EGO BOOST
HEDGEHOG REPORT SOCIAL NETWORK

Search

Another National Poll, Another Double-Digit Lead for Sanders

Add ABC News and The Washington PostABC News and The Washington PostABC News and The Washington Post to those now showing Bernie Sanders taking command of the Democratic primary for the nomination.

PRESIDENT – NATIONAL – DEM PRIMARY (ABC/WaPo)
Bernie Sanders 32%
Joe Biden 17%
Mike Bloomberg 14%
Elizabeth Warren 11%
Pete Buttigieg 7%
Amy Klobuchar 6%
Tom Steyer 2%
Tulsi Gabbard 1%

How pissed off do you think Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar must be after spending a year just building up their names to be seen as viable to a national audience (and to a lesser degree Joe Biden since he was already pretty well known), only to see Mike Bloomberg jump in, spend zero time in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada and immediately move into a legitimate third place (second place in some national polls).

Posted by Dave at 7:29 am
Filed under: General | Comments (40)

40 Responses to “Another National Poll, Another Double-Digit Lead for Sanders”

  1. DW says:

    As I said yesterday, Sanders will arrive at the convention with more delegates than any other candidate. I am 99% sure of this. All Gloomberg is doing with his gazillions of dollars is finishing off Biden and Fauxcahontas, and preventing any gains for the 2nd tier candidates Buttigieg and Klobuchar.

    The only question is whether or not Sanders will arrive with 50% of the delegates. I don’t think he will, given the proportional distribution Dems use in all their races. This also means there will be no reason for any candidates to drop out. Gabbard and Steyer will drop out, probably after SC or after Super Tuesday. But I can easily see remaining six candidates going all the way to the convention. Why not? As long as they keep getting more delegates along the way, it will give them bartering power on the second ballot.

  2. Natedawg says:

    Long, long-time lurker here (10 years), second time posting. Love reading your political insights and back-and-forth debates.

    I think some here are significantly underestimating how well Bernie might do in a general election against Trump. Conventional political wisdom says he would be a disaster, but conventional political wisdom is often wrong. Most political observers thought Trump would also be a disaster right up until election day. Bernie has huge and very loyal base support, with an army of supporters who would crawl over broken glass to vote for him, including a lot of younger voters who commonly sit out elections. I think it is likely he will get the votes of almost all Democrats and liberal-leaning independents who hate Trump, no matter how reluctant they might be to vote for an open socialist. And yes, I think Bernie might make some inroads among the blue collar, downscale voters in the rust belt states that put Trump over the top in 2016. Remember, many of these voters wouldn’t necessarily consider themselves Republican or conservative, and are not terribly ideological. They didn’t turn out for Romney, and in some cases voted for Obama. Bernie speaks their language on kitchen table issues. I could see his rants about minimum wage, free health care, free college education, fat cats on Wall Street, rich people paying more in taxes, etc. playing very well with them. I could see him peeling off enough of them to win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

    Don’t get me wrong. I am 100% against Bernie and I think his socialist ideology is extremely dangerous for our country, which is why it is concerning that he is polling so strongly among Democrats and still seems to have a lot of room to grow. I wouldn’t say I think he’s a strong GE candidate, and I still think Trump would be favored in a hypothetical GE matchup, but I do think Bernie has the potential to match up well against Trump, because I think his populist rhetoric appeals to a key demographic that Trump needs to win in the rust belt states. Certainly he has a much higher floor than many here seem to think; 45% of the voting public will probably vote for anyone against Trump. An economic downturn or collapse before the election (not likely but possible) or a major misstep by Trump would easily put Bernie over the top.

    Polling seems to bear this out too; Sanders not only seems to have a lot of room to grow among Democrats, but also is polling pretty well in head-to-head matchups with Trump. He certainly doesn’t seem to be polling uniquely badly compared to other Democrats. Sanders does have weaknesses of course; I would expect him to significantly underperform in the upper-class suburban areas which have lately been trending Democratic, but how much would that help Trump from an Electoral College standpoint? What new states would he win from that that he didn’t win in 2016 (to offset loss of rust belt states)? Are Virginia and Colorado already too far gone?

    Maybe I’m wrong about this; I hope I am, because a Sanders presidency would be devastating to our country.

