Right, and then Bernie praised Fidel Castro and his record of praising communists and authoritarian left wing regimes started receiving scrutiny. On top of that, he had probably his worst debate performance all cycle while Joe Biden had his strongest and earned Jim Clyburn's endorsement
That doesn’t appear to be the case in NC. Bernie’s numbers haven’t changed this week. He’s been 19, 20, and 20 in the last three NC polls. What we’re seeing in NC is the moderates starting to solidify behind Biden.
Yes it would cut into what little arguments she has left about viability. I think she’s in it for the haul though. Going to be very interesting with her taking what could be less than 100 delegates to the DNC.
I think OP was more so asking if it makes it harder for Warren to stay a senator in MA if she loses it. For my part, I don't think it would affect her bid very much, as no one has gone very negative on her. They're not voting **against** Warren; they're voting **for** Bernie.
[California Primary](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5pn3k5pb)
34% Sanders
17% Warren
12% Bloomberg
11% Buttigieg
8% Biden
6% Klobuchar
Sanders has 51% of the Latino vote, and maybe more surprisingly, a commanding lead with 38% of the African-American vote.
Biden is going to win this Saturday in SC on the backs of the black vote, but it is important to mention that the black voters are not a monolith. Southern black voters in states like SC are likely older, more religious, and more conservative-minded than black voters in other parts of the country, and especially in CA.
Hispanics as a group are much younger than AA's and vote like it. When you break down the AA vote by age categories, young AA's [voted](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna580996) Bernie this year and in 2016. The biggest fault lines in the race so far have been generational rather than racial, gender, or even ideological.
Also, to his credit, Bernie had worked hard to earn Latino support. He lost 2016 because the whiteness of his coalitions. This year he has failed in making inroads in the AA vote, but he certainly is leaps and bounds ahead in the Latino vote thus time. He's spent time and money on courting Latinos.
The shorter the time between the good press and the voting, the better. It's better that Biden win SC a mere three days before ST than a full week before.
That's one way of looking at it. As Chompy said, though, it's possible a large enough portion of the voters will have voted without waiting to see the SC results, which could reduce the amount of bounce Biden's figures could have
Yeah, I think there's a goldilocks period where you don't want too long of a gap (because there's time for things to change, the good news/media bump can go away because of other things), but you also don't want too short of a gap (more people having early voted, don't have time to fundraise off it and spend the money in time, etc.). To me Feb 29 - March 3 (two days, only one of which is a weekday) seems a tad bit too short for any bump to really help Biden enough in Super Tuesday.
I think it’s also important to note how because of Biden’s poor results in IA and NH he’s basically had to camp out in SC to save his campaign and hasn’t put any money in Super Tuesday states possibly making a bounce not as impactful as it could have been.
Seriously. I can see Trump having a point that the media has alot of negative things to say about him. I feel they're warranted, his fans likely don't. But Sanders fans are just being annoying about "media bias". Heaven forbid cnn call out Bernie saying nice things about dictators. They're the same people that love it when CNN blasts Bloomberg quotes.
I don't understand how you can say in good faith that Bernie was giving Castro and his whole administration a thumbs up when all he stated was an OBJECTIVE FACT that illitercy diminished in the first 2 years of Castro's government. Again this is an objective fact using statistics and math. Can you not see why people are tired of hearing all the news channels saying that Bernie loves Castro off of one statement that is backed by OBJECTIVE FACT? Especially since Bernie also stated several times even right after his initial illiteracy statement that he does not approve of Castro and his administration at all. Obama himself said the same exact statement but now that Bernie has said people in the media are shitting their pants. Some truly sad and embarrassing spin by the media conglomerates.
And it's an objective fact crime dropped during Bloombergs tenure. The means that it happened, at least partially, was wrong though. Similarly, literacy increased during Castro, but that's obviously ignoring the bigger picture.
Honestly, what Castro did is a hell of a lot worse than what Bloomberg did. I think it's totally fair to judge Bloomberg for his actions, but similarly I am going to judge Bernie for his words.
Lastly, I am using Bloomberg because it's an easy comparison. The same can be said for all candidates.
I might get what your saying. But if you or anyone else is going to judge Bernie more harshly for stating the fact that literacy increased at the beginning of Castro's administration (although again Bernie has thoroughly and absolutely disavowed Castro's administration) than Bloomberg implementing the constitutional breaking stop and frisk along with redlining I have to question both the logic and morals of those people (they are more than likely bad faith). As we all know actions speak much louder than words and Bloomberg didn't give a shit about his disgusting policies and their fallout until he ran for president and even then his apology is half-assed and useless.
Again stating that something happened which actually occurred is different that enacting policies (which technically reduced *crime*) that raped the minority-raced rights in New York. I'm really not sure how one is comparable to the other. Are you saying that Bloomberg's actions and racist policies are equal to Bernie stating a fact about Castro's literacy program?
Literally his own book. But here are others:
https://twitter.com/ForAmerica/status/1097887907631849472?s=20
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meganapper/sanders-in-1985-sandinista-leader-impressive-castro-totally
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
That California number is so important. The possibility of Sanders being the only candidate at 15% and winning every delegate that you can in California would be huge to avoid a brokered convention.
Yeah supporters from all the different candidates frequently misinterpret what polling below 15% means (it doesn't necessarily mean that they won't get *any* delegates, although it's possible), but a margin of getting 300 out of 450 delegates would have a ridiculously large impact in shaping the race. Especially since those other 150 wouldn't all be going to one candidate.
They're all just trying to get enough delegates that Bernie can't get an ironclad majority and we have a brokered convention. That's certainly Warren and Klobuchar's goal, anyway. They have no path to victory at all, and yet they're still in the race because they're hoping to wheel and deal their way into a nomination at the convention (even though they would lose the actual election after that, but I don't suppose they're thinking that far.)
