January 11, 2016

"Hillary Clinton's Lead Over Sanders Nearly Vanishes."

A new IBD/TIPP has Hillary "falling eight points to 43%" and Sanders "climb[ing] six points to 39%." That's a shift from an 18 point lead to a 4 point lead." The earlier poll was done from 11/30 - 12/4 and this one is a little over a month later, 1/4 - 1/8.

Donald Trump is at 34%, up from 27%, with Cruz in second at 18%. Rubio is losing ground, falling from 14% to 9%.

There's also a new Gallup poll showing Democrats losing ground:



Obviously, Americans don't feel too connected to the horrible 2 parties we're stuck with. That's what that graph means, and that's what it means that Trump and Sanders are doing so well. And I think there are a lot of people who like both Sanders and Trump. They/we like the disruption.

ADDED: Mickey Kaus: "Dems 29%, GOPS 26%, Indies 42%. So what are other 3%? That looks like the fastest-growing category."

64 comments:

Gahrie said...

I've been saying all along that Sanders and Trump aren't the problem, they're the symptom.

tim in vermont said...

Trump has been moving the Overton window and Sanders has been as well. If the only thing that could fit through the previous dimensions of the window was Hillary's desiccated political shade dragging the chains of past scandals like Scrooge's Marley, it's a good thing.


I am thinking of a new T-Shirt "You can all go to hell, we're electing Sanders/Trump!"

Limited blogger said...

The Sanders thing is bogus. The Dems are monolithic and will all fall in line behind Clinton.

The Repubican's big tent has now got even bigger and is drawing many disaffected democrats into the fold.

I'm now predicting New York goes for President Trump.

eric said...

This is starting to look like 2008 all over again. Hillary was supposed to get the Democrats nomination in a walk. Then came along this nobody, upstart, kid outa Chicago. No worries. He has no experience and doesn't have a chance. And suddenly, she has lost.

Now comes Bernie Sanders. No worries. He isn't going to be "the first black president" because he is just another white cisgender male. Who is going to vote for that?! I have a vagina!

If she loses again, might want to put her on suicide watch.

Humperdink said...

Hello "Jefferson Street" Joe Biden. (Steeler fans will know.)

Tim Wright said...

I can remember Gene McCarthy beating (actually I think he just came very close) LBJ in New Hampshire. This drove the President out of the race, and opened the door to Bobby Kennedy...and all that came after that. So. What assassinations, Chicagos, and Nixons are in our future? Tim

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Is Hillary's collapse in the polls because of Trump's attack on her leading the War on (Bill's) Women? Any other change in the past month?

Freder Frederson said...

And I think there are a lot of people who like both Sanders and Trump.

I hope not. Anyone who likes both Sanders and Trump is thoroughly confused and a complete moron.

rehajm said...

Obviously, Americans don't feel too connected to the horrible 2 parties we're stuck with.

Where its possible more voters are registering independent in order to vote in both major party primaries. Not sure if that translates to how people self identify, but it could help explain the change.

Brando said...

If Sanders pulls off an upset in Iowa then goes on to win New Hampshire, it'll be a rough stretch for Hillary for the next couple weeks while she has to explain why she's losing to a crazy old socialist who started with no name recognition and not much in the way of charisma. Her big donors, like Jeb's, will wonder what they gave her all that money for. She'll campaign hard, and reshuffle her organization, but as we've seen in the past that usually only makes things worse. If Bernie made even some modest gains among the black vote (which isn't inconceivable) then he could roll through the South Carolina primary and then it's good night.

On the other hand, Hillary's still heavily favored and she has the party machinery locked up far more than in 2008, and Sanders does not seem willing to go for the jugular (not that this earned him any reciprocity from the Clintons). So I wouldn't put money on him doing more than giving the Clintons a mild scare.

David said...

See yon vulture circling in the air?

It's Joe Biden.

Levi Starks said...