  3. Tina says:

    Cccp with big mo in sc, China Biden’s firewall

    Political Polls
    @Politics_Polls
    · 5m
    South Carolina @ChangePolls/@WelcomePartyNow Poll (2/12-14):
    Biden 23%
    Sanders 23%
    Steyer 20%
    Buttigieg 15%
    Warren 9%
    Klobuchar 8%
    Gabbard 1%

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/483577-biden-sanders-tied-for-first-place-in-south-carolina-poll

    :

  4. Tina says:

    I think dumberg or cccp increases the number of states we can expand into:

    Nh
    Maine
    Virginia
    Nevada
    Colorado
    Minnesota

    I am not ranking the states, nor am suggesting that we get any. Out of these, IMO, Nevada looks the most doable.

  5. SoHope says:

    Ben Shapiro is leery of Republican propping up Bernie Sanders in order to face him as an easy opponent in November. If he is the nominee he estimates 40/60 chance of Sanders winning vs 45/55 chance for Biden or Bloomberg but he thinks the downside risk to the country from a socialist president or even a socialist nominee shaping the party as a whole is too great. I mean no dems thought Trump would win! I do think Sanders is the best person the run against.

  6. Tina says:

    It appears that Dumberg is stuck in 2nd, at this point.

    Dumberg managed to kill off China Biden, Pocahontas, and Buttplug.

  7. Wes says:

    Right now Sanders polls as well as he does in general election matchups because Dems really haven’t attacked him. Once the Dems turn their fire on him Sanders will begin losing some support. Whether it will be enough to cost him the nominis unclear, but once Dems—especially Bloomberg with his billions—actively begin to treat Sanders as a threat he will have to be ready to fight back.

    As for the general, Sanders already has one glaring point of attack Trump can hone in on:

    The Nevada Culinary Union refused to endorse Sanders because his proposed healthcare plan will cost the Union their insurance.

    Trump will hammer that home among blue-collar workers around the country along with highlighting the self-agggrandizing ethical lapses Sanders and Sanders’ wife have engaged in. Whatever else he may be, Trump is no pushover. He will ruthlessly exploit every weakness, perceived or real, Sanders has.

    So far Sanders has skated by about the exorbitant cost of his proposals because Dems have barely tried to call him on it. His attempts to obfuscate and redirect have been unconvincing. Trump would relish forcing Bernie to explain the Sweden-level tax burden the Vermont Socialist wants to impose on the American people.

    I have long been convinced Trump is a near lock for defeat, but I predicated that belief on the idea that Dems would nominate a candidate with a moderate veneer so as to keep the voters alienated by Trump 2017-2019 and maintain their base.

    Sanders has his loyal supporters but outside them seems to really only benefit from the base the Dems already have.

    On the other side of the aisle, Trump has HIS loyal supporters and with Sanders as a foil, will have an opening to reach out to suburban voters who have become increasingly antipathetic to him and Republicans in general these past three years.

    With Harris long gone and Warren increasingly likely to have to return to the reservation, Sanders is the candidate who offers Trump the best hope for re-election.

    Those large, committed legions of supporters Sanders has just won’t seem as large when Americans frightened of a crushing tax burden and loss of their retirement accounts and health insurance plans turn out en masse to keep Bernie in Vermont.

  8. DW says:

    The 2020 Presidential election is of course affected by the power of incumbency. Even with the relatively small database of historical elections, we can see incumbency is an obstacle the opposing party has to overcome to unseat a sitting president who is running for re-election. Below is a quick trip through the history to show how hard it can be to defeat incumbents:

    2012 – Incumbent WON: Obama was hated on the right, and he was guilty of overreach, and disdain for half the country. On Paper, the Romney/Ryan ticket seemed a decent fit, and yet the results were not that close. Incumbency won.

    2004 – Incumbent WON: Bush 43 was no guarantee to win re-election, given the media fueled hatred on the left over the “hanging chads” 2000 election. Despite the media declaring Kerry the winner on election night, Bush pulled through and once again, incumbency won.

    1996 – Incumbent WON: This was never close, Bob Dole was cardboard cutout token candidate because someone had to run. Incumbent won.

    *1992 – Incumbent LOST: Yes, I put an asterisk by this one because independent Ross Perot siphoned off nearly 19% of the vote, much of it coming right out of Bush 41’s total. Bill Clinton, as a challenger, got only 43% of the vote, but he got 100% of the presidency. Incumbent LOST, but we will never know how it would have turned out without Perot. My belief is Bush would have won, by about 52/48.

    1984 – Incumbent WON: This was a laugher, the only suspense was over whether or not Reagan would get all 50 states.

