Yesterday, I showed you the results of the new CNN/ORC Poll concerning GOP national preferences. Now the CNN/ORC Poll has released their results on the Democratic race. It was done between September 4th and 8th of a random national sample of 395 registered voters who are Democrats (or leaning that way), and has a 5 point margin of error.
The survey showed Hillary Clinton with a 10-point lead over Bernie Sanders. That's a bit closer than most other polls have shown, but the poll also included Joe Biden (who is not a candidate, and I believe is unlikely to enter the race). Biden got 20% support, and I believe most of his support would go to Clinton if he hadn't been included in the poll.
Why do the news media insist on including Biden in the polls, even though he is not a candidate? I think they well could be trying to turn a contest where Clinton has a large lead into a "horse race" -- making it closer, and therefore getting more viewers for themselves. Personally, I think it's more than a little disingenuous. They should only be polling support for the actual candidates -- and include Biden only after he gets in the race (which is not likely).
They also queried those Democrats (and leaners) on their enthusiasm for the Democratic candidates. Those results are shown in the chart below. I found it interesting that Clinton actually finishes first in the enthusiasm for her candidacy (and in overall positive feelings). This is something that Sanders supporters like to claim for themselves.
I'll be satisfied when any of them. But I'm a little worried about both Sanders and Biden in the general election. I think the people who believe Biden would be a stronger general election candidate are fooling themselves. As for Sanders (who you know I support), I still worry about the "socialist" label. PM Carpenter says it is too early for Sanders. I'm not sure, but it's something we need to think about.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think the socialist label will hurt him a lot more than people think. Progressives may be OK with it (like you and me), but Independents will be horrified -- and they will determine who gets elected (since neither Democrats nor Republicans have a majority).
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced of that. Independents are just partisans who don't want people to know it. That's not to say that Sanders would be a good general election candidate. I think he would be the weakest of the three in a general election. It isn't just the s-word; it is also his age. But ultimately, elections come down to turnout and turnout comes down to economics. There is no doubt of this: if Hillary wins big in 2016, Sanders would have won; if Hillary squeaks by, Sanders would have lost. Other than that, I don't think much can be said. The best thing for the party is probably that Sanders ends up with roughly 20% of the delegates and Hillary wins the rest. That will send a clear signal to the party establishment that the bad old days of the New Democrats are gone and still give us a strong candidate in the general election.
DeleteThe "Socialist' tag will not just 'hurt' him, it will (sadly) make him unelectable on a level that will make McGovern or Goldwater look like photo finishers. Americans LOVE Socialist ideas -- but they HATE the word itself.
ReplyDelete'
But there is another problem with nominating Bernie -- or Chaffee if he stood a chance. I have been voting Democratic since 1968 and will again, but even I would be tempted by the easy money to write speeches -- in the unlikelihood of my being asked, about the chance of Lincoln C, winning -- laughing at the Democrats.
'
"Look at them. Even the party couldn't find one, ONE nominee to defend Obama. They had to nominate someone who's never even been a member of their party." And on and on.
'
But the Biden Bulge -- as temporary as it will be -- shows what I was afraid of, the lack of enthusiasm for Hillary among Democrats. (My choices, none of whom would run, were all from the Senate, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jeff Merkley, Elizabeth Warren and -- yes, even though she is much more centrist than I am -- Kate McCaskill.)
'
The Biden supporters seem to be those members of the 'anybody but Hillary' contingent who are not comfortable 'feeling the Bern.' I'm not worried about anyone but Hillary getting the nomination -- that would only occur if some disaster struck (no one is immune from illness at any age -- as I learned when I lost a 3rd Grade Classmate to cancer -- accidents can happen uncaused by any person, and there are a lot of crazy people out there with guns).
'
But she has to create the sort of enthusiasm out there that will not merely elect her, but turn the Congress around -- and paying attention to state legislative races matters too (as we found out to our horror in 2010 when we 'forgot' about the census and reapportionment).
'
She can, but only by making sure that the Republican Party is the main issue in the election (not just what they can do with unchecked power, but the type of SCOTUS we'd be left with for two or three DECADES. Remember, SCOTUS is -- and must be -- the Court least controlled by precedent. Theoretically they could reverse any decision from Obergefell to Brown v. Board to Griswold as easily as we hope a new court will reverse Citizens United, Hobby Lobby or the 2nd Amendment Decision that misread it.)
'
And we know the sense in Democratic economics, and that there's a lot more wrong with the Republican style than just 'it makes the rich richer.' But that isn't intuitively obvious -- there were times I wasn't sure even Obama got it -- and she has to be making convincing cases for it. (Which means attacking Republican Governors for what they have done to education, to infrastructure, and to the safety net -- but lets also remind people of just how many Republican Governors have been under investigation or indictment. (Sadly, we Democrats are sometimes too 'nice' for our own good.