This might be a good time for Hillary officially launch her presidential campaign.

David said...

"Her big donors, like Jeb's, will wonder what they gave her all that money for."

They are giving it to keep her from destroying them if she wins. It's called insurance. I doubt they will regret a dime of it, even if she flames out.

Sebastian said...

So (apologies) at what point do we conclude that there really isn't any difference between Dems and socialists?

Gahrie said...

Anyone who likes both Sanders and Trump is thoroughly confused and a complete moron.

No so. Both Trump and Sanders are seen as outsiders promising to break the establishment stranglehold on government. (Although how a lifelong politician like Sanders can be seen as an outsider....)

tim maguire said...

Remember, "America's tired of hearing about those damn emails!"?

Sanders tied his boat to that anchor and, if it takes Clinton down, it will take Sanders down with her.

SteveR said...

As we get close to the election the important thing will be how many people who benefit from "free stuff" or the giving away of "free stuff" vote vs how many people who pay for "free stuff" vote. The names don't matter.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Cruz is second only in Iowa.

Otherwise, he is just one of those in the middle of the pack, down around 10%.

Carson is slipping.

Paddy O said...

I walk in two very different worlds in my job, social life, etc. Equally progressive and conservative, even though I'm conservative myself. I see Trump supporters here and elsewhere, with a wide mix of people talking about the other R candidates.

Everyone I know who is progressive and politically interested and involved push the Bernie links and are on his side. I have never had anyone post anything pro-Hillary. The only time I see something pro-Hillary is by the media or other establishment voice. I strongly suspect that when she's not the presumed candidate, the establishment is going to turn on the Clinton's. People who want or are scared by their influence write in support of them. It's going to be a quick and absolute fall when they're no longer intimidating.

Sammy Finkelman said...

There's actually not much net change in party identification

Independents have climbed from the high 30s to the low 40s

Democrats are in the low 30s and may have dipped into the high 20s.

Republicans have ranged from the mid 20s to the low 30s. They exceeded Democrats only from about 2002 to 2005, and they were about tied from 1989 to 1991. In many states, party identification has no lgeal meaning, while in some other states, it is how somebody registers. It seems to be mildly affected by the party of the president, rising in the party of the president/

Sammy Finkelman said...

If Sanders pulls off an upset in Iowa then goes on to win New Hampshire, it'll be a rough stretch for Hillary for the next couple weeks while she has to explain why she's losing to a crazy old socialist who started with no name recognition and not much in the way of charisma

She's got nobody else to lose to.

If Bernie made even some modest gains among the black vote (which isn't inconceivable) then he could roll through the South Carolina primary and then it's good night.

It would take a little bit more than that.



Curious George said...

Nearly vanishes? When the lead totally vanishes, so will Bernie. I'd look in Fort Marcy Park.

John said...

Donald Trump is at 34%, up from 27%, with Cruz in second at 18%. Rubio is losing ground, falling from 14% to 9%.

And he whose name must not be mentioned? Where is he in this ranking? Why only mention 3 of the 4 frontrunners? Why not mention the man who is #2 or 3 depending on the poll?

You know. He is a doctor and his first name starts with a B.

Think hard, you will remember the name.

I expected better from you Ann.

Not accusing you of this, Ann, but it occurs to me that there is a concerted effort not to mention Carson. If he was down in Bush territory I would kind of expect it. We don't hear much about Fiorina anymore either.

That is not the case here. Carson is securely in the top 3 yet were hear much more about Rubio, who is substantially behind him, that we do about Carson. I say racism on the part of the DMSM is the reason.

What would happen to black Demmie support if they saw a black Repo up there running with the front of the back week after week.

My preference at this point is Trump, Carson, Cruz in that order. If Cruz could get a definitive and binding resolution to his citizenship, I would be Cruz, Carson, Trump. I have no problem with any of them in any order.

John Henry

tim in vermont said...