    1980 – Incumbent LOST: Everything Carter touched he seemed to bungle. Then he sat at Camp David for a week like Winnie the Pooh saying, “think, think, think,” trying to come up with a solution to the energy crisis, and came out and told the American people to put on a sweater and turn down the thermostat. Then he bungled the Iran hostage crisis. Reagan was seen as everything Carter was not, and so the incumbent was handily defeated.

    1972 – Incumbent WON: This was also a laugher, with Nixon getting a whopping 60.7% of the vote.

    1964 – Incumbent WON: Johnson was not an elected incumbent, given he took over for the assassinated Kennedy, but he won easily.

    1956 – Incumbent WON: Eisenhower had no problem cruising past Adlai Stevenson.

    1948 – Incubment WON: Truman was not an elected incumbent, taking over for Roosevelt who died in office. Despite the famous newspaper headline, Truman defeated Dewey.

    1944 – Incumbent WON: Roosevelt elected to fourth term.

    1940 – Incumbent WON: Roosevelt elected to third term.

    1936 – Incumbent WON: Roosevelt re-elected in a landslide over Alf Landon

    1932 – Incumbent LOST: Another rare occurrence of the incumbent losing. When you have the great depression wrapped around your neck, its hard to win.

    1924 – Incumbent WON: Coolidge was not an elected incumbent, having taken over for Harding. But he won easily.

    1916 – Incumbent WON: Wilson was a horrible president, yet the power of incumbency, and promise to stay out of the great war, got him across the finish line.

    *1912 – Incumbent LOST: This is definitely another asterisk election. Taft, the incumbent, didn’t govern to the liking of the prior president TR, who had endorsed him. So out of spite, TR formed the Bull Moose party and jumped into the race, ensuring Taft’s defeat. Wilson, the Democrat needed only 41.8% of the vote to win the election. Without TR running third party, Taft likely would have won.

    1904 – Incumbent WON: TR was not an elected incumbent, having taken over for McKinley who died in office, but he easily won relection for the GOP.

    1900 – Incumbent WON: McKinley dispatched the oft-defeated William Jennings Bryan.

    *1892 – Incumbent LOST: I put an asterisk by this one, because Benjamin Harrison was defeated by the prior president Grover Cleveland. Even so, it was very close, and a third party candidate siphoned off 8.5% of the vote.

    1888 – Incubment LOST: Harrison got fewer votes than President Cleveland, but won the electoral college.

    1872 – Incumbent WON: Grant easily won re-election despite a somewhat corrupt adminstration.

    1864 – Incumbent WON: Lincoln won re-election during the Civil War.

    1840 – Incumbent LOST: Martin Van Buren was victim of one of the greatest campaigns of mis-information pulled off by his opponent, William Henry Harrison.

    1832 – Incumbent WON: Jackson easily won re-election.

    1828 – Incumbent LOST: John Quincy Adams lost Andrew Jackson

    1820 – Incumbent WON: James Monroe won re-election

    1812 – Incumbent WON: James Madison won a close re-election.

    1804 – Incumbent WON: Thomas Jefferson won easily.

    1800 – Incumbent LOST: John Adams lost to Jefferson.

    Of course the deeper go into American History the less helpful or predictive it is for the 2020 election. Even so, we can see several items that trip up incumbents. Things like badly bungling the energy crisis and the Iran hostage crisis. Or being on the hook for the Great Depression.

    Given we have no evidence there will be a major third party threat this year, it will be Trump vs. the Democrat. Has Trump done anything close to Carter or Hoover, costing him re-election? Hard to say. The left obviously believes he has. But are suburban voters really going to look and their bulging 401k funds and say, it was nice knowing you, but I am going to throw you away because Trump tweets mean things?

  9. DW says:

    “Those large, committed legions of supporters Sanders has just won’t seem as large when Americans frightened of a crushing tax burden and loss of their retirement accounts and health insurance plans turn out en masse to keep Bernie in Vermont.”

    Exactly. Candidate Sanders only runs up the score in places already blue. He needs to convince moderates in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.

  10. PresidentPaul! says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8T9mVkGh3s

    Virgin Galatic first trip to space from the world’s first privatized space port.

    TSLA BOOM BOOM again

  11. DW says:

    Natedawg – you should post more often. I appreciate and share your concern about Sanders. However, one thing about him, he is a true believer. He won’t try to move to the middle for the general elections. All the others would. Sanders, in a way, is honest. “If you want socialism/communism, I am your guy.” The others try to hide it, which in a way is more dangerous. Even if Sanders were somehow elected president, he would immediately over-reach and therefore be better kept in check than other Democrats whose changes would be just as devastating, but be well-masked. There is no mask on Sanders.