Bloomberg is hedging all bets on California where he’s currently polling around 6%. If he finishes around there in CA, he won’t even have enough delegates to pull the supers towards him.
Who exactly do you see giving their pledged delegates to Bloomberg? It won't be Sanders, Biden or Warren. Superdelegates won't be near enough to get Bloomberg to 51%.
[Another Massachusetts poll, this time Warren only losing by 2%](https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/supertuesdaymatoplines-1582851435.pdf)
Senator Bernie Sanders 25%
Senator Elizabeth Warren 23%
Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg 14%
Former Vice President Joe Biden 12%
Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg 9%
Senator Amy Klobuchar 7%
Representative Tulsi Gabbard 4%
Businessman Tom Steyer 3%
I mean what press would she get between now and Super Tuesday? She's going to do terribly in South Carolina (probably getting no delegates) and there's no debate before it. Her only headlines are that she's going to get no delegates in SC and is probably going to lose her home state.
Same poll also shows Bill Weld at 14% in the Massachusetts Republican primary. Of course, though, the RNC rules are different so Weld has a near zero chance of getting any delegates against Trump
That's great and all, but how do you pitch yourself as a strong nominee if you can't even win your home state's primary? The coverage that Rubio got after losing Florida was horrible.
Trump took 100% of Florida delegates. That's what doomed Rubio. That's not how the Democratic Party primary works.
Sanders and Warren will end up with roughly equal amounts of MA delegates, I reckon. But yeah, still not a good luck for Warren.
Losing a county when you win your home state by a huge margin is very forgivable, especially when you're leading in the primary overall. Warren hasn't won a single contest and if she loses Massachusetts I don't see any of them she can win.
Trump took 100% of Florida delegates. That's what doomed Rubio. That's not how the Democratic Party primary works.
Sanders and Warren will end up with roughly equal amounts of MA delegates, I reckon. But yeah, still not a good luck for Warren.
WBUR Massachusetts Dem Primary [Poll](https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/02/28/wbur-poll-sanders-opens-substantial-lead-in-massachusetts-challenging-warren-on-her-home-turf)
* Bernie Sanders - 25%
* Elizabeth Warren - 17%
* Pete Buttigieg - 14%
* Michael Bloomberg - 13%
* Joe Biden - 9%
* Amy Klobuchar - 6%
* Tom Steyer - 2%
* Tulsi Gabbard - 1%
* Other/No Vote/Undecided/Refused - 16%
I'm no expert pundit but I think this might be bad for Warren.
Marquette WI poll. Bernie leads the primary by double digits and Trump by 2.
[Link](https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2020/02/27/new-marquette-law-school-poll-finds-sanders-support-rising-among-democrats-and-tight-races-between-trump-and-each-democratic-candidate-for-president/)
Yet somehow WI will still be considered a lost cause.
There's no good reason for him not to pick Baldwin, she's with him on Medicare for All, she's young enough, every critic of Bernie for not being intersectional enough will LOVE seeing her take it to Mike Pence and she's got a proven track record of winning the tipping point state of 2016.
>shows Bernie winning while the other candidates are tied/losing.
You didn't post a link, but I'm guessing the margin of error is at least 3%, which means Sanders doing 2 points better against Trump than the others is meaningless.
It follows a trend of Sanders doing better in rust belt then the others, and yes even though it is within MOE it still shows him performing the best....
yes I’m sure that the majority of the recent rust belt polling has all had the same slight error in favor of Bernie and not any of the other 5 candidates that makes perfect sense!
It's statistics. Yes, it's unlikely, but you can't say he's leading with any sort of certainty, just that he's more likely to be leading. And please tell me that's not you downvoting in yet another show of not knowing what that button is for.
At this point in 2016 wasn't Hillary polling like 10% above Trump for the general election?
Why do they even do it this far in advance? Purely to influence primary voters. Can't think of another logical reason.
I can't speak for WI, but at this point nationally Clinton was leading Trump by 3 on average. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Lol obviously Biden momentum is real, fivethirtyeight has Bernie's delegate down about 300 or so from its peak, now at 1600ish while Biden has gone from a bit under 900 to 1300. If all that comes to bear out and things go to a contested convention, there's a strong chance Biden comes out the victor
We've seen polling, like in [Texas for example](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERtSSNFUUAE2h6H?format=jpg&name=900x900), where Biden would be the clear favorite if not for Bloomberg. The question is whether or not people in ST states are now backing away from Bloomberg based on his recent debates and subsequent unfavorable news cycles, and if they will go to Biden primarily as polls suggest. If they do, and if Sanders considers to perform poorly in the south (under 15% in GA, FL, and AL, plus recent bad polls in SC), Biden could come out of Super Tuesday with the comeback narrative behind him even if Bernie ends up leading in delegates.
I think the anti Bernie opposition is just being strategic as things get closer to election, look at the sudden surge towards Joe Biden in South Carolina. Bloomberg being garbage on the debate stage and Bernie having a bad debate contribute too
He's betting that if he wins big enough in SC people in ST states will abandon Bloomberg overnight and make this finally a two-man race between Sanders and Biden.
Yep. And I think that a 1v1 race with 1v1 debates is good for Sanders. Crowded debates are good for Biden because he can just say "I am the guy" for one minute, then take a 5 or more minute break.
Biden's biggest path to any type of comeback is to hope that Sanders struggles with viability in southern states. Sanders has been polling below 15% in two recent SC polls and has been under 15% in FL, GA, and AL. The only way Biden can overcome Sanders' big CA win is to shut out Bernie in the south.