Of the plausible candidates right now, the only two I am seriously considering are Trump and Sanders. You can say I am a moron if you like, or you could consider that there are other possible reasons for an intelligent person to vote for someone than those you have thought of.

If somebody separates themselves from the pack of Republicans, I will certainly consider them, but so far, no one has.

PB said...

Hillary is toast. She'll claim a health reason to drop out (one probably already exists). An alternative to Sanders will arise, but it may be too late.

I predict a Trump landslide. He will choose another non-politician for VP. My pick here is Mark Cuban. Trump-Cuban in 2016.

jr565 said...

Chris Matthews keeps asking democrats "what's the difference between a democrat and a socialist" and democrats keep not having an answer. If Sanders is the nominee he gets to be the standard bearer for democrats. They'd be the socialist party. They ARE anyway, but now they'd actually have a standard bearer who was a socialist.

I think it extremely unlikely that a socialist will actually get elected to run the whole country. Though considering how well Sanders is doing the left seems to have jumped so far to the left that they consider socialism the norm. So, perhaps a socialist COULD get elected.
Obama had to PRETEND like he was a moderate. Maybe the dems/socialists are now dropping the pretense.

Long story short, I like this idea.

PB said...

Check out what Scott Adams has been saying about the race and candidates (http://blog.dilbert.com/) it's both funny and eerily prescient.

Sammy Finkelman said...

@Tim Wright

The problem is, that since 1968, it's much harder to start a presidential campaign, in no small part due to campaign finance "reform" which limits the size of donations. Joe Biden thought it was too late to start back in October. While Robert F, Kennedy entered the race in the middle of March.

A big problem is that we can't seem to have new contenders, or even "uncommitted"

I don't know how long even Independents have to decide. Ross Perot announced on February 20, 1992 on the Larry King show. Of course, if an independent accepts that he might not be on the ballot in all states, he could wait even till after the conventions.

Possible surprises:

The republican convention going to more than one ballot, and naming somebody else, possibly Paul Ryan, as the nominee. Except that he won't be able to accept until he gets all his financial disclosures in place.

Michael Bloomberg running as an independent if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton win their respective party's nominations, especially if Hillary is more disgraced than what she is right now. And we could get the election thrown into the House of Representatives.

Unless there's massive turnover, the House won't elect Hillary and it won't elect Trump either. but Bloomberg would have to carry a few states. But Bloomberg has to get into the House for this scenario to work. It might not get thrown into the House unless he comes in second nationally.

sunsong said...

feel the bern!

PB said...

jr565: Only a socialist who doesn't admit it can be elected. We elected a Marxist/Socialist in 2008 and re-elected one in 2012. He never admits it, but his every action is a step towards that outcome. The authoritarianism/totalitarianism is merely a side benefit to him.

Meade said...

"Anyone who likes both Sanders and Trump is thoroughly confused and a complete moron."

If you say so. But then I'm a confused complete moron who, firstly, wants to see the Clintons clearly, completely, and conclusively rejected and defeated. Secondly, I'll be a happily confused complete moron who agrees with Barbara Bush: we've had enough Bushes run for president.

walter said...

2hrs ago on his Twit page:

"We must also cap ATM fees at $2.00. People should not have to pay a 10 percent fee for withdrawing $40 of their own money out of an ATM."

Go Bernie! Hey..where did that little "overpriced" non-bank ATM go? I was goin to buy some soy milk!

Sammy Finkelman said...

PB @1/11/16, 1:05 PM

I predict a Trump landslide. He will choose another non-politician for VP. My pick here is Mark Cuban. Trump-Cuban in 2016.

I think he has indicated he would pick Oprah Winfrey. Although he indicated he next day he wasn't serious and it was a joke. Mark Cuban has said he would crush Trump and that the Republican Party has a problem in that it has a lot of litmus tests. (words to that effect) and you can't disagree with the consensus. Is he talking about abortion? Trump would probably pick Cruz because that would about the on;y way he could get the nomination.


cubanbob said...

