less electable than Clinton: Forty-six percent of registered voters think he could be elected president if he wins the Democratic nomination, while 62 percent think Clinton cold be elected.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-poll-lack-of-experience-hurts-obama/

If todays Fox News numbers are true, with Clinton being at 49% and Sanders at 30%, then we are seeing a similar pattern to that of 2008s numbers and Bernie is in a good position. He's actually performing at the same level then Senator Obama was performing at at this point in time. The only difference is Bernie has no backing from any power players inside the Democratic Party itself, while Obama did. Notice the same issues, people worried about the insurgents electability, but saying they connect more with him and has ideas to bring about change.

The good thing about 2016 is its a completely different media landscape compared to 07. Think about it, in 2007 nobody knew what a smartphone was and the "iPhone" had only been out for a few months. Twitter? Barely any users. Facebook? Mostly just for wall posts. Instagram? Didn't even exist. Most people go their news from Television compared to the internet-- its a different story now. Right now in 2016, it is much easier to get your message out, for grassroots to organize, and for individuals to debate their ideas out in the open. I would say that in the day and age numbers can switch much quicker, whether for good or for bad.

[virtualobserver]

1. They will keep dismissing Bernie until he takes the lead, then they will freak!

[qazplm]

2. the difference

is that Obama had appeal across all demos, while Bernie has appeal to one at this point and is losing in the rest.

Until he broadens his appeal, he's not going to duplicate Obama.

[Picking Dem]

4. Appeal to one?

Who, exactly?

[ram2008]

5. His appeal didn't show until after he won Iowa

He had the same strengths as Bernie has right now: affluent whites, young people, men.

Hillary has the same strengths as before: Seniors, minorities and women.

I think the only difference between the two is Bernie has more appeal to working class whites, while Obama had slightly more appeal with minorities. We'll see how it plays out, but minorities didn't start moving to Obama until right before the SC primary, then after they switched.

Bernie absolutely has to win not just Iowa but NH and have a very strong showing in SC to have a shot.

[moobu2]

7. It's a catch 22 for Bernie.

if he try's to broaden his appeal to other groups he could alienate his worshipers who love him because he's so rigid in his thinking.

[99th_Monkey]

9. "worshipers who love him because he's so rigid"

That's really funny.

Lots of Bernie supporters were/are also from the Occupy Wall St. crowd,
not exactly given to 'worshiping' any politician, esp. one who is 'rigid' in
their views. Most had totally given up on politics all together before
Bernie's candidacy.

If by rigid you mean he stays on-message, well, that's certainly true;
and why shouldn't he? His message is resonating widely with voters of
all stripes.

[sabrina 1]

20. Did you really just say that? Was it a joke maybe?

[Chakab]

13. Obama only appealed to same the white liberal demo until after Iowa. Hillary had majority support

of black voters until Obama was viewed as a viable candidate. Hillary's base of support was tied largely to name recognition back then just like it is now.

The real difference between Obama and Sanders is all of the Wall Street money that Obama got in first presidential campaign.

[sabrina 1]

15. Really? I had to practically hit Dems in my own family over the head to actually listen to Obama

who, like Bernie at this point, was a complete unknown to them. Once they heard him speak, delivering as he did, a progressive message, most of them switched to Obama.

Even my MIL who for so long wanted to see a woman president.

That is exactly where we are right now, the more people get to know Bernie, the more they support him.

He has gone from 3% among Dems up to beating Hillary in NH and in national polls, gaining on her among Dems, however no one can win with their base alone. And with Bernie already gaining even there, and his appeal across the political spectrum, and WITHOUT the backing of the Dem Party leadership or Corporate billionaires, I would say that Bernie is ahead of where Obama was at this point in 2007.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

17. He is gaining not losing

[Picking Dem]

3. That is why Bernie's trends are going to be even better..

than Obama's...

[SonderWoman]

6. The only polls that have him up are rightwing polls.

[ram2008]

8. Fox News polling is accurate and not slanted

Unlike their news...

Nate Silver gave them a B, and they're a pretty accurate and well-respected pollster.

[Fawke Em]

14. To that point, their poll shows Trump way ahead.

Faux News would rather the front runner be Jeb or Scottie.

[sadoldgirl]

10. I don't believe in the early polls

generally speaking; however, if I did it would point out
to me
a) Hillary lost about 10 points in 2 months,

b) Bernie is not the "fringe" candidate anymore.

c) It seems to become a Clinton versus Sanders
primary.

The last part is kind of sad, because O'Malley deserves
much better than that. Then again, it is only August.

[brooklynite]

11. Am I to understand therefore that if the NEXT poll has Clinton higher...

...which would be consistent with other national polling (the last two polls had her in the mid-50s and Sanders in the teens), you'll publicly acknowledge that your theory was wrong?

[ram2008]

12. The trend has been consistent

A slow steady increase for Bernie and a slow steady decrease for Clinton.

I don't really have a theory, all I'm saying is that Bernie is polling around where Obama was nationally at this point in time. Also, I don't think this idea wouldn't be discredited until after Iowa, IIRC Obama stayed in the mid 20's all the way up until the Iowa Caucus. So no.

[Motown_Johnny]

16. Older polls have her higher, newer ones lower.

That is what happens when support declines.


None of this really matters until after a couple debates. All this really shows is that some of Hillary's support is name recognition. Just how much remains to be seen.

[elleng]

18. As Martin O'Malley says:

"History is full of times when the inevitable frontrunner is inevitable right up until he or she is no longer inevitable," he said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-29/martin-o-malley-takes-aim-at-hillary-clinton-s-crown-

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Correct. And I am getting a bad case of déjà vu