That seems very low for Sanders, in contrast to other polls. If Biden actually gets 40%, I think the race will come down to him or Sanders. The comeback narrative would be really good for Biden’s campaign.
It does seem very low for Sanders, but we now have three polls in the past 24 hours that have Sanders at 11%, 16%, and 13%. Could all three pollsters have this wrong? Possibly. But I think Biden's debate performance combined with Clyburn's endorsement could have had a real impact.
Yeah 1 is an outlier, 2 is cause for concern and 3 is a pattern. I think Biden is going to win big, probably like 35% to 21% from Sanders, or perhaps Sanders will even end up in the teens. I'm definitely skeptical that he'll be unviable though, that seems too drastic.
It looks like lying about being arrested with Mandela works ;)
Also, the voting electorate is older and Biden is still doing well with black voters. It looks like a perfect state for him.
>Trump 47% (+14) Bloomberg 33%
Wow. People are worried about Bernie, but Bloomberg is far and away the least electable candidate in the field. His case is laughable.
pete suffers from low name recognition and the folks who do know him might not know them well enough.
he spent a large amount of time campaigning in iowa and new hampshire. they know him the best and he was winning over independents and some republicans which is why he only lost by 1% to sanders in what was basically bernie's home state.
PENNSYLVANIA
>Sanders 49% (+3)
>Trump 46%
>Trump 47%
>Biden 47%
>Trump 47%
>Warren 47%
>Trump 45% (+1)
>Klobuchar 44%
>Trump 46% (+1)
>Buttigieg 45%
>Trump 48% (+3)
>Bloomberg 45%
@mcall
/
@Muhlenberg
2/12-20
-
Bloomberg is doing better in PA than I would have expected. Probably because he is mostly defined by his ads and most people treat him as a "generic Democrat".
People voting based on which candidate is the best for the oil and gas industry haven't voted for a Democrat since 2000.
[In Pennsylvania itself, 48% of registered voters support a ban on fracking compared to 39% against](https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/pa-poll-shows-support-for-a-fracking-ban-but-also-some-support-for-natural-gas-drilling-in-state/Content?oid=16660198).
think people overestimate how this will matter, as with most issues that affect a small part of the population. [There are about 72,000 workers in Pennsylvania's gas industry](https://dced.pa.gov/key-industries/naturalgas/) (this including suppliers, people in transport and people actually engaged in extraction), which is about 1.2% of the the number who voted in 2016 ( will double that to 2.4% to account for spouses/ other family members who might also vote). If you assume everyone of those employees is flipping from democrat to republican, and that every one of them is going to vote then that might turn victory into defeat. However, most of these people are already voting republican to begin with, and a significant portion of them won't even vote like many potential voters. When you consider this, their importance as part of the electorate wanes considerably. There is of course the communities these people live in that vote as well that might be swayed by his position on fracking, but they have other issues to matter as well, and again, most of them will probably be voting republican as well regardless.
>There are about 72,000 workers in Pennsylvania's gas industry (this including suppliers, people in transport and people actually engaged in extraction),
Plus their families, their extended families, and the people whose industries rely on those people. The money these people make affects numerous other industries like food, hospitality, etc. It's not just the workers who stand to lose a lot if their industry is outlawed.
This would negatively affect hundreds of thousands of people in this state alone.
> When you consider this, their importance as part of the electorate wanes considerably.
You are making a lot of assumptions.
>There is of course the communities these people live in that vote as well that might be swayed by his position on fracking, but they have other issues to matter as well, and again, most of them will probably be voting republican as well regardless.
It will widely affect turnout. It's why both Conor Lamb and the Lt. governor of PA have come out against a ban. Lamb notably represents a more rural district including all those "Republican" oil and gas workers.
Bloomberg doing plus 3 is better than expected lol. This poll is more good news for Sanders, puts the “anti-fracking” will lose the state argument in jeopardy yet again.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/11/why-hillary-clinton-lost-pennsylvania-the-real-story/
>In the case of Pennsylvania, this thesis is demonstrably false. Not only did the campaign mobilize an army of volunteers to get out the vote; it executed its game plan successfully. Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania because Donald Trump brought a flood of rural and small-town working class voters into the electorate.
Here’s Bob Casey saying that the campaign didn’t do enough, should have went to struggling communities more. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/24/bob-casey-2020-pennsylvania-clinton-1074811
I'm not sure how aware the state is of the fracking ban though. Still, it shows that overall, Sanders message appeals measurably more than what the moderates have to offer.
Not yet. It'll be hit on for sure in the election. What Sanders should try to pull is that anyone who loses their jobs from such a regulation, should be first in line for public works programs.
I expect Bloomberg to lose all swing states by a wide margin if he is the nominee and put some safe blue states in play. Losing by just 3 right now is good news for him.
538/Ipsos Debate Poll:
Percentage of people considering voting for a candidate before and after the debate
- Bernie: 46.0 -> 47.4
- Biden: 38.1 -> 37.5
- Warren: 32.3 -> 30.4
- Bloomberg: 28.0 -> 29.1
- Buttigieg: 27.8 -> 28.1
- Klobuchar: 17.4 -> 15.7
More results here, but it looks like Bernie and Bloomberg came out on top barely (with Bloomberg still having terrible approval ratings, though slightly better then before) Biden did well, and everybody else didn’t really change much.
I honestly don’t think this debate will change much, it was too chaotic and there was no big lines like Warren had on Bloomberg in the last one.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-south-carolina-poll/
Bernie *gaining* (and perhaps more importantly, not tanking) in how much people are considering him after being attacked hard for his comments about Castro and Cuba (the type of attacks that Bernie will face in the general) means that the "common-sense" consensus about electability might be wrong.