  12. Tina says:

    If Cccp is the nominee, wait for the dnc media to proclaim him a centrist and a moderate.

  13. DW says:

    14 – they will try, but I am not sure Sanders will let them. He will continue to whine against wealth, and the need to spend trillions and not worry about where it comes from.

  14. Natedawg says:

    DW, thanks very much for the welcome and for your thoughts. I wish I had more time to post. And thanks to everyone for engaging with me and offering your thoughts. DW, I do agree that Sanders isn’t really that far from a lot of the other candidates as far as ideology, which is quite scary in and of itself. And yes, I can’t really see Sanders moving to the middle for a GE. He is a true believer.

    Wes makes a good point about the NV Culinary Union. Sanders definitely needs union members. But it will be interesting to see how much effect the union’s criticism of Sanders will have on the NV results…recent polls I think are showing Sanders with a comfortable lead. And Tina makes a good point about NV and NH also being states Trump could win against Sanders (along with CO & VA potentially). MN & ME I feel like would be states that Sanders would do well in.

    It will be interesting to see if Sanders’ support goes down substantially once the other candidates, especially Bloomberg, start really attacking him. Already Obama, Clinton, and some of the MSNBC folks have been attacking Sanders, without seeming to have much impact on his support.

  15. Wes says:

    Unfortunately Eugene Debs has been dead for nearly a century. Trump would gain no traction off linking Bernie to him, though just for nostalgia purposes I’d love to see the ad.

  16. Tina says:

    This is a great point and why Barr stool looks weak:

    Tom Fitton
    @TomFitton
    · 11h
    That Yates/Mueller/FBI/Obama admin would suggest that Logan Act would apply to presidential transition shows the fundamental corruption of the Flynn prosecution.
    @RealDonaldTrump should pardon him. Or will the DOJ will now also prosecute Kerry/Murphy? https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/981549328803168257

  17. DW says:

    I do not believe Sanders’ support will change very much. He has his hard-core believers. They make up roughly 30% of the Democrat primary electorate, give or take of course based on the state. Nothing Bloomberg says will change that. Nothing the media says will dissuade them. But that’s the problem more moderate democrats see. If this is all he has in the Democrat primary, where is he going to get enough voters to win the General Election, even if most Democrats get on board? Independents should run right into Trump’s arms.

  18. Tina says:

    Will John Kerry and Senator Murphy be charged with violating the Logan Act?

    They sure went after General Flynn despite being the incoming director/transition team member.

  19. Tina says:

    If true, great news – he is getting into the coup plotters’ scheme

    Paul Sperry
    @paulsperry_
    · 12h
    BREAKING: Durham has interviewed several of the FBI investigators who worked on Mueller’s team during his 2017-2018 inquiry, further suggesting Durham’s probe may be expanding into the activities of the Special Counsel’s office

  20. Phil says:

    As usual, a very good analysis by Wes. The US is not electing a Communist.

    Trump will do better vs Sanders in the suburbs then he did vs Hillary. Those folks really enjoy opening their 401K statements. Does that mean Trump will carry the Philly suburbs? Of course not, but he will do marginally better – especially vs a self proclaimed socialist.

    Trump will also do marginally better with blacks then he did last time. He goes from 8 percent to 11. That will make a difference.

    Oh yeah, you think Wall Street is going to go all in on Bernie like they did on Hillary? I’d also be surprised if Bloomberg follows through on his pledge to pour in a billion or two on Bernie’s behalf. It won’t matter even if he does.

    All this plus tell me all of you won’t enjoy watching the MSM hacks on the left like Chuck Todd try to suddenly pivot and try and convince us that Bernie is a mainstream centrist. That will further marginalize the media and further destroy their credibility. Of course, the REAL entertainment will will be watching the Never Trumpers twist themselves into pretzels as the gang at the Bulwark rationalize why Crazy Bernie is the best choice in November. Bill Kristol ( who is a conservative according to Corey) should be especially entertaining.

  21. Phil says:

    Oh yeah, and there is the Senate. They need NC to have any shot at getting the Senate. Wes can weigh in on this but does anyone think Cunningham is going to fare well with Sanders at the top of the ballot. My guess is no but I’ll await Wes’s opinion on this one.

  22. Scooterboy says:

    9. Agree completely with Wes. Perfect analysis as to why Bernie cannot win.

  23. Scooterboy says:

    I refuse to believe that the American people would elect a devout Socialist, especially with the Economy doing as well as it is. It just isn’t gonna happen. At least not this Election cycle.
    Of course I’ve been wrong many times before, but I’m pretty confident in that prediction.