The two most likely scenarios at this time are Hillary gets indicted and Trump wins by a landslide. Strange days indeed.

Brando said...

"If Bernie made even some modest gains among the black vote (which isn't inconceivable) then he could roll through the South Carolina primary and then it's good night.

It would take a little bit more than that."

I don't know--if these polls are accurate and he's already within five points of her, and she has a big lead among black voters, I could see a shift of ten points among black voters being enough for Sanders to pick up some more wins.

But he doesn't seem serious about running. I get the feeling this is more about giving voice to the leftist primal scream than about actually knocking off the Democratic front runner. Ultimately, the Dems are good soldiers and will get in line when they see the alternative of the GOP having the White House, Congress, and a Supreme Court majority. This is why they hold their nose for Hillary.

AllenS said...

Hillary Clinton will be in this race until someone decapitates her and stuffs the severed head's mouth with garlic, and drives a wooden stake through her chest.

Gideon7 said...

Hillary already has most of the Democratic convention's 712 non-elected superdelegates in the bag. And that's before a single vote is counted.

Rick said...

and she has a big lead among black voters

Somewhat surprising given her well documented racism during the last contested Dem primary.

Alex said...

Interesting to see the 2 parties are dying in favor of independent identity. Maybe the American people are finally waking up? Still a clear majority(55%) are with the 2 corrupt parties. It will probably take another 8 years to invert that.

Alex said...

Oh and are you Feeling the Bern today?

tim in vermont said...

Oh and are you Feeling the Bern today

Penicillin.

Alex said...

Is Hillary Clinton the most hated person in America?

tim in vermont said...

If it's Trump - Clinton, I will vote Trump, if it's Trump - Sanders, I will vote Sanders. I stand against crony capitalism, and will take the least corrupt.

Fernandinande said...

AllenS said...
Hillary Clinton will be in this race until someone decapitates her and stuffs the severed head's mouth with garlic, and drives a wooden stake through her chest.


I'd pay 100 pesos to see that.

Alex said...

Open death fantasies about Hillary Clinton? This is why she turns on moderated comments. Whenever she turns them off, the right-wing death fantasists just can't help themselves.

Limited blogger said...

Is there such a thing as 'least corrupt'? You're either corrupt or you're not.

jr565 said...

Alex wrote:
Interesting to see the 2 parties are dying in favor of independent identity. Maybe the American people are finally waking up? Still a clear majority(55%) are with the 2 corrupt parties. It will probably take another 8 years to invert that.

In places where there are more than 2 parties are parties somehow not corrupt?
At the end of the day you will need to identify with one of the parties in power for purposes of elections. Even if you don't identify with that party, you are going to elect a member of that party.

jr565 said...

Alex wrote:
Open death fantasies about Hillary Clinton? This is why she turns on moderated comments. Whenever she turns them off, the right-wing death fantasists just can't help themselves.

he compared her to a vampire. Hence the garlic and wooden steak.
Should anyone therefore treat any such "threat" seriously? I'm not aware of too many people that actually think she is a vampire.

Alex said...

jr... welcome to 2016. Fantasizing about death of a figure is equal to making a death threat. I suggest you take heed with the new reality.

Alex said...

In places where there are more than 2 parties are parties somehow not corrupt?
At the end of the day you will need to identify with one of the parties in power for purposes of elections. Even if you don't identify with that party, you are going to elect a member of that party.


Agreed, corruption is endemic to the human condition. As long as a politician exists and is promising 'goodies' for your vote, corruption exists.

jr565 said...

Alex wrote:
Agreed, corruption is endemic to the human condition. As long as a politician exists and is promising 'goodies' for your vote, corruption exists.

But that is how pols get elected. And the call to get elected by giving people what they want is going to be true if we have two parties no parties or a million parties.
If you say "if you elect me I will shrink govt" it will attract those who want govt shrunken to vote for him or her. How could you not have that in politics?

tim in vermont said...