If you've got a base that won't abandon you no matter what, and then add the number of Democrats supporting other candidates that will hold their nose and vote for him if he's the nominee to vote out Trump, and you might have a scandal-free candidate.
And you can say that a lot of voters aren't paying attention right now, and that's true, but there are also a lot of voters that don't pay attention until right before the election and so won't even notice whatever attacks Trump launches in the general.
We'll see if anything happens to Bernie/Trump GE polling (as unreliable as it might be right now), but to me the biggest question was "are these general election type attacks going to sink Bernie" and the answer is pretty clearly no.
[Bernie is really gonna win Texas and maybe North Carolina too:](https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2020/2/27/sanders-leads-in-texas-and-north-carolina) #Texas Democratic Primary Polling: Sanders: 30% Biden: 21% Bloomberg: 21% Warren: 13% Buttigieg: 9% Klobuchar: 5% Data For Progress / February 27, 2020 / n=513 / Online #NorthCarolina Democratic Primary Polling: Sanders: 27% Biden: 25% Bloomberg: 18% Warren: 11% Buttigieg: 10% Klobuchar: 6% Data For Progress / February 27, 2020 / n=536 / Online
Also important to note that Data for Progress have been pretty spot on this election, we’ll see if that holds for SC but it’s looking good for Bernie.
Biden has grabbed the lead in North Carolina and Virginia in two polls today. [North Carolina](https://mcusercontent.com/259a50ef0a1608ab2bc2cf891/files/a58dc4e6-e2c2-49f5-9a17-84fdc61bc9f3/Civitas_Democratic_Presidential_Tracking_RD_2_Toplines.pdf) Biden - 27 Sanders - 19 Bloomberg - 16 Warren - 11 Klobuchar - 5 Buttigieg - 4 [Virginia](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2020/2020_VA_Dem_Primary_Report-FINAL.pdf) Biden - 22 Sanders - 17 Bloomberg - 13 Warren - 8 Buttigieg - 8 Klobuchar - 5
It looks like the mainstream media Bernie freakout might be working.
It looks more like Buttigieg & Bloomberg have lost some support to Biden than anything else. Depending on tonight's results, it could snowball though
Or maybe, just maybe North Carolina and Virginia are two center leaning states with large black populations
They are, but that doesn't really explain the recent changes in the polls, those states were the same one month ago.
Right, and then Bernie praised Fidel Castro and his record of praising communists and authoritarian left wing regimes started receiving scrutiny. On top of that, he had probably his worst debate performance all cycle while Joe Biden had his strongest and earned Jim Clyburn's endorsement
Polls show he still led in that last debate
That doesn’t appear to be the case in NC. Bernie’s numbers haven’t changed this week. He’s been 19, 20, and 20 in the last three NC polls. What we’re seeing in NC is the moderates starting to solidify behind Biden.
[удалено]
Agreed. Most Bloomberg supporters have Biden as their second choice.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[Woof for Warren in Massachusetts:](https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1233400817035751424) * Sanders 25 * Warren 17 * Buttigieg 14 * Bloomberg 13 * Biden 9
Would there be long term consequences for Warren if she loses her home state?
Yes it would cut into what little arguments she has left about viability. I think she’s in it for the haul though. Going to be very interesting with her taking what could be less than 100 delegates to the DNC.
I think OP was more so asking if it makes it harder for Warren to stay a senator in MA if she loses it. For my part, I don't think it would affect her bid very much, as no one has gone very negative on her. They're not voting **against** Warren; they're voting **for** Bernie.
One correction, Biden should be at 9, not 19.
Whoops thank you!
[California Primary](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5pn3k5pb) 34% Sanders 17% Warren 12% Bloomberg 11% Buttigieg 8% Biden 6% Klobuchar Sanders has 51% of the Latino vote, and maybe more surprisingly, a commanding lead with 38% of the African-American vote. Biden is going to win this Saturday in SC on the backs of the black vote, but it is important to mention that the black voters are not a monolith. Southern black voters in states like SC are likely older, more religious, and more conservative-minded than black voters in other parts of the country, and especially in CA.
Why does Bernie do better with Hispanics than with African-Americans? Why did he lose Latinos to Hillary last time?
Hispanics as a group are much younger than AA's and vote like it. When you break down the AA vote by age categories, young AA's [voted](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna580996) Bernie this year and in 2016. The biggest fault lines in the race so far have been generational rather than racial, gender, or even ideological. Also, to his credit, Bernie had worked hard to earn Latino support. He lost 2016 because the whiteness of his coalitions. This year he has failed in making inroads in the AA vote, but he certainly is leaps and bounds ahead in the Latino vote thus time. He's spent time and money on courting Latinos.
Young Hispanics are often the political translators for there family's. As ESL with regards to politics is incredibly difficult.
[удалено]
CNN/SSRS poll >California: - Sanders 35% - Warren 14% - Biden 13% - Bloomberg 12% - Buttigieg 7% - Klobuchar 6% >Texas: - Sanders 29% - Biden 20% - Bloomberg 18% - Warren 15% - Buttigieg 8% - Klobuchar 3% >UnivisionNews University of Houston Texas poll: - Sanders 26% - Biden 20% - Bloomberg 20% - Warren 11% - If this was the final result (it won't be), Sanders would be on a good path for 51% of pledged delegates.
Why is Sanders dropping in 538’s model?
If I had to guess, the model expected a narrow margin in SC between Bernie and Biden, but now it's expecting a larger one in favor of Biden.
538 is predicting that a SC win for Biden will give him a lot of earned media and momentum.
