Bernie Sanders Is Beating Clinton in Some Polls, but Does It Matter?


You are correct, for once, since Clinton, in our so-called "democracy," already has the superdelegates on her ticket, there's really no point to any primary election.

Of course, since the coup d'état of 1963, there really hasn't been a legitimate government in America, so this discussion is besides the point.

A taste of the upcoming Hillary Administration:…
Polling indeed doesn't matter like it did in the past. Apparently, they're missing a large part of the population that doesn't have a landline. If if you do get called up, who wants to spend ten minutes answering detailed questions on various scales? It's never just three quick questions. In addition, I reckon some folks are saying they're for Bernie or Trump just be be snarky when they know they prefer a more centrist/sane candidate.
Lolz at the doom and gloom above.
@2 Theory; Clinton is Kissenger.
First, Bernie couldn't win because the polls said so. Now, that polls show that he can be elected, it doesn't matter because the gatekeepers are endorsing Clinton. Do you know what is an assclown Mr. Baume?
I remember in 2008 when Hillary was inevitable. Until Obama won.

@6 Hits it dead on. The continuing attempts to convince people that a vote for Bernie Sanders is a wasted vote by this paper are becoming laughably pathetic.

An actual liberal who wants to actually do liberal things in this country has a shot to actually make a run, and The Stranger just wants him to go away in favor of Neo Con war hawk Hillary Clinton.
@7 the only lamer attempts that I've seen to convince people Bernie is a waste are the stupid puff pieces with nonsense asking things like does bernie have "moxie".

What next? Does he have the sex appeal? Fuck off journos.
@2 & @5 - They both shared the same job title. How come then you don't go bonkers when Obama shakes 41 or 43's hand?
i know, right? i know i've been screaming for Sanders for at least nine months, but i am secretly voting for Trump.
Once again, your article would be better if you did a little bit of basic historical research. It's not just that Bernie hasn't taken money from the NRA--the NRA has a history of actively campaigning against Bernie and endorsing his opponents in races.

And once again, you have a broken link in the article.
I'm a traditional Yellow Dog Democrat (ie, I'd vote for a yellow dog, if it ran as a Democrat.)

I'll vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination, on the eminently sane logic that he/she will do considerately less damage than whichever Republican scary clown will run.

But the Berners give the impression that they'll gladly burn this country down in pique, if they don't exactly what they want in the way of a candidate.

They learned nothing from Bush v. Gore, and their know nothingness is a badge of honor for pouters.

In the lesser of two evils, they'll support more evil.
Just when I thought "The Stranger's" coverage if national politics couldn't get any dumber....

I'm going to vote for Trump just to see who of my friends exile me for my "foolish choices".
Hell, "democracy" is not something we actually have in the USA. And the oligarchy isn't going very well for most of us, imho. If the GOP want's to whip up the populist wingnuts with job-theft and "turr'ism" fears, then they get what they deserve.

The other states can secede and elect Bernie their executive leader.

@12, That might be an oversimplification of Bernie supporters: Maybe a few would vote for Hillary after the super-delegates gamed the election for her if a free market absolutist and god warrior like Cruz were the GOP person instead of voting 3rd party.
Being as HRC had a commanding lead in endorsements at this point in 2008 and then blew it, so maybe you should ask if that matters?
I will most likely be voting for Sanders in the primary (concerned more about his age than anything) but I'm getting a bit worried about just how much his supporters are sounding like the nattering Naderites of negativity who gave us the blessing of 8 years of Bush II.

The Republicans must be kept as far away from the White House as possible, end of story. If you don't believe this is by far the most vital issue, then I'm sorry, you are a crackpot, and extremely ill-informed.

One thing that barely gets mentioned: the Bernie fanatics would almost certainly be tearing their hair out in rage shortly after their saint got elected. The man is a shrewd politician and I think it is highly likely he would turn out to be a lot more pragmatic than the take-no-prisoners crowd are expecting, especially considering half of Congress at least would still be under Republican control. Indeed they have absolutely zero tolerance for pragmatism and apparently zero awareness of what this country is like outside of the sealed bubble of their coastal leftist enclaves.
The problem with these arguments is confusing cause and effect. Many donors and endorsers simply pick the person they think will win when they decide whom to contribute or endorse. Sanders just received the Move On endorsement and will likely start to pick up more of them as time goes on. And some endorsements are coming from the establishment without support from the base, such as Hillary's SEIU endorsement roundly denounced by SEIU rank-and-file members.

Furthermore, money doesn't win elections. You have to meet a certain bar in terms of cash to compete, but a few million difference isn't determinative. And Bernie's donors aren't maxing out. He can keep getting those small donations from those same donors, unlike many of Hillary's donors.

While Sanders will definitely have a challenge when the voting moves to southern states, winning the first two primaries can make a big difference. And whenever he gets exposed to a state, he wins people over. He still has room to grow his name recognition where Hillary doesn't. It is far, far too soon to count him out, given his fundraising potential and appeal.
There's no denying it's good news for Sanders, at least in the two first states: He's leading by 53 percent to 29 percent in New Hampshire, and he's trailing by just three points in Iowa, 48 percent to 45 percent. That's well within the margin of error.

Come on, slog; either cover national politics with a scintilla of competence, or don't bother covering it at all. There is little more hackish than picking a single poll that happens to support the narrative you wish to present, rather than looking all the relevant polling data. It's embarrassing to see this here. Do better, don't be a hack, Matt.
You know, months ago, probably in the middle of summer, somebody said that Sanders supporters were going to be pissed when Democratic leadership switches allegiance, and Clinton wins the vote. They said that Sanders is drumming up all this sturm und drang just so Democrats could get a voter base fired up for a Democratic landslide in November.