Whenever she turns them off, the right-wing death fantasists just can't help themselves.

Lefties are rightly famed for their sense of humor. This kind of death fantasy never happens on the left either.

Republicans are dying off, literally!

No mention that people tend to turn Republican as they age, thus replenishing the ranks of the party that owns most of the governorships, state houses, and both houses of Congress. We will all be dead soon!

Brando said...

"Somewhat surprising given her well documented racism during the last contested Dem primary."

I don't understand it but there it is. This weird love of the Clintons among black people extends back to the '90s and I really don't see what they did to earn it.

However, as we saw in '08 that support can crumble easily.

walter said...

Maureen Dowd Fantasizes About “Game Of Thrones” Characters Slaughtering Republicans

walter said...

"This weird love of the Clintons among black people extends back to the '90s"
He was the "first black president"..

AllenS said...

Alex, with all due respects, shove it up your fucking ass. You're reading/analyzing skills suck, and suck bad.

Birkel said...

So Sammy Finkleman responds to "Hillary Clinton is going to lose" catnip. Noted.

A primary season that is not a national vote, but rather state by state, consistently gives us national polls. That has to be one of the most ridiculous aspects of media coverage. Each state will influenced by earlier votes. So we have little idea what will happen beyond Iowa and NH.

Further, the horserace aspect of media coverage is lowest common denominator reporting. It's so stupid even MSM types are able to speak on the horse races. If only there were some discussion of policies, we would all be better served.

Leviathan must be killed.

tim in vermont said...

Bloomberg couldn't get elected if it were to fill the vacancy left by Mary Poppins.

Francisco D said...

@ Tim in Vermont.

I understand your thinking. Trump is a more confident version of James Taggart. However, Bernie makes Wesley Mouch sound like a more appealing character. I will hold my nose and vote for the least objectionable crony capitalist over a rank socialist.


@ Meade,

Somewhat to my surprise, we are exactly on the same page. My girlfriend is a wonderful person, but a committed Democrat. There are times when I ponder why she doesn't get it. I am sure she feels the same way, but still loves me because I am a wonderful person. Maybe I got that backwards.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Hillary Clintn still has about a 40-point lead over Sanders in South Carolina.

Birkel said...

Sammy Finkleman's declaration to the people of South Carolina will be taken under advisement.

Indictments notwithstanding.

Leigh said...

Anybody seen the video of HRC's interview w/the Des Moines Register today? It was shortly after she learned that, per Fox's Catherine Herridge, the FBI has expanded its investigation of her into public corruption (e.g., foreign country gives big bucks to CGI, then gets big bucks from U.S. or big contract, etc.).

The way she responded to the news about the expanded probe was just bizarre. It's the second question put to her, if memory serves. No one is suggesting she was drunk, but she seemed drunky or punchy or ... something. Valium?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/11/clinton-denies-fbi-investigation-into-family-foundation/78655054/

She seemed almost zombie-like for about the first third of the interview, avoiding eye contact with the editorial board members, stringing together different parts of different stump speeches, saying odd things like "American families are kept up at night worrying about autism and Alzheimer's ..." and "why should I be held more responsible for evolving?" There is a double standard against her, she said, when it comes to "evolving." The whole thing seemed "poor me" victim-y.

@PB's favorite political blogger Scott Adams is definitely a must-read; his predictions are uncanny. After today's bombshell, I'll pop over there to see if he's given his take.

tim in vermont said...

No, corruption is not an all or nothing thing, like pregnancy. If I have an apple with a bruise or mottle or something, I cut off the rotten part, if it is a soggy mess, I throw it away. "Corruption" is a higher faluting word for "rot."

damikesc said...

Hillary Clintn still has about a 40-point lead over Sanders in South Carolina.

College kids here aren't overly activist and the Dem base in unbelievably low-information. Odds of them having heard of Bernie is low.