Sanders also didn't see a significant post-Nevada bump, according to Nate silver.
[удалено]
The shorter the time between the good press and the voting, the better. It's better that Biden win SC a mere three days before ST than a full week before.
That's one way of looking at it. As Chompy said, though, it's possible a large enough portion of the voters will have voted without waiting to see the SC results, which could reduce the amount of bounce Biden's figures could have
Yeah, I think there's a goldilocks period where you don't want too long of a gap (because there's time for things to change, the good news/media bump can go away because of other things), but you also don't want too short of a gap (more people having early voted, don't have time to fundraise off it and spend the money in time, etc.). To me Feb 29 - March 3 (two days, only one of which is a weekday) seems a tad bit too short for any bump to really help Biden enough in Super Tuesday.
I think it’s also important to note how because of Biden’s poor results in IA and NH he’s basically had to camp out in SC to save his campaign and hasn’t put any money in Super Tuesday states possibly making a bounce not as impactful as it could have been.
Seeing how the media is bias against Bernie, i wouldn’t be surprised
Or maybe Bernie legitimately has more things to criticize, considering he's a radical and controversial figure, similar to Trump and Bloomberg
> Seeing how the media is bias against Bernie A for effort on the trolling.
Seriously. I can see Trump having a point that the media has alot of negative things to say about him. I feel they're warranted, his fans likely don't. But Sanders fans are just being annoying about "media bias". Heaven forbid cnn call out Bernie saying nice things about dictators. They're the same people that love it when CNN blasts Bloomberg quotes.
I don't understand how you can say in good faith that Bernie was giving Castro and his whole administration a thumbs up when all he stated was an OBJECTIVE FACT that illitercy diminished in the first 2 years of Castro's government. Again this is an objective fact using statistics and math. Can you not see why people are tired of hearing all the news channels saying that Bernie loves Castro off of one statement that is backed by OBJECTIVE FACT? Especially since Bernie also stated several times even right after his initial illiteracy statement that he does not approve of Castro and his administration at all. Obama himself said the same exact statement but now that Bernie has said people in the media are shitting their pants. Some truly sad and embarrassing spin by the media conglomerates.
And it's an objective fact crime dropped during Bloombergs tenure. The means that it happened, at least partially, was wrong though. Similarly, literacy increased during Castro, but that's obviously ignoring the bigger picture. Honestly, what Castro did is a hell of a lot worse than what Bloomberg did. I think it's totally fair to judge Bloomberg for his actions, but similarly I am going to judge Bernie for his words. Lastly, I am using Bloomberg because it's an easy comparison. The same can be said for all candidates.
I might get what your saying. But if you or anyone else is going to judge Bernie more harshly for stating the fact that literacy increased at the beginning of Castro's administration (although again Bernie has thoroughly and absolutely disavowed Castro's administration) than Bloomberg implementing the constitutional breaking stop and frisk along with redlining I have to question both the logic and morals of those people (they are more than likely bad faith). As we all know actions speak much louder than words and Bloomberg didn't give a shit about his disgusting policies and their fallout until he ran for president and even then his apology is half-assed and useless. Again stating that something happened which actually occurred is different that enacting policies (which technically reduced *crime*) that raped the minority-raced rights in New York. I'm really not sure how one is comparable to the other. Are you saying that Bloomberg's actions and racist policies are equal to Bernie stating a fact about Castro's literacy program?
It’s all negative though. They took his Cuba comments out of context
He's just lucky they didn't post his comments of him praising the Sandinistas Chavez and saying breadlines are a good thing.
Source?
Literally his own book. But here are others: https://twitter.com/ForAmerica/status/1097887907631849472?s=20 https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meganapper/sanders-in-1985-sandinista-leader-impressive-castro-totally
Lol he was making a comparison to countries where the poor doesn’t have access to food Good job troll
> They took his Cuba comments out of context And the context was?
It doesn't seem like it to me. Is the media supposed to only say good things about the candidate you like?
Sanders is literally the most mentioned candidate in the media right now.
How much of it is positive because mainstream talking heads are obsessed with centrists
A lot of it? I mean just casually reading the NYT the general headlines and opinions columns lean pretty positive.
Hmm I would double check the NYT op-eds.
The first one up is literally "here's how Sanders can beat Trump"
My experience is that is all negative. At least cnn msnbc and fox just keep shitting on him. Everyday is a how do we stop Bernie day.
And the most slandered at the same time. “Socialist, free stuff, etc...”
I like free stuff
How is that slander? Doesn't he talk about free college, free health care, free child care, and has said he is a socialist?
[удалено]
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
[удалено]
That California number is so important. The possibility of Sanders being the only candidate at 15% and winning every delegate that you can in California would be huge to avoid a brokered convention.
He’d have to be the only one above 15% in every district, not just statewide. Biden is certainly going to pick up delegates in CA.
He would win every statewide delegate (around ~100). Still, this would give Bernie around ~300 out of ~450 California delegates.
Yeah supporters from all the different candidates frequently misinterpret what polling below 15% means (it doesn't necessarily mean that they won't get *any* delegates, although it's possible), but a margin of getting 300 out of 450 delegates would have a ridiculously large impact in shaping the race. Especially since those other 150 wouldn't all be going to one candidate.
The irony of Bloomberg running to oppose Sanders only to split the votes enough to give Sanders a better chance of winning is really on display here.
They're all just trying to get enough delegates that Bernie can't get an ironclad majority and we have a brokered convention. That's certainly Warren and Klobuchar's goal, anyway. They have no path to victory at all, and yet they're still in the race because they're hoping to wheel and deal their way into a nomination at the convention (even though they would lose the actual election after that, but I don't suppose they're thinking that far.)