  24. Wes says:

    I’m not too worried about Cunningham regardless of whom the Dems nominate, Phil. He has the perception of a good candidate only because he’s a veteran. He made no traction a decade ago in the Senate primary with that same appeal and lost the runoff badly (39-61) to Marshall.

    Currently he’s running a generic feel-good campaign Republicans are working to undermine by playing up one of his more radical primary opponents. Democrats ran a Cunningham clone in the NC-9 special last year—and lost. Just because Schumer is a fan, Cal will have enough money to compete, but given the lean of the state and lack of easily definable points of attack against Tillis, I don’t see much hope for the Dems in that race.

    Tillis is well funded, has no primary opposition, and votes with the mainstream of the state for the most part. More importantly Dems can’t define him as an absentee Senator, and he has no noteworthy gaffes.

    The best I see Cunningham as doing with a non-Sanders Dem standard bearer is a 45-51 loss like what Ross suffered. With Sanders atop the ticket, Cal most likely loses by Marshall’s 43-55 margin in 2010.

    The somewhat close but right leaning nature of NC politics means Tillis can’t expect a landslide but can reasonably expect a comfortable victory since Trump will be the front runner here against any Dem.

  25. Phil says:

    Thanks, Wes.

  26. Waingro says:

    So Bernie is really gonna win this nomination huh?

    I REALLY do hope this signals down ballot GOP landslide.

    Otherwise, I am going to be biting my nails all the way until Election Day knowing that a full fledged communist is just one general election away from the presidency.

    Just him “normalizing” socialism for years/decades to come by being atop of a major party’s presidential ticket is scary enough. The long term effects of that will be baked in the cake no matter if Trump and the GOP deliver a red wave in 2020.

  27. Big Joe says:

    All,

    Keep in mind that while the Democrat’s do award delegates proportionally, candidates still need 15% to be able to qualify for delegates.

    It’s a little more complicated than than because 15% at the precinct / district level would work but the point is that folks hanging around in the single digits would likely not be picking up delegates.

    Big Joe

  28. Big Joe says:

    Random apostrophe strikes again.

    Keep in mind that while the Democrat’s do award

    should be

    Keep in mind that while the **Democrats** do award

  29. DW says:

    The best possible outcome of the general election would of course be for Sanders to alienate moderates, independents, and working-class democrats. Then on election night, of course IN and KY are called right away, but then at the 7 pm close, they say Virginia is “too close to call” while one network admits its “too close to call but leans Trump.” Then over the next hour Trump’s margins across Virginia are much stronger than four years ago, so much so that northern VA cannot overcome it. Then at 8 pm, when the polls close they announce Delaware is too close to call. Then by 9:30 its increasing apparent that the election is over, so Bernie’s millennial army of young people don’t bother to vote on their way home from school, causing the GOP to pick up a large pile of west coast house seats unexpectedly, and thereby regain control of the house.

  30. Phil says:

    We have a couple of freshmen Democrats that won in suburban Dallas and Houston Districts in 2018. Both ran as “reasonable moderates”. Both voted to impeach the President so they are on the target list. Having Crazy Bernie at the top of the ticket just adds to their vulnerability.

  31. Waingro says:

    #31,I hope so, DW! I was going into this election cycle somewhat indifferent about Trump winning re-election, but if Comrade Bernie indeed gets the nomination, I am ALL ABOARD the MAGA train.

  32. DW says:

    most have Biden doing the best against Trump, but not Emerson:

    Emerson:

    Sanders 51
    Trump 49

    Biden 48
    Trump 52

    Bloomberg 49
    Trump 51

    Buttigieg 49
    Trump 51

    Klobuchar 49
    Trump 51

  33. Phil says:

    The Emerson polls are baffling to me. Polls showing zero undecideds don’t pass the smell test regardless of who they show leading.

  34. Big Joe says:

    There are very few truly undecided voters. I like these polls where respondents are pushed to pick a candidate.

    Big Joe

  35. John says:

    Just in….
    Building permits surged to a 13 year high in Jan.
    Homebuider confidence at a two year high in Feb.
    Homebuilding starts revised in Dec. to its highest level in 15 years.
    30 year mortgage rate dropped to 3.47% – the lowest in four years

  36. DW says:

    37 – Sanders has to either say this is bad news, or he has to explain why he wants that to stop happening via his proposal to transform the economy.

  37. Dee Double Yoo says:

    I love you, Marco Rubio.