Right now, Baume is doing exactly that. He's preparing Sanders fans for the switch. But, Sanders is catching fire. The prevailing theory is to vote Sanders in the primary and, if Clinton is doomed to win, hold your nose and go that way. And, why not? What have you got to lose? More moderates are turned off by war hawk Clinton than by socialist Sanders.

Sanders supporters are strong, vocal, and making headway.

(P.S. Matt Baume, why on the queen's rainbow fucking flag are you so high and mighty on Clinton? Bitch didn't even support gay rights until 2013, when it was politically convenient and she couldn't affect any policy. Sanders was voting against DOMA back in the 90s. Have a bit of loyalty.)
@12: my sentiments exactly. and I'll probably vote for him in the primary.

while they're busy Sgt. Doom-ing her a Corporatist Warmonger, Bernatics completely discount that Clinton IS A WOMAN. this country desperately needs to break that barrier, too. I expect that when the voting actually starts that gender, and women's voting power, will come into play as much as Sander's inequality hectoring.

regardless, there's not a whole lot a Dem president can get through the next congress (which will be GOP) which will change the economics of inequality in this nation. Clinton knows that; so does Sanders. Ryan and McConnell will likely keep up the same obstructionist tactics they applied to the Kenyan Muslin. it works just as well on a Commie Jew, after all.
@9 i don't see much difference in 43 and Obama's war policies. I don't think you know who i am or what you're trying to attack me with.
@17: indeed, I was excoriated recently on another forum for asserting that this is a conservative and reactionary country, far more so than any other western democracy. that americans do indeed cling to guns and religion, and vote out of spite as much as anything. got told I was an elitist.

no, I'm a realist.
@22: No attack. Just pointing out that the photo of Hillary and Dr. Kissinger are two former secretaries of state at an event and there's no political tea leaves to read from it.
No matter what polls say. Or what caucuses Bernie wins, he's not the DNC'S choice for
President. He doesn't have the stature, knowledge of world politics, etc, etc. To be respected by the rest of the world. As a Democrat, I'll vote for the Republican Nominee if Bernie somehow gets the nomination.
@25 Oh, now it's Hillary supporters who are going to throw a tantrum and vote for the enemy if they don't get their way?

Hey, Baume. What about you? Would you vote Republican if Bernie wins the nom?
@25 The 'stature' and 'knowledge' of a Trump you mean? By 'respected by the rest of the world' you are thinking about Ted Cruz? Pretty sure the rest of the world would gape in sheer disbelief if either of those cretins were elected president.
I know that people like to feel super-smart by talking up the 'super delegates', but you have to remember that those people can (and do) change their votes when the convention rolls around.
@25: So are you saying that a bloviating carnival barker has more stature than a grizzled old senator from Vermont?
@26; Thrill Killer is a not a Dem. Hir is a reactionary.
I'm sick and tired of 'money and endorsements' being the center of all Bernie doubting headlines. His campaign is precisely opposed to those two factors playing any major role in electing a candidate.

Sanders' campaign is about standing up for the people, doing what the people want, and doing what's best for the people. THE PEOPLE love Bernie. The polls are showing this now, and his grassroots revolution has been showing this for months.
THE PEOPLE will elect Bernie if they think he is the best candidate for their needs, and more and more every day this is how things are looking.
Yeah, I'm with #20 where does the Stranger's weird loyalty to HRC come from? Are you just trying to make sure you toe the beltway pundit line?
To set the record straight, Bernie is a progressive, not a liberal; he's said so himself. Secondly, very few people vote on an absolute basis, in other words, almost no one is not going to vote for Bernie because of his gun record, which is a balanced, even-headed record that is common sensical and not radical. Thirdly this article is extremely weird, especially how it ended. I'm surprised this is qualified by Google News as news at all. Really poor.
I sincerely doubt there's even one Democratic voter who would choose Trump over Bernie, if he got the nomination: just some idiot troll claiming that on this thread, attempting to make some idiot troll point.

However, I've read a slew Berners pouting that they'll take their ball and go home, if stomping their feet doesn't get him the nomination.

One imaginary troll doesn't elect a Trump, Berners have been threatening to, for months.
@36: You are just making shit up. People who plan to vote for Sanders are going to do so in the primary, and if war hawk Clinton wins the primary anyway, they will hold their nose and vote for her.

Stop pouting about the fact that some people prefer a different candidate than you.
@36 If Clinton were to win, she could always make a formal deal with Bernie about the program and staffing of the next admin to ensure a maximum vote transfer during the general election. If she doesn't do such formal deal and Democrats bleeds vote, that is HER responsibility for continuing to impose a winner takes all model to progressive voters, like it is the responsibility of Democrats for having run Gore who generated the 2nd lowest voter turnout since ww2. In democracies, politicians and their supporters make formal coalitions all the time and political parties take input from their membership rather than behaving like private corporations. Many are done with giving a blank check to neoliveral democrats.who have drifted rightward for the last 30+ years, act on it rather than complaining that people won't do again what has repeatedly failed them in the past.
In the "carpet and drapes" euphemism, the drapes are the person's hair. On their head. Am I missing something?
@39 "Carpet and drapes" I think comes from the phrase "See if the carpet matches the drapes" — see if the person's hair which is usually hidden by clothes is the same color as the hair on the person's head, which is visible and like as not dyed some non-birth color.

I'll vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination, but I don't want to fuck anyone running for president this cycle. (I'd still do Obama, though. Hell, I'd even do Biden; I bet he's a ton of fun in bed.)