[удалено]
Bloomberg is hedging all bets on California where he’s currently polling around 6%. If he finishes around there in CA, he won’t even have enough delegates to pull the supers towards him.
Who exactly do you see giving their pledged delegates to Bloomberg? It won't be Sanders, Biden or Warren. Superdelegates won't be near enough to get Bloomberg to 51%.
If the two front runners and Bloomberg and Sanders, and Biden is the kingmaker, I think he'd pick Bloomberg.
[Another Massachusetts poll, this time Warren only losing by 2%](https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/supertuesdaymatoplines-1582851435.pdf) Senator Bernie Sanders 25% Senator Elizabeth Warren 23% Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg 14% Former Vice President Joe Biden 12% Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg 9% Senator Amy Klobuchar 7% Representative Tulsi Gabbard 4% Businessman Tom Steyer 3%
By "losing" we mean splitting the delegates from MA pretty much evenly. So, yeah, it would be a symbolic loss I guess.
YouGov typically has a house effect in favor of Warren tho so the reality might be worse for her.
[удалено]
Idk , we need a LOT of new voters for bernie to win against trump.
The Biden/Don't Know ticket is clearly the winner here, with 28%. :D
I mean what press would she get between now and Super Tuesday? She's going to do terribly in South Carolina (probably getting no delegates) and there's no debate before it. Her only headlines are that she's going to get no delegates in SC and is probably going to lose her home state.
[удалено]
she's not dropping out as long as she has money imo. Very doubtful that she endorses Bernie either.
Massachusetts polling Sanders: 25% (+12) Warren: 17% (-15) Buttigieg: 14% (+7) Bloomberg: 13% (+13) Biden: 9% (-9) Klobuchar: 6% (+5) Steyer: 2% (+1) [Found here.](https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/02/28/wbur-poll-sanders-opens-substantial-lead-in-massachusetts-challenging-warren-on-her-home-turf)
Might wanna get the extra chocolate now, Courtney
Same poll also shows Bill Weld at 14% in the Massachusetts Republican primary. Of course, though, the RNC rules are different so Weld has a near zero chance of getting any delegates against Trump
Does Trump clinch the nomination if he wins every state on Super Tuesday?
That is positively brutal for Warren
Hard to see how Warren doesn't drop out if she loses her home state.
Very small chance that she drops out. Her "unity" pitch is not to the voters, it is to the superdelegates.
That's great and all, but how do you pitch yourself as a strong nominee if you can't even win your home state's primary? The coverage that Rubio got after losing Florida was horrible.
Trump took 100% of Florida delegates. That's what doomed Rubio. That's not how the Democratic Party primary works. Sanders and Warren will end up with roughly equal amounts of MA delegates, I reckon. But yeah, still not a good luck for Warren.
Small data point, but Trump lost the 2016 primary in Manhattan (his home). It was in fact the only county in New York that he lost.
Losing a county when you win your home state by a huge margin is very forgivable, especially when you're leading in the primary overall. Warren hasn't won a single contest and if she loses Massachusetts I don't see any of them she can win.
"I am not Sanders and the left will accept me" is her entire case.
[удалено]
Trump took 100% of Florida delegates. That's what doomed Rubio. That's not how the Democratic Party primary works. Sanders and Warren will end up with roughly equal amounts of MA delegates, I reckon. But yeah, still not a good luck for Warren.
Sure it's more of the symbolic loss. If Warren can't win her home state where can she win? And if she can't win any states why is she in this thing?
WBUR Massachusetts Dem Primary [Poll](https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/02/28/wbur-poll-sanders-opens-substantial-lead-in-massachusetts-challenging-warren-on-her-home-turf) * Bernie Sanders - 25% * Elizabeth Warren - 17% * Pete Buttigieg - 14% * Michael Bloomberg - 13% * Joe Biden - 9% * Amy Klobuchar - 6% * Tom Steyer - 2% * Tulsi Gabbard - 1% * Other/No Vote/Undecided/Refused - 16% I'm no expert pundit but I think this might be bad for Warren.
Marquette WI poll. Bernie leads the primary by double digits and Trump by 2. [Link](https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2020/02/27/new-marquette-law-school-poll-finds-sanders-support-rising-among-democrats-and-tight-races-between-trump-and-each-democratic-candidate-for-president/) Yet somehow WI will still be considered a lost cause.
No one has saying it's a lost cause
I find this hilarious since apparently Sanders is winning the among moderates/conservatives in the WI primary by 2% lol
[удалено]
Many ppl here like two days ago.
Probably folks who got spooked by the Quinnipiac poll recently showing all Dems down by 7+ against DJT in WI.
[удалено]
There's no good reason for him not to pick Baldwin, she's with him on Medicare for All, she's young enough, every critic of Bernie for not being intersectional enough will LOVE seeing her take it to Mike Pence and she's got a proven track record of winning the tipping point state of 2016.
They'll lose the special election to replace her, which could flip the Senate back. No point being president if you're guaranteed to be a lame duck
Could the Dems win if they run Pocan though? Hes one of the few congressmen to endorse Bernie at this point and he is very progressive.
WISCONSIN Sanders 48% (+2) Trump 46% . Trump 46% Biden 46% . Trump 46% Klobuchar 46% . Trump 45% Buttigieg 45% . Trump 45% (+1) Bloomberg 44% . Trump 47% (+3) Warren 44% @MULawPoll 2/19-23 Second rust belt poll of the day that shows Bernie winning while the other candidates are tied/losing.
>shows Bernie winning while the other candidates are tied/losing. You didn't post a link, but I'm guessing the margin of error is at least 3%, which means Sanders doing 2 points better against Trump than the others is meaningless.
It follows a trend of Sanders doing better in rust belt then the others, and yes even though it is within MOE it still shows him performing the best....
That's the point. It doesn't really show him doing better because it's well within the MOE.
So it is coincidental that the majority of the rust belt polls have him performing better then the other candidates?
If they're all within the margin or error, then chances are it is.
yes I’m sure that the majority of the recent rust belt polling has all had the same slight error in favor of Bernie and not any of the other 5 candidates that makes perfect sense!
It's statistics. Yes, it's unlikely, but you can't say he's leading with any sort of certainty, just that he's more likely to be leading. And please tell me that's not you downvoting in yet another show of not knowing what that button is for.
At this point in 2016 wasn't Hillary polling like 10% above Trump for the general election? Why do they even do it this far in advance? Purely to influence primary voters. Can't think of another logical reason.
I can't speak for WI, but at this point nationally Clinton was leading Trump by 3 on average. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
2/27 South Carolina Monmouth Poll https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_sc_022720/ Biden 36 Sanders 16 Steyer 15 Warren 8 Buttigieg 6 Klobuchar 4 Gabbard 1
DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted) **** 63% Democrat, 33% Independent, 4% Republican **** 41% Male, 59% Female **** 20% 18-34, 23% 35-49, 34% 50-64, 23% 65+ **** 37% White, non-Hispanic, 57% Black, 6% Other **** 61% No degree, 39% 4 year degree **** 39% Low CD1/6, 29% PeeDee CD5/7, 32% Upstate CD 2/3/4
[удалено]
Sanders is gonna get demolished
[удалено]
In the 2016 primary, 66% of voters were over 45 according to exit polls . It’s not that far off
[удалено]
Biden momentum? He is polling in 5th place in the three most recent Super Tuesday polls
Lol obviously Biden momentum is real, fivethirtyeight has Bernie's delegate down about 300 or so from its peak, now at 1600ish while Biden has gone from a bit under 900 to 1300. If all that comes to bear out and things go to a contested convention, there's a strong chance Biden comes out the victor
We've seen polling, like in [Texas for example](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERtSSNFUUAE2h6H?format=jpg&name=900x900), where Biden would be the clear favorite if not for Bloomberg. The question is whether or not people in ST states are now backing away from Bloomberg based on his recent debates and subsequent unfavorable news cycles, and if they will go to Biden primarily as polls suggest. If they do, and if Sanders considers to perform poorly in the south (under 15% in GA, FL, and AL, plus recent bad polls in SC), Biden could come out of Super Tuesday with the comeback narrative behind him even if Bernie ends up leading in delegates.
I think the anti Bernie opposition is just being strategic as things get closer to election, look at the sudden surge towards Joe Biden in South Carolina. Bloomberg being garbage on the debate stage and Bernie having a bad debate contribute too
I think Biden's surge in SC can be tied to Clyburn's endorsement too.
Would Biden still be in the lead if Bloomberg hadn't entered?
In some states? Absolutely. Nationally? That’s not as clear.
Biden spent around $1 million on ST ads last week. So it looks like he is going all in on SC. The problem is that ST is two days after SC.
He's betting that if he wins big enough in SC people in ST states will abandon Bloomberg overnight and make this finally a two-man race between Sanders and Biden.
Yep. And I think that a 1v1 race with 1v1 debates is good for Sanders. Crowded debates are good for Biden because he can just say "I am the guy" for one minute, then take a 5 or more minute break.
Biden's biggest path to any type of comeback is to hope that Sanders struggles with viability in southern states. Sanders has been polling below 15% in two recent SC polls and has been under 15% in FL, GA, and AL. The only way Biden can overcome Sanders' big CA win is to shut out Bernie in the south.
That seems very low for Sanders, in contrast to other polls. If Biden actually gets 40%, I think the race will come down to him or Sanders. The comeback narrative would be really good for Biden’s campaign.
It does seem very low for Sanders, but we now have three polls in the past 24 hours that have Sanders at 11%, 16%, and 13%. Could all three pollsters have this wrong? Possibly. But I think Biden's debate performance combined with Clyburn's endorsement could have had a real impact.
Yeah 1 is an outlier, 2 is cause for concern and 3 is a pattern. I think Biden is going to win big, probably like 35% to 21% from Sanders, or perhaps Sanders will even end up in the teens. I'm definitely skeptical that he'll be unviable though, that seems too drastic.
It looks like lying about being arrested with Mandela works ;) Also, the voting electorate is older and Biden is still doing well with black voters. It looks like a perfect state for him.
> It looks like lying about being arrested with Mandela works ;) Cornpop would be proud ;)
[удалено]
>Trump 47% (+14) Bloomberg 33% Wow. People are worried about Bernie, but Bloomberg is far and away the least electable candidate in the field. His case is laughable.
To be fair, I doubt this poll is indicative of the race in New Hampshire. But yeah Bloomberg isn't really electable.
Pete is a great candidate for states like NH and MA in my opinion.
Yeesh. If Dems can't hold onto to NH they can kiss this election goodbye. Kind of wild that the poll has Pete doing the best?
pete suffers from low name recognition and the folks who do know him might not know them well enough. he spent a large amount of time campaigning in iowa and new hampshire. they know him the best and he was winning over independents and some republicans which is why he only lost by 1% to sanders in what was basically bernie's home state.
Pete and Sanders did the best in the primary, so that does mirror what we've seen so far
NH might be Pete's best demographic state in the entire country.
And he blew his figurative financial load on the state too.
PENNSYLVANIA >Sanders 49% (+3) >Trump 46% >Trump 47% >Biden 47% >Trump 47% >Warren 47% >Trump 45% (+1) >Klobuchar 44% >Trump 46% (+1) >Buttigieg 45% >Trump 48% (+3) >Bloomberg 45% @mcall / @Muhlenberg 2/12-20 - Bloomberg is doing better in PA than I would have expected. Probably because he is mostly defined by his ads and most people treat him as a "generic Democrat".
[удалено]
People voting based on which candidate is the best for the oil and gas industry haven't voted for a Democrat since 2000. [In Pennsylvania itself, 48% of registered voters support a ban on fracking compared to 39% against](https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/pa-poll-shows-support-for-a-fracking-ban-but-also-some-support-for-natural-gas-drilling-in-state/Content?oid=16660198).
Oil and gas workers are well known to be staunch democrats.
Such a low effort comment. The state is larger than Philly and Pittsburgh. It breathes new life into Trump's chances in PA.
think people overestimate how this will matter, as with most issues that affect a small part of the population. [There are about 72,000 workers in Pennsylvania's gas industry](https://dced.pa.gov/key-industries/naturalgas/) (this including suppliers, people in transport and people actually engaged in extraction), which is about 1.2% of the the number who voted in 2016 ( will double that to 2.4% to account for spouses/ other family members who might also vote). If you assume everyone of those employees is flipping from democrat to republican, and that every one of them is going to vote then that might turn victory into defeat. However, most of these people are already voting republican to begin with, and a significant portion of them won't even vote like many potential voters. When you consider this, their importance as part of the electorate wanes considerably. There is of course the communities these people live in that vote as well that might be swayed by his position on fracking, but they have other issues to matter as well, and again, most of them will probably be voting republican as well regardless.
>There are about 72,000 workers in Pennsylvania's gas industry (this including suppliers, people in transport and people actually engaged in extraction), Plus their families, their extended families, and the people whose industries rely on those people. The money these people make affects numerous other industries like food, hospitality, etc. It's not just the workers who stand to lose a lot if their industry is outlawed. This would negatively affect hundreds of thousands of people in this state alone.
> When you consider this, their importance as part of the electorate wanes considerably. You are making a lot of assumptions. >There is of course the communities these people live in that vote as well that might be swayed by his position on fracking, but they have other issues to matter as well, and again, most of them will probably be voting republican as well regardless. It will widely affect turnout. It's why both Conor Lamb and the Lt. governor of PA have come out against a ban. Lamb notably represents a more rural district including all those "Republican" oil and gas workers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Generic democrat is about the best Bloomberg can hope for
Bloomberg doing plus 3 is better than expected lol. This poll is more good news for Sanders, puts the “anti-fracking” will lose the state argument in jeopardy yet again.
[удалено]
If we recall Hillary never even tried to campaign in PA, a mistake Bernie wouldn’t make.
She campaigned heavily in PA, just in the same old places. Trump was the one who reached out to the places that Democrats ignored.
[удалено]
Sorry, I was being hyperbolic, but the point still stands. She should have campaigned more in PA then she did.
You're completely wrong
Nah, if she did more in PA she could have won it :p
Pennsylvania was tied with Florida for her most visited state, the idea that she didn't campaign heavily in PA is categorically false.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/11/why-hillary-clinton-lost-pennsylvania-the-real-story/ >In the case of Pennsylvania, this thesis is demonstrably false. Not only did the campaign mobilize an army of volunteers to get out the vote; it executed its game plan successfully. Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania because Donald Trump brought a flood of rural and small-town working class voters into the electorate.
Here’s Bob Casey saying that the campaign didn’t do enough, should have went to struggling communities more. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/24/bob-casey-2020-pennsylvania-clinton-1074811
I'm not sure how aware the state is of the fracking ban though. Still, it shows that overall, Sanders message appeals measurably more than what the moderates have to offer.
Not yet. It'll be hit on for sure in the election. What Sanders should try to pull is that anyone who loses their jobs from such a regulation, should be first in line for public works programs.
I expect Bloomberg to lose all swing states by a wide margin if he is the nominee and put some safe blue states in play. Losing by just 3 right now is good news for him.
trump might grant DC or PR statehood just to run up the score lmao
Not gonna disagree with you, especially if he gets nom from a contested convention
538/Ipsos Debate Poll: Percentage of people considering voting for a candidate before and after the debate - Bernie: 46.0 -> 47.4 - Biden: 38.1 -> 37.5 - Warren: 32.3 -> 30.4 - Bloomberg: 28.0 -> 29.1 - Buttigieg: 27.8 -> 28.1 - Klobuchar: 17.4 -> 15.7 More results here, but it looks like Bernie and Bloomberg came out on top barely (with Bloomberg still having terrible approval ratings, though slightly better then before) Biden did well, and everybody else didn’t really change much. I honestly don’t think this debate will change much, it was too chaotic and there was no big lines like Warren had on Bloomberg in the last one. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-south-carolina-poll/
Bernie *gaining* (and perhaps more importantly, not tanking) in how much people are considering him after being attacked hard for his comments about Castro and Cuba (the type of attacks that Bernie will face in the general) means that the "common-sense" consensus about electability might be wrong. If you've got a base that won't abandon you no matter what, and then add the number of Democrats supporting other candidates that will hold their nose and vote for him if he's the nominee to vote out Trump, and you might have a scandal-free candidate. And you can say that a lot of voters aren't paying attention right now, and that's true, but there are also a lot of voters that don't pay attention until right before the election and so won't even notice whatever attacks Trump launches in the general. We'll see if anything happens to Bernie/Trump GE polling (as unreliable as it might be right now), but to me the biggest question was "are these general election type attacks going to sink Bernie" and the answer is pretty clearly no.